You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Current Events Thread
You seriously think Schumer wouldn't do it?
Garland should have got the vote.
It changes nothing.
It's the presidents right.
Biden had no problem with it specifically because they knew this was probable.
How can you be so sure? How do you know what Schumer would do?
It’s disheartening that you use this hypothetical to justify what is about to happen and what has happened.
If Garland was on the bench right now, no one would have a thing to say.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Current Events Thread
Start at 2:20 seconds
Like I said, all it takes is 3-4 posts
Re: Current Events Thread
Start at 2:20 seconds
Like I said, all it takes is 3-4 posts
Where does he say that if he were in charge in 2020 that he’d nominate a judge?
Where does it say that Schumer believes that there should not be a vote?
What is your point?
You’re grasping at straws here. Again. This rule that you can’t nominate or have hearings on a new judge in an election year is an aberration. It only exists in a message in a bottle from 2016.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Current Events Thread
When is the last time a sitting president had an opposition party Senate confirm his nominee in an election year? You just called this an aberration. When is the last time a Supreme Court vacancy occurred and was filled by an opposition party senate in an election year? You accused me of grasping at straws, so prove the point that it was an “aberration” and show me what the norm is.
Re: Current Events Thread
When is the last time a sitting president had an opposition party Senate confirm his nominee in an election year? You just called this an aberration. When is the last time a Supreme Court vacancy occurred and was filled by an opposition party senate in an election year? You accused me of grasping at straws, so prove the point that it was an “aberration” and show me what the norm is.
I thinl Rubio claimed in 2016 it was 80 years ago.
Really tho, thats not much of a mathmatical anamoly. How often do Justices die while serving, 1 in 20 years or so. What are the odds its in their final year, 1 in 4. 4 x 20 = 80.
Alot of these 1 in 100 years etc are dumb. How often does a 1st term president, with an opposing senate, have a jjstide die, in an election year etc
Re: Current Events Thread
misterID wrote:You seriously think Schumer wouldn't do it?
Garland should have got the vote.
It changes nothing.
It's the presidents right.
Biden had no problem with it specifically because they knew this was probable.How can you be so sure? How do you know what Schumer would do?
It’s disheartening that you use this hypothetical to justify what is about to happen and what has happened.
If Garland was on the bench right now, no one would have a thing to say.
Because I'm not naive to believe Schumer would forego his constitutional right to proceed and NOT put a justice on the bench just out of the kindness of his heart?
Again, there is nothing wrong with putting a judge on the bench. Not for any party. You've been given quotes by all parties saying, yes, this is cool, you can fill that seat at any point in a president's term... (By you, we mean only if *we* get to do it)
If Garland were on the seat, Democrats would STILL be screaming and begging and threatening to burn everything down if RBG's seat is filled by Trump.
Re: Current Events Thread
Romney came out and is voting. It's over. Dems need to move on & point out the blatant hypocrisy of Moscow Mitch, as well as emphasize it in Senate race states that are close like CO (seems over now), AZ, SC (bad move for Graham imho) as well as other toss up Senate seats.
But fighting it etc would be a bad move. Maybe question this woman heavily on how she'd vote if Roe v Wade came up, and get an answer. Aside from that just put her thru if they see fit.
