39 minutes ago, Dart12 said:

Ginsbert herself said "put in a new judge immediately.  The president is still the president until he is not and it is his duty.  It is extremely difficult to operate with only 8 judges."

This is not verbatim, but what she said when the last judge died with a president less than a year to an election.

(btw, it will still be Trump next year anyways).

She said that because what mcconnell did was wrong. It was his duty to hold the hearings and he refused.

 

So he set the precedent and her dying words were to hold him to his word, to stick with that precedent.

and this poll had a different outcome.

 

https://nypost.com/2020/09/19/most-americans-want-senate-to-move-on-supreme-court-decision-poll/

If this selfish woman gave 2 hoots about who would replace her she would have retired while a Dem was president. But no she stays on till her late 80's and gets he gets her number punched with a Republican pres & senate. Secondary fault is with Clinton for naming a 60 year old. Do Republican administrations name judges to the high court that old? 

4 hours ago, riclag said:

The law of the land gives the office of the Presidency  no matter who sits in it, the right to appoint a potential justice for the SC

 

Its up to the senate to confirm that candidate ,to fill a vacancy by a majority vote!

 

The electoral vote elected a President in 2016 to carry out his  constitutional duties as the POTUS ,one of those is appointing someone to fill a SCJ vacancy  during their term in office. 
The people  don't decide the procedures of the senate,the constitution makes that clear ,despite a reuters poll !

 

 

 

 

Once again, a Trump supporter prioritizes Trump's interests and wishes before all else.

Trumps got 4 years to replace her anyway. The Dems are a dystopian dark humor comedy at the moment.

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

Trumps got 4 years to replace her anyway. The Dems are a dystopian dark humor comedy at the moment.

Which is completely irrelevant.

A post without a supporting link and replies have been removed,

7 hours ago, J Town said:

You are absolutely wrong. As I previously posted, her dying words were to wait until the election was over to choose a new justice.

The unfortunate fact is Trump will whatever he can cement his mark on the office. would he honour the wishes of a dying person >> methinks not, and the fact that it is woman who has died, makes even less impact I think on POTUS, who shows no person of any gender any respect.

 

3 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

McConnell in 2016- "I believe the overwhelming view of the Republican Conference in the Senate is that this nomination should not be filled, this vacancy should not be filled by this lame duck president," McConnell said. "The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let's give them a voice. Let's let the American people decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be," McConnell said.

 

What has changed? Sheer opportunism? Does this man have one nanogram of ethics in this entire body and soul? Does he have a soul?

 

Paul Ryan in 2016- "This has never been about who the nominee is. It is about a basic principle. Under our Constitution, the president has every right to make this nomination, and the Senate has every right not to confirm a nominee. I fully support Leader McConnell and Chairman Grassley's decision not to move forward with the confirmation process. We should let the American people decide the direction of the court."

 

And the infamously dishonest Lindsay Graham in 2016- "I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination," Graham said at the time, The Hill reported.

 

Trump is an opportunist, without any ethics and morals. Even his supporters know this. But, this is stepping way over the line. Hopefully the dems can figure out a way to stop this, since Trump is cascading toward a huge election defeat and the greatest humiliation of his lifetime. 

What they said in 2016:

 

Chuck Schumer on Feb. 22, 2016, tweeted:  "Attn: GOP Senate has confirmed 17 SCOTUS justices in presidential election years.  Do your job."

 

Excerpt from "Hillary Clinton Statement on the Passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:"  "The Republicans in the Senate and on the campaign trail who are calling for Justice Scalia's seat to remain vacant dishonor our Constitution.  The Senate has a constitutional responsibility here that it cannot abdicate for partisan political reasons."

 

And Obama on Feb. 17, 2016:

 

 

Of course they all now advocate for delaying any Supreme Court Justice confirmation until after the election.

 

As you asked, "What has changed?"

 When Obama had 285 days before the election the Republicans cried not right to select a supreme court judge now in some states they’re already voting and 40 some days before the election and they wanna ram Rod a supreme court judge Republican should be embarrassed but nothing embarrasses Trump how low can he go he said he gives himself an a for the job he’s done against the virus  He knew in January how deadly and how easy the virus can spread through air and then when I TV two days later and lied about it he’ll be remembered as the worst lying president America ever had

8 hours ago, Tug said:

Imo it would be the correct thing to do because of what they did to the last administration but it’s trump he is what he is

Drag them through 4 years of Russia, Russia, Russia, a sham impeachment and crying about mcdonalds and the number of ice cream scoops, all while ignoring peace in the middle east, more attempts at diplomacy with NK and a steaming pre-covid economy?

Oh wait, wrong admin...

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Once again, a Trump supporter prioritizes Trump's interests and wishes before all else.

Who knew the founding fathers could think so far ahead!

26 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

What they said in 2016:

 

Chuck Schumer on Feb. 22, 2016, tweeted:  "Attn: GOP Senate has confirmed 17 SCOTUS justices in presidential election years.  Do your job."

 

Excerpt from "Hillary Clinton Statement on the Passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:"  "The Republicans in the Senate and on the campaign trail who are calling for Justice Scalia's seat to remain vacant dishonor our Constitution.  The Senate has a constitutional responsibility here that it cannot abdicate for partisan political reasons."

 

And Obama on Feb. 17, 2016:

 

 

Of course they all now advocate for delaying any Supreme Court Justice confirmation until after the election.

 

As you asked, "What has changed?"

They advocate for Mitch McConnell to apply the rules he invents consistently.

4 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Any questions?

 

 

You forgot the bit where she prosecutes record numbers of minorities for minor drug charges... or does BLM only matter when it's a republican president?

Also, "won't meet with women"? How dishonest can you get? He specifically refused for a private meeting with a woman as his wife would not be present. Given the #metoo and all the other "he said she said" situations as well as a media frothing a the mouth for any dirt they can get, are you actually being serious? I thought we wanted transparency in politics?

2 minutes ago, DaftToPutRealName said:

You forgot the bit where she prosecutes record numbers of minorities for minor drug charges... or does BLM only matter when it's a republican president?

She prosecuted people who broke the law.  She did her job.  Is that a bad thing?

7 hours ago, riclag said:

The people of America voted for the senate to carry out its duties(procedures) twice Once in 2016 and 2018. Sorry my fellow country men your stuck with this whether you like it or not!   Now they are waiting for the POTUS to do his duty so they can perform theirs.

Elections have consequences!!!

So, following your Elections Have Consequences logic, I assume you would have no problem, then, in the event of the Democrats taking control of the White House and the Senate this November -- not an unlikely prospect, given the revulsion a majority of Americans feel toward the incumbent -- if the new administration added five Supreme Court seats and installed five young, progressive justices; and accepted DC and Puerto Rico as new states, each with two new senators.

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

She prosecuted people who broke the law.  She did her job.  Is that a bad thing?

Nope, but to then turn around and act like you're a bastion for minorities and fighting against "systemic racism" when you're systematically part of creating and enforcing that system... and when your running partner is one of the key writers of the 1994 crime law which disproportionally affected black and brown demographics, then you really have to wonder how much more bull they think they can shovel and exactly how stupid they think the average voter is.

1 minute ago, DaftToPutRealName said:

Nope, but to then turn around and act like you're a bastion for minorities and fighting against "systemic racism" when you're systematically part of creating and enforcing that system... and when your running partner is one of the key writers of the 1994 crime law which disproportionally affected black and brown demographics, then you really have to wonder how much more bull they think they can shovel and exactly how stupid they think the average voter is.

Fighting systemic racism means fighting for just laws and a level playing field.  It does not mean ignoring the law.

This poll is about as believable as a fox guarding the hen house.

 

Let's be realistic: Any Republican Senator that'll decline to confirm a conservative justice and derail the Presidents efforts to appoint a candidate can kiss their Senate career goodbye. Nobody will ever vote for them again or worse.

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Fighting systemic racism means fighting for just laws and a level playing field.  It does not mean ignoring the law.

Sure.

So, what do you call it when a politician writes and enforces unjust laws which create unlevel playing fields, but then says that they are fighting systemic racism?

That's why you can't believe polls. Most Republicans won't answer because they know the pollsters on the telephone know to much about them and don't feel safe during the cancel culture epidemic. Polls have become less than useless.

4 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Any questions?

 

 

Pence for the win!

 

He meets with women in a public setting every day but was smart enough a long time ago to establish what's now known as the "Pence Rule" - no private meetings or dinners with women without his wife present. If everyone did this then all these sham sexual misconduct allegations wouldn't be an issue in political life.

 

But as can be seen with Kavanaugh it doesn't even matter what you do as an adult when even your high school yearbook can be held against you by the left. That process was despicable and I'm looking forward to the woman President Trump will bring forward. Let's see what smears the left is trying to trump up (pardon the pun).

4 hours ago, pmarlin said:

and this poll had a different outcome.

 

https://nypost.com/2020/09/19/most-americans-want-senate-to-move-on-supreme-court-decision-poll/

From your source:

"The survey was conducted between Sept. 8 to Sept. 15 — just days before the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg from cancer Friday evening."

 

So it has been conducted before respondents had to consider a real case, and before being exposed to significant  information about it.

7 minutes ago, DaftToPutRealName said:

Sure.

So, what do you call it when a politician writes and enforces unjust laws which create unlevel playing fields, but then says that they are fighting systemic racism?

You'd have to give specific examples, and we're already way off-topic.

4 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Any questions?

 

 

Yeah. <deleted> has this <deleted> got to do with the topic: Majority of Americans, including many Republicans, say wait for election to replace Ginsburg - Reuters poll

 

 

Thank God, I placed the usual whiners on my ignore list.

4 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Any questions?

 

 

"Any questions?"

 

Actually yes, I have a question(s) for Mrs.Harris:

 

• "You said you believed the women accusing Joe Biden of inappropriate touching. Do you believe Tara Reade? If not, why not? If so, how do you justify supporting him now"?

 

• "What is the maximum number of illegal immigrants you would allow into the country before securing the border to stop more from entering"?

 

And how many GOP voters who plan to vote for Trump wouldn't vote for him if he would set a new supreme court justice before the election? I guess about zero.

On the other hand: How many GOP voters who are now no big Trump fans would vote for him if there is no new supreme court judge before the election? I guess many would vote for Trump to make sure they get a conservative candidate after the election.

Summary: Get it done before the election to make sure Trump does not get any more votes than his fan base.

That is obviously not good but the lesser evil. 

2 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

And how many GOP voters who plan to vote for Trump wouldn't vote for him if he would set a new supreme court justice before the election? I guess about zero.

On the other hand: How many GOP voters who are now no big Trump fans would vote for him if there is no new supreme court judge before the election? I guess many would vote for Trump to make sure they get a conservative candidate after the election.

Summary: Get it done before the election to make sure Trump does not get any more votes than his fan base.

That is obviously not good but the lesser evil. 

He won't lose any votes but may gain a few. I wonder if Harris will be attaching another women (if chosen) with the same vigar as she did before. I don't think, she won any popularity votes during the past confirmation hearing.

16 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You'd have to give specific examples, and we're already way off-topic.

I did give specific examples, and no, we're not off topic - it should be a very simple answer, unless that's not politically convenient for you?

Keep in mind that Biden wrote key parts of the 1994 crime bill, which prosecuted brown and black demographics at a much higher rate, and during her time as a prosecutor, Kamala specifically took a "tough on crime" stance which, again, meant that blacks and browns were prosecuted at a higher rate for non-violent crimes.

 

To be 10000% explicitly clear so you don't just do a polly and dodge the question; why do you think both Biden and Kamala are fighting against systemic racism when their actions clearly show that this is not the case, and in fact they have been paramount to the creation of said "systemic racism" across their entire careers as politicians?