Replacing RBG

[tfcrew]

Harris stated that it should be up to the voters to decide the next justice.
She must have written her own version of the Constitution
 In fact-----

Candidates are nominated by the President of the United States and must face a series of hearings in which both the nominee and other witnesses make statements and answer questions before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which can vote to send the nomination to the full United States Senate.^[1] Confirmation by the Senate allows the President to formally appoint the candidate to the court.^[1] The Constitution does not set any qualifications for service as a Justice, thus the President may nominate any individual to serve on the Court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
Harris' ideas are fundamentally existentially systemically [and other words she likes to use]------ DANGEROUS !!!

[tfcrew]

Pelosi warned  ... women will be forced to return to a time when simply "being a woman" made it obscenely difficult to receive adequate health services.

And then mugged real big for the cameras......

 
 

[2tallbill]

And she has bounced back yet again - with one giant leap.

Let's see if McConnell and Trump are capable of acting with common decency, deliberation, and due diligence, or simply bow to desperation and hypocrisy.

Let's look at the other side of the coin for a minute. The Dem's have a bad
reputation on judges. Wouldn't this be a time for them to vote along with
Republicans? Like the GOP did for Ginsberg?

Would it be hypocritical of them wanting to nominate Garland before an election,
but not wanting to nominate Amy Barret?

[mhr7]

Would it be hypocritical of them wanting to nominate Garland before an election,
but not wanting to nominate Amy Barret?

No, not in the least. This is a completely different situation.

[2tallbill]

No, not in the least. This is a completely different situation.

It's exactly the same except that the President and the Senate majority are from
the same party.

The Dem's always fight GOP nominations. The GOP used to vote for qualified
Dem nominations. Justice Ginsberg is an excellent example. Those days are
gone forever.

The Dem's never, ever, ever feel hypocritical no matter what they say or do.

[mhr7]

It's exactly the same except that the President and the Senate majority are from
the same party.

The Dem's always fight GOP nominations. The GOP used to vote for qualified
Dem nominations. Justice Ginsberg is an excellent example. Those days are
gone forever.

The Dem's never, ever, ever feel hypocritical no matter what they say or do.

The Repubs refused to consider Obama's choice 4 years ago because they said the next president should pick the candidate. What are they saying now? Who're the hypocrites?

[Gator]

The Repubs refused to consider Obama's choice 4 years ago because they said the next president should pick the candidate. What are they saying now? Who're the hypocrites?

This was discussed two weeks ago.  One huge difference.  Unlike 2016, in 2020 the nominating President and the confirming Senate are of the same political party - the typical situation for  election year appointees. 

Yes, a touch of hypocrisy, yet not as blatant as from your party on many issues during the intervening four years. 

[2tallbill]

Who're the hypocrites?

The Republicans are for sure, no argument from me.

Now the Democrats are as well..... but you argue it's totally different.

Let's look the other side.

The Dem's said "Do your jobs and vote for or against this nominee!"
Now they are like a virgin school girl saying "wait, wait, wait!!"
They are totally hypocrites saying that we should wait for
the election.

[2tallbill]

If you want to watch the Senate side show judiciary committee question
the nominee you can watch it here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LY_DL5qvUmk&feature=youtu.be

[mhr7]

The Republicans are for sure, no argument from me.

Now the Democrats are as well..... but you argue it's totally different.

Let's look the other side.

The Dem's said "Do your jobs and vote for or against this nominee!"
Now they are like a virgin school girl saying "wait, wait, wait!!"
They are totally hypocrites saying that we should wait for
the election.

Hey, no means no. 

[2tallbill]

Hey, no means no. 

mhr7,

My question was if it was hypocritical for Republicans to change their
narrative, in your opinion was it hypocritical for the Democrats to do
the same?

In my opinion they've both been hypocritical in this example.

Udachi!

Bill

[mhr7]

mhr7,

My question was if it was hypocritical for Republicans to change their
narrative, in your opinion was it hypocritical for the Democrats to do
the same?

In my opinion they've both been hypocritical in this example.

Udachi!

Bill

I understood the question and yes, I would agree with you. No sense of humor tonight about school girls sayng wait, wait?

[2tallbill]

I understood the question and yes, I would agree with you. No sense of humor tonight about school girls saying wait, wait?

I made a joke but then I didn't catch your joke which is my fault entirely.
Have a nice evening

Udachi!

Bill

[BC]

Anyone watching the Coney Barrett confirmation hearings?

I didn't watch the earlier proceedings yesterday, but I'm finding the GOP members more aggressive than Dems.

Later, I'll rewind and watch yesterday's session.  So far, I can't say I don't like her, maybe she'll turn out to be more along the lines of Roberts.

Mike Lee is making a pontificating ass of himself.

[2tallbill]

Anyone watching the Coney Barrett confirmation hearings?

I had a youtube link above for yesterdays hearings.

Mike Lee is making a pontificating ass of himself.

Senators do that a lot. I hate watching them

[tfcrew]

Anyone watching the Coney Barrett confirmation hearings?

Enough to see that the Democrats were asking questions and stating opinions that had nothing to do with the appointment of a justice...just political theatrics as usual.

[GQBlues]

I've watched the senate confirmation hearing these last two days. More especially today, I've never laid witness to how overwhelmingly intelligent Amy Barrett really is. WOW. She had a blank note pad the entire time. She needed no note reference to anything or everything they threw at her. She was incredibly unflappable! She made Klobuchar looked like an 8th grader when she tried to challenge her.


LMAO! This woman is something else. Happy to have her as the 9th Justice of the SC.

[tfcrew]

Mike Lee is making a pontificating ass of himself.

You mean something like James Comey? Start at 1:22 ...Makes a good point [pontificating or not]



Why is abortion always the central theme of constant liberal groaning? It gets old.

[msmob]

I have NO idea why banning abortion, completely, is still on some folks radar or a political agenda in the 21C

[BC]

This was a puzzling moment when Judge Amy Coney Barrett could not clearly answer as to whether or not she knew Trump's efforts and many statements to nominate a Supreme Court Justice who would strike down ACA.

I can't imagine her being that isolated from the goings-on.  I'm not calling her a liar, but do find it hard to swallow.  To answer that she has seen and heard such statements would have been fine and totally understandable.  She must have been really shocked at all the tweet posters and other Trump and GOP statements to that effect.  Ditto regarding abortion.

[Gator]

ACB's intellect, integrity and sense of jurisprudence are overwhelming.  Plus she is a good person, a mother of seven.  Most important she has never assulted anyone sexually.  Thank you Sen. Hirono for probing this issue,  and demonstrating ACB's patience and
empathy for all questions, even stupid ones. 

In summary, ACB possesses the right stuff that has guided America since our beginning.  Even CNN said in normal times she would be confirmed by an overwhelming majority. 

[ML]

  Most important she has never assulted anyone sexually.

How do you know this ?

Men rarely file complaints.

But then I am not sure what assulted is.

[Gator]

How do you know this ?

ACB answered "no" to questions were about whether she had used her position of authority to receive sexual favors, or something like that.  I am sure google can find that part of the hearing. 

I found it absurd to ask the questions unless Sen. Hirono has some evidence she wants to release later to create a Kavanaugh-type controversy.  Remember how unstatesmanlike that became.       

[tfcrew]

[BillyB]

This was a puzzling moment when Judge Amy Coney Barrett could not clearly answer as to whether or not she knew Trump's efforts and many statements to nominate a Supreme Court Justice who would strike down ACA.

I doubt she reads WA Post, NY Times, Trump's Twitter, and watches CNN. What is Trump's many efforts and where are Trump's many statements at regarding his sole purpose for nominating judges? His goal is to nominate Conservative justices which is not surprising. He did make a campaign promise to repeal and replace ACA. He's trying to keep his promise even right up to the end of his first term. The ACA battle was in court before Barrett was nominated.