RBG Dead at 87

[murara1994]

If this had happened with hillary as president and schumer as senate maj leader, do you think Dems would fill the seat?  Of course they would.  All you liberals are delusional.

[The Sultan]

If this had happened with hillary as president and schumer as senate maj leader, do you think Dems would fill the seat?  Of course they would.  All you liberals are delusional.

Yes they would have.  Just like they tried to do back in 2016. 

Dems weren't the ones crying back in 2016 that the voters should decide, and holding up the Merrick Garland nomination for months (not weeks).  Some examples:

Ted Cruz: "It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don't do this in an election year."

Lindsey Graham: "If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait to the next election."

Now apparently the voters don't get to decide.  I know nuance is tough for some, but this is pretty straight up hypocrisy.

And people don't care.  I mean, the SAY they care about lifelong politicians lying to them, but in the end, if those politicians generally agree with them, they don't care.

[rocket surgeon]

Yes they would have.  Just like they tried to do back in 2016. 

Dems weren't the ones crying back in 2016 that the voters should decide, and holding up the Merrick Garland nomination for months (not weeks).  Some examples:

Ted Cruz: "It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don't do this in an election year."

Lindsey Graham: "If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait to the next election."

Now apparently the voters don't get to decide.  I know nuance is tough for some, but this is pretty straight up hypocrisy.

And people don't care.  I mean, the SAY they care about lifelong politicians lying to them, but in the end, if those politicians generally agree with them, they don't care.

back then, during the merrick garland issue, the senate used the "biden rule" and the republicans had a majority in the senate, as they do today.  there are some very good reasons, however unfortunately or not, we are going to need a full 9 member supreme court after november 3.  all is fair in love and war

[Pakuni]

back then, during the merrick garland issue, the senate used the "biden rule" and the republicans had a majority in the senate, as they do today.  there are some very good reasons, however unfortunately or not, we are going to need a full 9 member supreme court after november 3.  all is fair in love and war

Character revealed.

[Pakuni]

Will wade vs roe be overturned now?

Depends on whether there's a strong ass offer.

In all seriousness, it really depends on whether you believe the conservative justices will stand by their sworn testimony during their conformance hearings. Every single one of them said they would abide by the doctrine of stare decisis. If they're men of their word, Roe v Wade is settled law.

[The Sultan]

nm

[rocket surgeon]

Character revealed.

  yes indeed-

  "Former Vice President Joe Biden declared in 2016 that if he were chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee he would push ahead with the nomination of a Supreme Court justice "even a few months before a presidential election."




https://www.newsweek.com/biden-2016-president-has-constitutional-duty-nominate-supreme-court-justice-even-months-1533106

[GB Warrior]

  yes indeed-

  "Former Vice President Joe Biden declared in 2016 that if he were chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee he would push ahead with the nomination of a Supreme Court justice "even a few months before a presidential election."




https://www.newsweek.com/biden-2016-president-has-constitutional-duty-nominate-supreme-court-justice-even-months-1533106

You miss the (whole) point where the Senate judiciary committee is not the Senate, which results in a fundamentally different (wrong) reading of what Biden says.

But why would we expect 'conservative' lemmings to act in good faith when their idols don't?

[murara1994]

Yes they would have.  Just like they tried to do back in 2016. 

Dems weren't the ones crying back in 2016 that the voters should decide, and holding up the Merrick Garland nomination for months (not weeks).  Some examples:

Ted Cruz: "It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don't do this in an election year."

Lindsey Graham: "If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait to the next election."

Now apparently the voters don't get to decide.  I know nuance is tough for some, but this is pretty straight up hypocrisy.

And people don't care.  I mean, the SAY they care about lifelong politicians lying to them, but in the end, if those politicians generally agree with them, they don't care.

It's absolutely not hypocrisy because right now the Rs control the Presidency and the Senate.  It was divided in 2016.  There is ample precedent going back over a 100 years for a president to put through a nominee in an election year so long as he has an agreeable senate going back to John Adams and John Marshall.

The President and the Senate both have a part to play.

[D'Lo Brown]

Over/under on the amount of times DJT progeny have been aborted?

And his campaign manager?

Etc.

The most depressing aspect of all of this is that really, nothing actually matters at all. Outside of a lot of people feeling like they're right, & reveling in it. Nothing actually matters.

[rocky_warrior]

OK.  I guess we're done mourning the loss of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.