Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Repubs in early 2016: “It’s unethical to confirm a Supreme Court justice now. It’s too close to the election!”
Repubs in mid 2020: “It’s unethical to wait. We must confirm a Supreme Court justice ASAP”
What’s the constant here? Blatant hypocrisy and bald-faced power-grabbing. Repubs have long since forgotten how to play well with others. Now it’s just: PpwerPowerPowerPower. We wants it. Waaaaa!
Along with: Doesn’t it feel good to watch everyone suffer? Look how triggered everyone is!
There’s a word for this and it rhymes with “weevil.”
In attempting to expose GOP hypocrisy on the issue, you are blind to the fact that Democrats are also hypocrites here. Democrats clamored up until inauguration day in 2017 that the Senate vote on Merrick Garland and that a president has the right to appoint at any time. Of course, due to political convenience, they have also shifted. Let's stop behaving like only one side is shifting.
Repubs in early 2016: “It’s unethical to confirm a Supreme Court justice now. It’s too close to the election!”
Repubs in mid 2020: “It’s unethical to wait. We must confirm a Supreme Court justice ASAP”
What’s the constant here?
the "constant here" is obama did offer a nominee to the supreme court in 2016, Jill. in fact, the strongest argument for trump to go right ahead and immediately nominate someone is that obama made a nomination in the election year of 2016 when scalia died. his nominee was not confirmed, but that was because republicans controlled the senate. obama made the nomination in spite of the lack of support from the senate republicans. Why should trump refrain when he has senate support?
Just days before her death, as her strength waned, Ginsburg dictated this statement to her
granddaughter Clara Spera: "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."
I’m sure she said that.
If that is actually true, then 'The Notorious RBG' took TDS to the grave with her. Sad!
Repubs in early 2016: “It’s unethical to confirm a Supreme Court justice now. It’s too close to the election!”
Repubs in mid 2020: “It’s unethical to wait. We must confirm a Supreme Court justice ASAP”
What’s the constant here? Blatant hypocrisy and bald-faced power-grabbing. Repubs have long since forgotten how to play well with others. Now it’s just: PpwerPowerPowerPower. We wants it. Waaaaa!
Along with: Doesn’t it feel good to watch everyone suffer? Look how triggered everyone is!
There’s a word for this and it rhymes with “weevil.”
The republicans were right in 2016 to not give Garland a hearing. 100% right and they were only following the words of Joe Biden - who in 1992 told George Bush not to bother nominating anyone for the SC until after the election.
the "constant here" is obama did offer a nominee to the supreme court in 2016, Jill. in fact, the strongest argument for trump to go right ahead and immediately nominate someone is that obama made a nomination in the election year of 2016 when scalia died. his nominee was not confirmed, but that was because republicans controlled the senate. obama made the nomination in spite of the lack of support from the senate republicans. Why should trump refrain when he has senate support?
The "constant here," texan2yankee, is that the Republicans were never so open about the childish logic, "well we control the senate, so only under these circumstances is a vacancy okay!" The logic was always, "we should let the election speak." So, yes, Republicans would be incredibly hypocritical to rush a justice through.
Yes, Republicans used the logic that an election should speak to the "choice" of Americans regarding the next justice back in 2016 (which, by the way, was much earlier in the election year).
Yes, it would be hypocritical for Mitch to rush someone through. But, of course, no one will be surprised if he manages to twist logic to justify his hypocrisy.
RIP RBG! Nobody can dispute who this great lady was or her service to her country. Being that she was Jewish and died on the eve of the Jewish New Year, tradition states such a person was a righteous one! I think this discussion should be tabled until the end of the Jewish New Year (this weekend) in respect for her.
If that is actually true, then 'The Notorious RBG' took TDS to the grave with her. Sad!
No, let me correct you.. She is a bitter old b*itch. she can take her dead body to Hell and let the demons torture her for eternity. Evil old witch! No im not going to be "nice" just because she's dead.
RIP RBG! Nobody can dispute who this great lady was or her service to her country. Being that she was Jewish and died on the eve of the Jewish New Year, tradition states such a person was a righteous one! I think this discussion should be tabled until the end of the Jewish New Year (this weekend) in respect for her.
Her own family didn't wait to start the discussion so I think randoms on the internet can discuss it without feeling too bad.
You don’t seem to understand the difference between a lame duck and a president up for re-election. One isn’t coming back. The other could get re-elected to continue his agenda.
That’s the difference.
With an election coming back, you don't seem to understand that your guy may not be there. And if he is, he can still nominate a right wing extremist--one that doesn't believe in science, wants to interfere in women's lives, one who wants to have a nationalized religion, and one who wants to deny equal justice under the law. Moreover, not one of the Repubs I cited said a word about "in lame duck situations" with regard to the last year of a presidency. All decent Republicans have retired like Flake, or rejected Trump as so many, many of his former appointees have. By the way, got any prominent Dems rejecting Biden? NOT EVEN ONE!!
If "we need to let the people decide on the president," why not let the people decide which president should pick? But you want to impose the will of white supremacists on the vast majority of those who have ALREADY determined all the aforementioned shouldn't be a part of our society. The minority tyrannizing the majority.
But no problem, if Dems take the WH and the Senate we will pass a law expanding the number of justices on the court to 15 or 18 so we can pack the court with young liberals which will take decades to get out even if a future congress reduces it back to nine or less.
The "take no prisoners" approach of Repubs will soon return to haunt all of you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
