Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
oh suuure she did. :eyeroll:
The seat isn't getting filled before the election. It will be a campaign issue. The problem is that even if Dems win the White House and the Senate, Republicans can still push someone through after the election is over.
This is such a sad, cold, callous and disrespectful response to her death and her last messge - I can't respond to this any further without being permabanned.
You really want conservatives to come out in droves on election day? That'll do it. No way they'll let another Obama take this country even further down. She did, after all, hate her country until her husband got elected.
She's not the emperor of Rome. She doesn't get to decided and make wishes on who takes her spot and when. Grow up already.
Of course she doesn’t get to decide. But she gets to express her feelings on her deathbed. Please try to be more respectful.
No there isn't. But the fact that they stole a USSC seat from Obama 5 years ago because it was an election year would make it for the same Senate majority leader to rush a nomination through 6 weeks before an election or in a lame duck session egregious.
I think the "legitimate" argument is really one of timing.
Hang on a second...You think she ACTUALLY said that? And even if she did, why air it out?
Can we have some talk in here without getting all emotional about it? You're the one who brought it up.
No way on God's Green Earth she said that. That's made up. I can almost 100% guarantee it.
Under that standard, there is also nothing keeping the Democrats from adding as many justices as they want if they win the Presidency and Senate right?
The Judiciary Act of 1869(1870?, something) sets the number of Justices. Another act of Congress can change it.
Well, that very well could be, but someone smart like Ginsburg who understand the Constitution wouldn't be so non-chalant about it like that. No way would she make an emotional appeal like that.
And that’s the quandary for me. I thought what happened with Gorsuch was despicable. And while I guess I shouldn’t have been, I was shocked by the complete lack of shame people had in defending McConnell’s actions there (particularly if they also defend his likely actions here without admitting the hypocrisy). But I really do try to be a principled person, so I’m having difficulty reaching a conclusion that Trump should be denied hearings on his nominee.
I'm not going to belabor the point with you any further, but needles to say you are incorrect in your assessment because you're all emotional right now.
Yes, we know it was legal. Doesn't mean it was appropriate or just.
Saying “who cares what she says on her deathbed?” mere hours after she died is disrespectful.
Well, the principle would be that "the rules changed", and the principled approach would be to play by the same rules.
It's all part of the game both sides play with each other. I would accept it for what it is.
I disagree, but maybe I could have said, "Who cares that she said that (if true)?". Of course people like her family care. I was talking about it from a political perspective.
Right I think this is the most likely scenario. However I don’t look at it as a problem
Dude - you asked.
They expect you to be hypocritical as they areDude - you asked.
And now you're going to roll your eyes? Why ask the question if all you wanted was the answer you wanted to hear?
I'm with you for sure. I posted in the other thread this was like a shovel to the face and I feel that for a multitude of different reasons.
I think everyone probably agrees that there is a line. A vacancy that comes up the week before the election should wait to be filled. 18 months would obviously be well outside the line. Probably most unbiased people agree Garland was far enough away to be outside the line and voted on. Where the line actually is...
