(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.

(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.