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.
It isnt just about "old white men" here so lets just end that narrative. It is ideological. We know that states signed those stupid fetal heartbeat laws just to try and get Roe V. Wade overturned if not abortion restrictions. Then you have the fact that McConnell and Cruz and Graham and other of these Republican hypocrites that derided Democrats wanting to fill Scalia's seat in 2016, 8 months prior to the election but now want to push a new Justice through with 7 weeks to go in an election. But yes, make this about racism and sexism or sexual assault claims...
It is precisely as I said before: In the world of politics, if you can something, you do it. Both parties have been on both sides of the issue often enough, whining that "nobody federal judge should be confirmed in an election year, and the Supreme Court should be absolutely forbidden!!" The fact is, the Senate was controlled by the Republicans in 2016, and that's really all there is to it. They didn't have to confirm any of Obama's picks, therefore they didn't.
All sorts of shenanigans have ensued on Supreme Court picks. The longest Supreme Court vacancy ever came after the death of Justice Henry Baldwin in 1844. It took 841 days to replace him. Most long vacancies happened in the 1800's, but it is noteworthy that as recently as 1969 it took a whopping 391 days to replace Justice Abe Fortas with Justice Harry Blackmum. The vacancy after Scalia's death doesn't even rank in the top 10 for longest vacancies of all time. Just a continuation of the shameful tradition of playing stupid political games over SCOTUS picks.
The screams for riots is going to significantly hurt the Democrats if they don't knock it off. Nobody changed the game. Everyone is playing by exactly the same rules here. If you have both the President and the Senate, you can do as you please as long as you have the votes. It's not as though the Democrats would do any differently under the same circumstances.
It is precisely as I said before: In the world of politics, if you can something, you do it. Both parties have been on both sides of the issue often enough, whining that "nobody federal judge should be confirmed in an election year, and the Supreme Court should be absolutely forbidden!!" The fact is, the Senate was controlled by the Republicans in 2016, and that's really all there is to it. They didn't have to confirm any of Obama's picks, therefore they didn't.
All sorts of shenanigans have ensued on Supreme Court picks. The longest Supreme Court vacancy ever came after the death of Justice Henry Baldwin in 1844. It took 841 days to replace him. Most long vacancies happened in the 1800's, but it is noteworthy that as recently as 1969 it took a whopping 391 days to replace Justice Abe Fortas with Justice Harry Blackmum. The vacancy after Scalia's death doesn't even rank in the top 10 for longest vacancies of all time. Just a continuation of the shameful tradition of playing stupid political games over SCOTUS picks.
The screams for riots is going to significantly hurt the Democrats if they don't knock it off. Nobody changed the game. Everyone is playing by exactly the same rules here. If you have both the President and the Senate, you can do as you please as long as you have the votes. It's not as though the Democrats would do any differently under the same circumstances.
The right is equally disgusting. Note, I do not disagree that riots aren't right but when you have Trump supporters wanting to FSU if Trump loses, not accepting results (yet moaning that Hillary said Biden shouldn't) or hassling early vote locations, you need to call that out too. The problem is the right refuses to call out their extremists as much as they say the left doesn't.
I would call out Democrats pulling the same if Godforbid Hillary was our president right now. What i don't like is these weasels Republicans right now like Cruz, like Graham and others who in 2016 said "Oh let the electorate decide." We all know now that it was them not wanting a Justice that was Obama's. As stated before, if Democrats pulled this powerplay, I'd complain too.
As for federal judges, the right and left always bicker about which vacancies are more important. The right think that the left only are doing the cities not rural districts while it is the eft accusing the right of leaving city districts open. I think this is just stupid period. So we have some common ground.
Actually I suspect a female is more likely to pass unscathed through Senate confirmation hearings than a man, so in that sense she would be better qualified. Politically, at least.
Neither one is right. It’s ridiculous to post the 4 candidates in the news articles. Everybody knows that he’s going to pick the “white suburban woman” Amy Barrett because that’s the vote that he’s after.
Or maybe because it's a little harder for Dems to object to her?
What can they attack?
She's a Christian? Heaven forbid!!!
She actually had seven kids and NEVER had an abortion??? Oh.....my ......GOD!!!!
Also might make last minute manufactured rape allegations a little awkward too.......
For the record -- his first choice should be a woman in honor of RBG and all that.
I don't mind that.
I'm just surprised he wouldn't even try to pretend he's not playing identity politics.
Does he think that women will go -- oh well now I'll vote for him.
It's like the Puerto Rico hand out -- you think that will make people suddenly say -- oh he's not such a bad guy -- look at that three years later and two months before an election he decides it is time to help them out....lol
(psst for the record.....I know it's not just Trump, not just Republicans that do this stupid stuff -- but in this thread it is about Trump and his claim).
Many people will demand it, especially on the left, who see everything along the lines of race and sex.
I agree that the best person should be chosen, and not make it a thing that only women can represent women, when it comes to upholding the Constitution.
The left already gave up that right when sleepy joe picked an Indian American woman over some (probably) better choices.
The really sad thing is IF sleepy joe wins (WHICH I HIGHLY DOUBT) he'll never be POTUS for more than a year. They will 25th Amendment him out within 6 months because of dementia.
My question is: Is this really the way women in America want to see their first female President?
President by default
Sad comment on where America might be going
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.
