The republicans have had a long game strategy of packing the courts. McConnell even admitted it in his autobiography. What the GOP is doing right now, is packing the court. I want a moderate court. I don’t want a packed court. It’s already far more right wing than the general public, but that’s the pointHaven't you heard ... “Bad idea when [FDR] tried to pack the court… If anything would make the court appear partisan it'd be...one side saying, ‘When we’re in power we’re going to enlarge the number of judges so we'll have more ppl who will vote the way we want them to.’" - Ruth Ginsburg
"There's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year,"- Ruth Ginsburg
And this isn't even Trump's last year.
Right!? Absolutely agree. How anyone has an argument against considering a nominee is crazy. We saw the consequences last time; no need to repeat it. Good analogy.This isn’t even an argument. It’s like arguing with your 18 year old daughter about her right to be a stripper and drink heavily. Yes, it’s her right, blah, blah, blah, and you have no control over it, but should she really be doing that? What about consequences? There are real concerns and matters to discuss beyond appealing to authority
Did you post that McConnell has no excuse? It seems like you’re in this forum to play games and troll imoMeh. I haven't seen anyone making excuses for Mitch, maybe I missed it. This situation just shows that Democrats love hypocrisy as much as Republicans. To them it's a feature, not a bug.
The precedent is to consider nominees in a timely manner, including election years. Republicans broke that precedent in 2016; it will be good if we return to that precedent. I'm not sure why anyone is arguing differently.
Ideological lean is not what people mean by "Packing the Court".The republicans have had a long game strategy of packing the courts. McConnell even admitted it in his autobiography. What the GOP is doing right now, is packing the court. I want a moderate court. I don’t want a packed court. It’s already far more right wing than the general public, but that’s the point
What a joke. That is actually what packing the court means. Packing the court is packing it full of people with a certain ideology.Ideological lean is not what people mean by "Packing the Court".
I don't know, did I? No excuse for what? For not considering a nominee if one is presented? I'm sure he would have an excuse, but I doubt it would be a good one.Did you post that McConnell has no excuse? It seems like you’re in this forum to play games and troll imo
That's not what Packing the Court means.The republicans have had a long game strategy of packing the courts. McConnell even admitted it in his autobiography. What the GOP is doing right now, is packing the court. I want a moderate court. I don’t want a packed court. It’s already far more right wing than the general public, but that’s the point
Prevented what? Make no mistake, Democrats would oppose replacing Ginsberg, no matter what happened in 2016. They would also be pressing forward with their own nomination if the roles were reversed.Yep. Mcconell could have prevented all this by giving garland a vote or just sticking to his precedent and let the next president replace ginsburg. If repubs can stack the court, I don't see why dems wouldn't. The turtle man has destroyed our democracy.
Sorry, but no.What a joke. That is actually what packing the court means. Packing the court is packing it full of people with a certain ideology.
The dems would not have. In fact they confirmed anthony kennedy during an election year. The biden rule was a novel idea that turtle came up with.Prevented what? Make no mistake, Democrats would oppose replacing Ginsberg, no matter what happened in 2016. They would also be pressing forward with their own nomination if the roles were reversed.
Following precedent (the "Biden Rule") would mean that with the president and senate of the same party, they press forward with a nomination. That's not something new, and doesn't "destroy democracy".
Puerto Rico doesn't want to be a state.That's not necessarily true for several reasons:
1) Assuming Democrats retake both chambers and the WH (this discussion is moot otherwise), they'll add PR and DC, thereby lessening the likelihood of Republicans taking back the Senate, and
2) Democrats pass HR1, which severely limits Republican voter suppression efforts.
If both of these things come to pass, Republicans won't get the opportunity to restack the courts.
Rather they are against killing babies inthe womb. Don't see how that's a bad thing. Nor do you have to be religious to be against abortion (I'm an atheist and I'm against it).
And making murder of any other person illegal doesn't stop murders. Whats your point? We make murder illegal in order to prosecute and punish those who ignore basic decency and the right of life of other people, and remove their deranged existence from general society in order to prevent them from killing more. It should be no different here just because the victims in abortion cannot speak up for their own rights.You do know that making abortion illegal will not stop abortions right? Women in countries where it is illegal have more abortions per person than here. We made abortions legal because there were so many women maimed and killed by illegal abortions. Women will not be forced to bring unwanted children into the world so this is just a way to subjugate and maim and kill them. Sad.
It was when he was younger. Yes, it appears he has made statements on being pro choice. He also proposed a healthcare plan similar to Obama’s. It’s very weird that he is going along with this. I wonder if he has considered that Trump would probably love to bring an election loss to the court
And making murder of any other person illegal doesn't stop murders. Whats your point? We make murder illegal in order to prosecute and punish those who ignore basic decency and theright of life of other people. It should be no different here just because the victims in abortion cannot speak up for their own rights.
But after decades hating the military they love those military guys who hate Trump.And just like that, Democrats again hate Mitt Romney. LOL
There really is no contradiction there.In February, Romney votes to convict and remove Trump, but in September, Romney thinks Trump should get a SCOTUS justice approved who may shape events for years to come?
The dems would not have. In fact they confirmed anthony kennedy during an election year. The biden rule was a novel idea that turtle came up with.
They are fundamental about their religion. I keep saying that Christians have lost a lot of credibility in supporting Trump. They should have never made excuses for the boarder camps.His Mormon voters are as much for outlawing abortions as Evangelists. He would lose face with them. Religions are determining our laws now even if their ranks are shrinking every year. Probably that is WHY they are trying to make women wards of the State. Women are not well liked in most religions.
I don’t think Republicans have principles. Saying you’re anti neocon today, means about as much as you saying you were for free trade and low deficits before Trump. The republican base simply follows whatever dogma their leader sells them.Puerto Rico doesn't want to be a state.
I don't know why people don't understand that in 2015 it was their say whether they confirmed Obama's nominee and in 2020 it is their say whether they confirm Donald Trump's nominee.It's not really surprising.
In the end, Trump does get to make the call, despite the fact that Moscow Mitch and Leningrad Graham argued against Obama being able to do so 4 years ago. But the fact that any of these partisan fools would dare try to cite the Constitution as the reason why they're doing it now is laughable.
Just a lack of character.There really is no contradiction there.
Biden made the same argument.It's not really surprising.
In the end, Trump does get to make the call, despite the fact that Moscow Mitch and Leningrad Graham argued against Obama being able to do so 4 years ago. But the fact that any of these partisan fools would dare try to cite the Constitution as the reason why they're doing it now is laughable.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?