The hypocrisy of guys like Mitch, Graham, and Cruz is appalling.

6 hours ago, Mama Noodle said:

Two things:

 

1 - Its about to get really nasty in American politics.....

 

"It's about to get really nasty?"  It already is really nasty.  It's about to go from really nasty to exceedingly violent.  My bets are the US as we knew it won't survive the short-term. 

2 hours ago, FlyingThai said:

Cancer isn't cancer. Pancreatic cancer is extremely aggressive and in it's final stage associated with a lot of pain. It's inconceivable someone was not drugged up to the max especially at 87 years of age.

 

You don't have to be "mentally impaired" to not be able to function. Practicing law is demanding enough as it is, absolutely impossible to do so while in the last stretch of life, suffering from pc.

Speculation.  She beat pancreatic cancer in 2009, and for all we know she was as fit as an 87 year old can be until very recently.  Unless you have evidence she was too impaired to function, lay off the conspiracy theories.

24 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

An interesting thought by National Review columnist John Fund:

 

"The Court must be at a full compliment should any election disputes such as Bush v Gore occur."

 

Can't have a 4-4 result if the election is to be decided by the SC.

 

Yeah, it's important that the deck be properly stacked in advance.

9 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Can't have a 4-4 result if the election is to be decided by the SC.

And what was the excuse four years ago? I say excuse because we all know good and well that is all that it is. But let's ignore the hypocrisy for a second and just focus on why this is wrong. For one the balance isn't 4-4, or are we now counting Justice Roberts as a democrat? But let's ignore that too and focus on what happens if there is a 4-4 tie... In that case the decision of the lower courts is affirmed. So that entire argument is invalid.

 

With that out of the way let's remind people what the same guys who are now trying to push through a justice in the next month and a half had to say when Merrick Garland was nominated... 8 months before the election! 

Corey Gardner: "I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”

John Corryn: "Confirming a new Supreme Court Justice during a presidential election year for a vacancy arising that same year is not common in our nation’s history; the last time it happened was in 1932. And it has been almost 130 years since a presidential election year nominee was confirmed for a vacancy arising the same year under divided government as we have today."

Ted Cruz: "“It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”"

 

Lindsey Graham: "If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election”
 

Marco Rubio: “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term — I would say that if it was a Republican president .”

 

Joni Ernst: "“We will see what the people say this fall and our next president, regardless of party, will be making that nomination.”

David Perdue: “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”

 

Ron Johnson: “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”

Pat Toomey: “The next Court appointment should be made by the newly-elected president.”

Richard Burr: “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”

It wasn't just Mitch... But suddenly in the last four years they have had a complete change of heart. It's hypocritical. It's an embarassment. But given everything we've seen from the GOP over the past four years, it isn't at all surprising. 

6 hours ago, Swiss1960 said:

Trump's puppet McConnell already announced that the Senat will elect whomever Trump will present - probably could be Miss Piggy...

 

Yep. He laughed as he was saying it

 

10 seconds starting from here.

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Publicus said:

No matter how you slice it, it's still baloney. 

 

Because where I come from it's called the Five Minute Rule. It was a rule for the 5 minutes it took McConnel to say it then walk off to end the rule forever. 

 

That's why baloney is still called baloney.  

And had the situation been different, they would have made up a different rule.

 

7 hours ago, Swiss1960 said:

It will be a character test for Trump, whether or not he will tweet about his nomination already this weekend or whether he will want for Mrs. Justice Ginsburg's funeral to end...

 

Wait... has he tweeted already while I wrote these lines?

 

Here's his tweet:

 

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1307146028555014145

 

 

 

Edited September 19, 20205 yr by nkg

5 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I think Biden has shown in the last 4 weeks or so that he has still got it.

And yet when he came out to say his scripted piece to camera her body not cold yet, using her death to try to gain votes, he forgets her name. 

7 hours ago, Swiss1960 said:

Rest in peace Mrs. Justice Ginsburg

 

Yes, it will get ugly and Amerivans should

- say good bye to womens abortion rights

- say good bye to voters rights for non-republicans

- say good bye to any humanitarian ideas like asylum

- say good buy to any notion of LGBTQ rights

 

America - the new Russia 4.0

So. No downsides then? lol

35 minutes ago, nkg said:

 

 

Here's his tweet:

 

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1307146028555014145

 

 

 

You can bet your left testicle trump did not write that. Not a covfefe in sight.

1 hour ago, jcsmith said:

And what was the excuse four years ago? I say excuse because we all know good and well that is all that it is. But let's ignore the hypocrisy for a second and just focus on why this is wrong. For one the balance isn't 4-4, or are we now counting Justice Roberts as a democrat? But let's ignore that too and focus on what happens if there is a 4-4 tie... In that case the decision of the lower courts is affirmed. So that entire argument is invalid.

 

With that out of the way let's remind people what the same guys who are now trying to push through a justice in the next month and a half had to say when Merrick Garland was nominated... 8 months before the election! 

Corey Gardner: "I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”

John Corryn: "Confirming a new Supreme Court Justice during a presidential election year for a vacancy arising that same year is not common in our nation’s history; the last time it happened was in 1932. And it has been almost 130 years since a presidential election year nominee was confirmed for a vacancy arising the same year under divided government as we have today."

Ted Cruz: "“It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”"

 

Lindsey Graham: "If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election”
 

Marco Rubio: “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term — I would say that if it was a Republican president .”

 

Joni Ernst: "“We will see what the people say this fall and our next president, regardless of party, will be making that nomination.”

David Perdue: “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”

 

Ron Johnson: “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”

Pat Toomey: “The next Court appointment should be made by the newly-elected president.”

Richard Burr: “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”

It wasn't just Mitch... But suddenly in the last four years they have had a complete change of heart. It's hypocritical. It's an embarassment. But given everything we've seen from the GOP over the past four years, it isn't at all surprising. 

Fantastic post. Now watch the magic of backflips from them.

5 hours ago, Laza 45 said:

Trump and his ghouls would replace her before her funeral if they could.  

If the democrats were in control they would do it! They have a saying “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” We shall know on Tuesday who the new supreme court justice will be! The democrats are finally going to get a taste of their own medicine!

Edited September 19, 20205 yr by MyTHaiMyKe

   Sad news.  She was a great justice.  I had hoped she could hold on until Trump was voted out.  Let's hope the Senate abides by her dying wish that her vacancy not be filled until after the election and a new senate is put into place.  

2 hours ago, jcsmith said:

And what was the excuse four years ago? I say excuse because we all know good and well that is all that it is. But let's ignore the hypocrisy for a second and just focus on why this is wrong. For one the balance isn't 4-4, or are we now counting Justice Roberts as a democrat? But let's ignore that too and focus on what happens if there is a 4-4 tie... In that case the decision of the lower courts is affirmed. So that entire argument is invalid.

 

With that out of the way let's remind people what the same guys who are now trying to push through a justice in the next month and a half had to say when Merrick Garland was nominated... 8 months before the election! 

Corey Gardner: "I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”

John Corryn: "Confirming a new Supreme Court Justice during a presidential election year for a vacancy arising that same year is not common in our nation’s history; the last time it happened was in 1932. And it has been almost 130 years since a presidential election year nominee was confirmed for a vacancy arising the same year under divided government as we have today."

Ted Cruz: "“It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”"

 

Lindsey Graham: "If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election”
 

Marco Rubio: “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term — I would say that if it was a Republican president .”

 

Joni Ernst: "“We will see what the people say this fall and our next president, regardless of party, will be making that nomination.”

David Perdue: “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”

 

Ron Johnson: “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”

Pat Toomey: “The next Court appointment should be made by the newly-elected president.”

Richard Burr: “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”

It wasn't just Mitch... But suddenly in the last four years they have had a complete change of heart. It's hypocritical. It's an embarassment. But given everything we've seen from the GOP over the past four years, it isn't at all surprising. 

LOL.  The Dems here preaching about fair play.  Now that's funny.

9 hours ago, Mama Noodle said:

2 - Before anyone invokes the "McConnel Rule" and revisits history, the rule was that SC seats shouldn't be filled in an election year if the WH and the Senate are controlled by different parties. 

 

To claim that differentiating between the Merrick Garland situation and the current one is anything but naked partisanship is ludicrous. But if McConnell is indeed able to ram through another fratboy lawyer who likes beer, unconscious women, and Trump, and there’s no reason to think he can’t do just that, the situation will be unfortunate: a regressive court that will roll back programs and policies that are favored by large majorities of Americans, such as abortion rights, Obamacare, LGBTQ rights, etc. Such a situation is unsustainable and will lead to years of civil unrest, and hopefully there are even just a few Republicans in the Senate with the sanity to realize this.

1 hour ago, PattayaJames said:

And yet when he came out to say his scripted piece to camera her body not cold yet, using her death to try to gain votes, he forgets her name. 

Thanks for the reply. I just watched the video and couldn't see that he forgot her name nor did he say anything but hail and farewell her. Maybe you saw a different video. 

He did good at the DNC convention, good at the CNN town hall just yesterday. It is fair to say he's old and a bit slow but Trumps no spring chicken.

The amount of comments Trump makes that are false, silly, and or dangerous are so common as to not warrant that much intention. Last couple of days: The world will get cooler, scientists dont know, the coronavirus will go away, herd mentality, and the fact that he has supporters bunched together at a rally day after day with no masks. Breathtaking.

I suppose at this stage it's all in the eyes of the beholder or voter. 

43 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

LOL.  The Dems here preaching about fair play.  Now that's funny.

When have the democrats done anything on par with what happened with Merrick Garland? Do you honestly believe that if Obama were impeached with the amount of evidence that there was against Trump that the democrats would have almost unanimously voted to keep him in office? Clinton was impeached for far less and 31 house democrats voted to impeach him for it. For that matter when was the last time there was a significant scandal with democrats trying to cheat in an election? Or completely stonewalling subpeaonas and claiming executive priviledge on anywhere near the level Trump has? 

4 hours ago, MyTHaiMyKe said:

If the democrats were in control they would do it! They have a saying “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” We shall know on Tuesday who the new supreme court justice will be! The democrats are finally going to get a taste of their own medicine!

Obama could have filled a position in the Supreme Court In February 10 months before the election unlike 45 days . The republicans blocked it because they wanted the new president to decide,

 

Edited September 19, 20205 yr by onthedarkside
meme graphic removed

The average length of time to nominate and confirm a supreme court justice is 70 days, so people shouldn't be too worried about the process now. It would be almost impossible to nominate and confirm prior to election day, especially with COVID restrictions in the senate.

The real question should be - If Biden wins in 45 days, will Mitch try and fill the seat in a lame duck session? Now THAT could be interesting.

1 minute ago, 2530Ubon said:

The average length of time to nominate and confirm a supreme court justice is 70 days, so people shouldn't be too worried about the process now. It would be almost impossible to nominate and confirm prior to election day, especially with COVID restrictions in the senate.

The real question should be - If Biden wins in 45 days, will Mitch try and fill the seat in a lame duck session? Now THAT could be interesting.

And excellent. 

trump and his low life cons / will go to any depths to keep out of jail after the elections /to the point of controlling the courts and judges 

11 minutes ago, 2530Ubon said:

The average length of time to nominate and confirm a supreme court justice is 70 days, so people shouldn't be too worried about the process now. It would be almost impossible to nominate and confirm prior to election day, especially with COVID restrictions in the senate.

The real question should be - If Biden wins in 45 days, will Mitch try and fill the seat in a lame duck session? Now THAT could be interesting.

Average time is meaningless. It can, and will, be pushed through.

10 hours ago, heybruce said:

Please show where in the Constitution, established law, rules of order, or anywhere else that the "McConnell rule" is mentioned.

OK, as soon as you show where the Biden rule on not replacing Supreme Court Justices is mentioned in any of the above places you mentioned. Obviously, you already knew that.no one can cite such things from the sources you listed, whether it's the Biden or McConnell rule. Obviously you already knew that. But in order to pursue a full debate based on logic, both sides need to be pointed out. So essentially, that leaves one option: the party in power gets to decide. And as a very wise man once said, "elections have consequences".

A rather nasty troll post has been removed

11 hours ago, Swiss1960 said:

Rest in peace Mrs. Justice Ginsburg

 

Yes, it will get ugly and Amerivans should

- say good bye to womens abortion rights

I've been hearing the same argument about abortion rights since 1973. Hasn't happened yet.

As for asylum, I have seen no moves to eliminate it.

 

But yes, RIP Justice Ginsburg

 

3 hours ago, candide said:

And had the situation been different, they would have made up a different rule.

Of course. And do you think for a moment if it were a Democrat in Trump's shoes that they would be calling for delaying the pick until after the election?

 

Remember the words of one of the left's most brilliant politicians ever: "elections have consequences".

If Biden wins and the Dems gain control of the Senate, then they should increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court to thirteen or fifteen.  When 60% to 70% of American support abortion rights, it is intolerable that the Court should be dominated by a majority that wants to have forced births. 

 

When they overturn Roe v. Wade that will not mean that abortion will be illegal, but only that states will have the power to pass laws making it illegal in their state.  Abortion will remain available in the blue states which means that middle-class women will always be able to travel to get the procedure, but poor women won't be able to.  

1 minute ago, MajarTheLion said:

Of course. And do you think for a moment if it were a Democrat in Trump's shoes that they would be calling for delaying the pick until after the election?

 

Remember the words of one of the left's most brilliant politicians ever: "elections have consequences".

The Democrats aren't the ones who invented the corrupt McConell Rule out of thin air.

11 hours ago, stevenl said:

There was no rule, there was only McConnell abusing his power. His hypocrisy will be there for all to see now, but Trump supporters won't care. Big loss for the USA 

I am losing my country and there is little I can do about it. The world will miss, at least the struggle to reach for the ideals which now are clearly being abandoned.