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.
And the ***** of it is, it's being delivered on a silver platter from one of the most partisan and biased judges to sit on the court in recent history. She's given Trump the greatest gift ever. A chance to completely change the narrative yet again. Covid? BLM? Impeachment? hahaha. What.
Just like I predicted back and January that Kamila would be picked as the VP for Biden, I was right again. Democrats lost their right to complain when they foolishly impeached Trump. Payback is hell. And a lot of it is coming their way.
With her pompous arrogance, she's delivered exactly that which she didn't want to happen.
This post is talking about pompous arrogance all while patting yourself on the back about predictions you made.. Which is a routine thing you do
It boggles my mind. Democrats know that they would have never supported Garland if he was truly a "moderate" on the contentious issues.
If they were that sure they would have held a vote rather than create this controversy, the Republicans certainly could have denied his approval. The fact that they blocked him in v CB committee tells me you are wrong.
Last edited by Goodnight; 09-22-2020 at 01:53 PM..
Republicans won't be winning any elections for a long time if this comes to pass, a court that votes in a block, 6-3 will cause even more societal instability which could very well hurt financial markets as well. Simplistic social conservative Republican voters have little understanding of economics, though so that shouldn't come as any surprise.
That's where you're wrong. Historically, nothing supports this statement.
The really amazing thing is that the Democrats are still whining about the fact that they weren't allowed to put one of theirs on the Supreme Court, while at the same time throwing a massive tantrum about the fact that the Republicans are trying to put one of there's on.
Everyone gambled in 2016:
Ruth Bader Ginsberg bet the farm on Hillary winning and hoped that the Senate would flip too, opening the way for a more Far Left replacement for her.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg once again bet the farm that in spite of her failing health, she would live long enough for a Democrat President and Senate.
Anthony Scalia hadn't retired yet in 2016 because he didn't want to be replaced by a Liberal justice. He gambled that he'd live long enough to see a Republican presidency and Senate.
In 2016, the Republican Senate gambled that they'd retain the Senate, and hoped Trump would win so they could put in a more Conservative replacement for Scalia.
The Democrats went all in trying to lecture the Republicans on a bunch of high minded -- and completely made up -- principles about the Constitution, duty and doing the right thing. Their gamble was that they could guilt-trip the Republicans into taking action that the Democrats would never in a million years take if the positions were reversed.
Mitch McConnell made the fairly safe bet that by never letting a nominee get to the floor for a vote, it would take the heat off of vulnerable Republican Senators who would have voted "No" anyways.
Some people bet and won. Some people bet and lost. Both parties play stupid little games when it's time to replace a Supreme Court justice. They also try to pretend that they are upholding high and holy ideals, but every single one of them is lying. It's just round 115 of the same game of trying to get the Supreme Court on their side of politics.
Well Scalia gambled and list then the republicans needed to change the rules because they were having a coronary. They could have just allowed a vote on Garland but they couldn’t bring themselves out of their total panic.
Mitt isn’t up for re-election this year so he doesn’t have to waffle in hopes of picking up a few moderate votes.
I suspect he thinks Trump won’t be re-elected and maybe even that they lose the Senate. Ensuring a hard-right court will stifle anything a Dem President and Congress want to do for decades to come. Even if Republicans never control the other two branches again it won’t matter. He’s playing the long game.
Mitt isn’t up for re-election this year so he doesn’t have to waffle in hopes of picking up a few moderate votes.
I suspect he thinks Trump won’t be re-elected and maybe even that they lose the Senate. Ensuring a hard-right court will stifle anything a Dem President and Congress want to do for decades to come. Even if Republicans never control the other two branches again it won’t matter. He’s playing the long game.
You suspect wrong. Why would a Morman vote for a leftist nominated by a radical like Kamala Harris?
Romney represents Utah, where the majority of people are on the right and very anti abortion. Romney is not voting for Trump here, he's voting for a Justice to the court that has the same basic principles as his constituents. Rino or not, he's doing what he was elected to do.
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.
