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.
Senator Murkowski has said she will not vote to confirm any SCOTUS nominee that President Trump would nominate before the election. What is the opinion of Alaska residents on this. Do they want her to support the President, or do they want it left to whoever wins the election to select the next justice? At this point the question is not nominee specific. Assume you would find the particular nominee acceptable.
What is old is new. We shouldn't delay for partisan political reasons.
Sorry, but the Republicans set the precedent by creating the delay in 2016. Many Republicans, such as Lindsay Graham were quoted as saying that you can use these words against them in the future.
Sorry, but the Republicans set the precedent by creating the delay in 2016. Many Republicans, such as Lindsay Graham were quoted as saying that you can use these words against them in the future.
The difference then were opposing sides-nominating party vs the senate. You don't have that now. Now if the republican majority in the 2016 senate had simply said-sure let's vote, and then voted no, they wouldn't be sitting in DC looking like the democrats did in 2016 dancing on a grave right now.
Of course, they are politicians, and politicians are generally POSs anyways regardless of D or R.
Why did the Republicans stop the confirmation of Merrick Garland (Obama's nominee)? Because they could. Why will they push through Trump's imminent nominee? Because they can. From the standpoint of the people of Alaska, should Murkowski try to stop them from doing that? This the direct issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadwarrior101
Sorry, but the Republicans set the precedent by creating the delay in 2016. Many Republicans, such as Lindsay Graham were quoted as saying that you can use these words against them in the future.
Why did the Republicans stop the confirmation of Merrick Garland (Obama's nominee)? Because they could. Why will they push through Trump's imminent nominee? Because they can. From the standpoint of the people of Alaska, should Murkowski try to stop them from doing that? This the direct issue.
Why will Democrats add two more seats to the court in 2021 and add liberal justices? Because they will be able to.
Sorry, but the Republicans set the precedent by creating the delay in 2016. Many Republicans, such as Lindsay Graham were quoted as saying that you can use these words against them in the future.
There is no such thing as "precedent" in politics that binds anyone. This isn't the judicial branch where precedent is actually a thing.
Even if you want to go the "precedent" route, leftists were calling for Garland to be seated even after the "precedent" was set. Sure, Republicans are being hypocrites here, but so are Democrats.
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.
