Ginsburg's last wish was to 'not be replaced until a new president is installed': report

[cabse5]

Except that there was 11 Months before a new President would be sworn in and today we are Already Voting.
I love it when you guys defend your Lying Reps especially since they are All on tape saying the complete opposite of what they are currently doing.
New Rule, never trust and Republicant/Trump Sycophant on anything, they Lie, they have no Honor, their Word is Worthless, and they are Hypocrites, every last one.

What are they saying that is the complete opposite?

 

[Aunt Antifa]

So it's settled, then? Is that how science works? (The answer is no.)

Yes. It’s how we know the Earth isn’t flat or how gravity works.
Settled science.

 

[cabse5]

Yes. It’s how we know the Earth isn’t flat or how gravity works.
Settled science.

AGW climate change is not an established science. Especially when that science morphs into trying to prevent natural selection, for example.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

AGW climate change is not an established science. Especially when that science morphs into trying to prevent natural selection, for example.

Majority of the scientists disagree with you. I believe them.

 

[Casper]

What are they saying that is the complete opposite?

Come on now Really?

Go back and re-read my posts, read slower this time.

 

[cabse5]

Come on now Really?

Go back and re-read my posts, read slower this time.

I want to you to tell me what is hypocritical about a Senate that withholds the SCOTUS nomination from a president of the other political party.
If that isn't the issue, then tell me what the issue is.

 

[cabse5]

Majority of the scientists disagree with you. I believe them.

Science is all about disproving established science. AGW climate change isn't established science and is relatively new.

 

[Casper]

I want to you to tell me what is hypocritical about a Senate that withholds the SCOTUS nomination from a president of the other political party.
If that isn't the issue, then tell me what the issue is.

The Hypocrisy is why they stated they did it then when the shoes were reversed they did the opposite, if you don't see the issue or wont acknowledge it you are doing so intentionally. Enough said, good day....

 

[cabse5]

The Hypocrisy is why they stated they did it then when the shoes were reversed they did the opposite, if you don't see the issue or wont acknowledge it you are doing so intentionally. Enough said, good day....

The difference is that Trump is nominating a SCOTUS prospective and Trump is of the same party as the majority party of the Senate. You get that, right?

 

[Casper]

The difference is that the president nominating the SCOTUS prospective is of the same party as the majority party of the Senate. You get that, right?

Just stop digging.

 

[cabse5]

Just stop digging.

OK. Don't accept the obvious.

 

[Casper]

OK. Don't accept the obvious.

Good we are in agreement, I dismiss your argument and you dismiss mine. Leave it at that.

 

[cabse5]

Good we are in agreement, I dismiss your argument and you dismiss mine. Leave it at that.

My argument has precedent since the 1890s, That the majority party of the Senate that is different than the president's party withholds SCOTUS nominees.

 

[Casper]

My argument has precedent since the 1890s, That the majority party of the Senate that is different than the president's party withholds SCOTUS nominees.

My Argument is based on the words of Your Party leaders 4 years ago and their actions Today, which you chose to totally ignore. End of discussion.

 

[Metric Mouse]

Yes. It’s how we know the Earth isn’t flat or how gravity works.
Settled science.

You know exactly how gravity works!? You should write a paper! Many scientists would love to have more insight on gravity!

 

[Aunt Antifa]

You know exactly how gravity works!? You should write a paper! Many scientists would love to have more insight on gravity!

Lucky for them there are extensive notes on the subject. It’s called “science”.

 

[d0gbreath]

If Dems had the Senate, they’d do just as Mitch did 4 years ago, you know it and you would support it, just as you’d support Dems filling the seat now if everything were reversed.

That doesn't abode well with my sense of fair play.

 

[Metric Mouse]

Lucky for them there are extensive notes on the subject. It’s called “science”.

Lol. I'll alert the press.

 

[goldkam]

What's your obvious point? That you wish to rag on Trump and the Republicans?...A precedent of SCOTUS judge confirmation by the Senate be damned.

I am not sure how many times I have to make this point.

The issue I have, which you seemingly are avoiding, is the inconsistency (in principle) of what Mitch McConnell said and did in 2016 and what Mitch McConnell has said and is going to do in 2020. You cannot deny he has changed how he is handling the issue.

Not rag on Trump and the Republicans, just call out inconsistencies and lies when I see one. Its holding people accountable for what they say, something that seemingly doesn't happen enough.

 

[goldkam]

It was a poor choice, there was no need to go any further. It only made sense to wait and see if Trump won, then they would get a better nominee.

You have just proven the double standard at play. To turn your exact words around and ask you a plausible question 'It would only make sense to wait and see if Biden wins, then they would get a better nominee'

I have not seen higher levels of hypocrisy in my life.

It's a different situation now, isn't it?

There are some differences in the situations, I don't disagree with that. However, its inconsistencies in principle as the basis for McConnell's decision was that it was an election year. That was the primary reason underpinning his decision.

Is 2020 not an election year?

No, it's quite different. Tell me why that Trump should be the first President ever to not make a nomination in this situation.

He won't be. If you and he are so confident that he will be elected and endorsed by the people why can't he select a justice after 3rd November. This has never happened before, so close to the election and under such unusual circumstances. The average time it takes to select a justice and finalize their position is around 2.5 months. So based on historical appointments, the justice wouldn't actually be appointed until after the election. The selection of a judge should represent the mandate of the people, either for a progressive or conservative agenda. The judge should reflect this.

No reason at all to wait. As Ginsburg said, he's elected for four years, not three.

You didn't answer my question. If he is so confident that he will win, why can't the justice be selected after the election?

Then why didn't Obama wait? The people voted for Trump, he's the person that was elected to be President. It's literally his job to nominate someone.

To be clear 8 months is much more time than just over 1.5 months. My point is Obama's nomination would have been selected and the position would have been filled well before the election. That is in the process of selecting the judge at no point would the mandate of the people have changed. With Trumps process of selecting the judge, the mandate of the people could change, as it likely won't be fulfilled and processed until after the election. There is a difference

This article will insight you into the issues here: https://apnews.com/bb9932748b199f793cb2ccbefa713a5f

 

[ajn678]

So Mitch in 2016 was just doing what exactly?

Giving an excuse as to why they wouldn't do the hearing. Which had no actual legal standing.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Giving an excuse as to why they wouldn't do the hearing. Which had no actual legal standing.

Well at least you're consistent.

 

[cabse5]

Lucky for them there are extensive notes on the subject. It’s called “science”.

There is no such thing as settled science. Especially when catastrophic AGW climate change is so young as a discipline and there isn't a 100% agreement among scientists on catastrophic AGW climate change. You don't know how science works.

 

[PLizzy]

The "rule" goes back a long time. It was carried on by both parties. Do you honestly believe Democrats would have allowed Bush to fill a Supreme Court justice seat in his final year of his second term? You'd have to be on drugs to think that. They said as much.

Democrats allowed Reagan to fill a court vacancy 13 months (just shy of a year) before the end of lame duck term, so don't give me bullshit about Democrats have ever made the kind of power grabs Republicans have.

 

[PLizzy]

Keeping in mind how Mitch McConnel warned Senate Majority leader
Harry Reid about the ramifications over blowing up the Filibuster rule
over appointing Federal Judges
Harry went ahead and did it.Which may be why you won't hear a peep
out of him.Given former speaker John Boehner just made his opinion vocal.

McConnell wanted to go nuclear in 2005, but backed down because he knew he'd soon be in the majority. When the shoe was on the other foot he began filibustering every vacancy he could, and was warned by Reid not to filibuster everything, or he would McConnell to the threat he had made to Democrats himself in 2005. McConnell agreed, but then reneged and turned the Senate into Benghazi central, and it became obvious the POS was hoarding seats for the GOP, which he planned to fill the second an R was in the WH.

Anybody thinking McConnell would have allowed Dems to filibuster like he did, even if Reid hadn't gone nuclear is just not worth a conversation. McConnell is proving he operates by no rules, and will do whatever is necessary to grab power, and achieve the Holy Grail of turning the SC into an arm of his party.

Republicans have been put on notice that if they do this Democrats might overturn the law that limits the number of justices to 9.