Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Very sad news prayers for the family
Go ahead and throw another conservative judge in there Trump!
Atleast I won't have to worry about the supreme court in my lifetime if he gets reelected..
RIP RBG
(Will the Garland precedent apply here? I guess we’ll find out)
(09-18-2020, 09:35 PM)MojoKing Wrote: [ -> ]RIP RBG
(Will the Garland precedent apply here? I guess we’ll find out)
No. President and Senate majority are same party. Not to mention we need a full SC for what is about to happen with the election.
Biden is now forced to release the list he doesn't have. Biden campaign is floundering. He said it was a list of African American women.
(09-18-2020, 10:12 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-18-2020, 09:35 PM)MojoKing Wrote: [ -> ]RIP RBG
(Will the Garland precedent apply here? I guess we’ll find out)
No. President and Senate majority are same party. Not to mention we need a full SC for what is about to happen with the election.
Biden is now forced to release the list he doesn't have. Biden campaign is floundering. He said it was a list of African American women.
The court has become too politicized it’s a shame.
I don’t know that they’ll have the votes / hearing to do this in 45days. And it won’t happen if he’s a lame duck.
If trump wins however, then this all doesn’t matter.
(09-18-2020, 10:43 PM)MojoKing Wrote: [ -> ] (09-18-2020, 10:12 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]No. President and Senate majority are same party. Not to mention we need a full SC for what is about to happen with the election.
Biden is now forced to release the list he doesn't have. Biden campaign is floundering. He said it was a list of African American women.
The court has become too politicized it’s a shame.
I don’t know that they’ll have the votes / hearing to do this in 45days. And it won’t happen if he’s a lame duck.
If trump wins however, then this all doesn’t matter.
Pence can be the tie breaker.
This changes the entire dynamic of the election. COVID takes a back seat and SCOTUS hops in the front seat.
Conservatives and evangelicals take their constitution very serious and people on the fence will now hold their noses and vote Trump.
I think all Trump needs to do is throw his nominee out there and pressure Joe to do the same.
(09-18-2020, 10:46 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-18-2020, 10:43 PM)MojoKing Wrote: [ -> ]The court has become too politicized it’s a shame.
I don’t know that they’ll have the votes / hearing to do this in 45days. And it won’t happen if he’s a lame duck.
If trump wins however, then this all doesn’t matter.
Pence can be the tie breaker.
This changes the entire dynamic of the election. COVID takes a back seat and SCOTUS hops in the front seat.
Conservatives and evangelicals take their constitution very serious and people on the fence will now hold their noses and vote Trump.
Yeah it’s true. I’m fine with it as long as Trump wins.
Garland was trying to be appointed in March...
This is
45 days before election
Unprecedented Pandemic
It would be blatant hypocrisy, but wouldn’t put it passed McConell.
They have already come out and said that one of her last statements was that she didn't want to be replaced until a new president was installed. She already stayed in the seat for political reasons when she had no business doing that. She politicized this herself, so go ahead and appoint someone.
Trump already has his list, make the pick this weekend and move forward.
Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk
(09-18-2020, 11:14 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]They have already come out and said that one of her last statements was that she didn't want to be replaced until a new president was installed. She already stayed in the seat for political reasons when she had no business doing that. She politicized this herself, so go ahead and appoint someone.
Trump already has his list, make the pick this weekend and move forward.
Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk
Along the lines of a solid tweet I saw...
"I'll add on RBG: If reports of her "last wish" are true, then she had a fundamental misunderstanding of her role. She didn't own her seat -- merely had the privilege of filling it for many, many years -- and had no business telling the political branches how it should be filled."
(09-18-2020, 11:14 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]They have already come out and said that one of her last statements was that she didn't want to be replaced until a new president was installed. She already stayed in the seat for political reasons when she had no business doing that. She politicized this herself, so go ahead and appoint someone.
Trump already has his list, make the pick this weekend and move forward.
Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk
(09-18-2020, 11:23 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-18-2020, 11:14 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]They have already come out and said that one of her last statements was that she didn't want to be replaced until a new president was installed. She already stayed in the seat for political reasons when she had no business doing that. She politicized this herself, so go ahead and appoint someone.
Trump already has his list, make the pick this weekend and move forward.
Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk
Along the lines of a solid tweet I saw...
"I'll add on RBG: If reports of her "last wish" are true, then she had a fundamental misunderstanding of her role. She didn't own her seat -- merely had the privilege of filling it for many, many years -- and had no business telling the political branches how it should be filled."
The "political branches", namely Moscow Mitch and Senate Republicans, had already perverted the process. RBG was of clear mind until the end, she was within her rights to stay for whatever reasons she chose. It's no different than Justice Kennedy's strategically timed departure.
What right did they have against even giving Garland a hearing?
The Reps established their own precedent by not allowing Garland in an election year. So they are just going to go back on that? 45 days?
Very disheartening that they just don’t care to wave their hypocrisy like low hanging fruit.
More worried about the females of this country. Hopefully this doesn’t spiral into a reproductive rights hell for them.
(09-18-2020, 11:32 PM)MojoKing Wrote: [ -> ]What right did they have against even giving Garland a hearing?
The Reps established their own precedent by not allowing Garland in an election year. So they are just going to go back on that? 45 days?
Very disheartening that they just don’t care to wave their hypocrisy like low hanging fruit.
More worried about the females of this country. Hopefully this doesn’t spiral into a reproductive rights hell for them.
On the other hand, what happens when the results of this election go to the supreme court for a 4-4 tie?
(09-18-2020, 11:32 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (09-18-2020, 11:14 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]They have already come out and said that one of her last statements was that she didn't want to be replaced until a new president was installed. She already stayed in the seat for political reasons when she had no business doing that. She politicized this herself, so go ahead and appoint someone.
Trump already has his list, make the pick this weekend and move forward.
Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk
(09-18-2020, 11:23 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Along the lines of a solid tweet I saw...
"I'll add on RBG: If reports of her "last wish" are true, then she had a fundamental misunderstanding of her role. She didn't own her seat -- merely had the privilege of filling it for many, many years -- and had no business telling the political branches how it should be filled."
The "political branches", namely Moscow Mitch and Senate Republicans, had already perverted the process. RBG was of clear mind until the end, she was within her rights to stay for whatever reasons she chose. It's no different than Justice Kennedy's strategically timed departure.
The odds she actually said something like this screams of fake news.
(09-18-2020, 11:32 PM)MojoKing Wrote: [ -> ]What right did they have against even giving Garland a hearing?
The Reps established their own precedent by not allowing Garland in an election year. So they are just going to go back on that? 45 days?
Very disheartening that they just don’t care to wave their hypocrisy like low hanging fruit.
More worried about the females of this country. Hopefully this doesn’t spiral into a reproductive rights hell for them.
A hearing? They had no right, but the Senate has stupid rules and they are allowed to change them.
I didn't agree with it, but they made the choice to do it. I have no doubt if it was reversed, the same thing would have been done. Just like the democrats would do the same thing now.
Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk
This election is going go be a mess
Honestly I wish the Supreme Court was even keeled
no favor in either way; truly impartial, true unbiased judges.
Or at the very least just reasonable moderate people.
We can’t be dealing with a constitutional crisis everytime a justice dies.
(09-18-2020, 10:50 PM)MojoKing Wrote: [ -> ] (09-18-2020, 10:46 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Pence can be the tie breaker.
This changes the entire dynamic of the election. COVID takes a back seat and SCOTUS hops in the front seat.
Conservatives and evangelicals take their constitution very serious and people on the fence will now hold their noses and vote Trump.
Yeah it’s true. I’m fine with it as long as Trump wins.
Garland was trying to be appointed in March...
This is
45 days before election
Unprecedented Pandemic
It would be blatant hypocrisy, but wouldn’t put it passed McConell.
McConnell wouldn't vote on Garland because theSenate and Presidency we’re divided. It wasn’t because he believes Justices shouldn’t be appointed during election years. Unless he said something I haven’t heard, this doesn’t make him a hypocrite.
(09-18-2020, 11:36 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]The odds she actually said something like this screams of fake news.
Supposedly it was in the last few days and written down by her granddaughter. Supposedly more than one letter was written like this and is being reported everywhere. Based on her past statements it's believable, since we already know she was just staying in the seat because Trump was president.
Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk
(09-18-2020, 10:12 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-18-2020, 09:35 PM)MojoKing Wrote: [ -> ]RIP RBG
(Will the Garland precedent apply here? I guess we’ll find out)
No. President and Senate majority are same party. Not to mention we need a full SC for what is about to happen with the election.
Biden is now forced to release the list he doesn't have. Biden campaign is floundering. He said it was a list of African American women.
Because it's bad if the Democrats do it, but if the Republicans do it, it's ok!
![[Image: hypocrisy-yoda-e1437358144640.jpg]](http://theaimn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/hypocrisy-yoda-e1437358144640.jpg)
(09-18-2020, 10:46 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-18-2020, 10:43 PM)MojoKing Wrote: [ -> ]The court has become too politicized it’s a shame.
I don’t know that they’ll have the votes / hearing to do this in 45days. And it won’t happen if he’s a lame duck.
If trump wins however, then this all doesn’t matter.
Pence can be the tie breaker.
This changes the entire dynamic of the election. COVID takes a back seat and SCOTUS hops in the front seat.
Conservatives and evangelicals take their constitution very serious and people on the fence will now hold their noses and vote Trump.
I think all Trump needs to do is throw his nominee out there and pressure Joe to do the same.
No. They won't. People who hate Trump, still are gonna vote against him or do as I will and vote 3rd party. Trump is the kind of polarizing human being that you just won't let things slide. It's a constant barrage of bad behavior with him that makes the hatred visceral.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16