RIP RBG

[ousdahl]

The election is in 8 days.

16 million have already voted.

[Deleted User 310]

The election is in 8 days.

16 million have already voted.

It is what it is. Dems would have done the exact same thing. Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

[ousdahl]

I wouldn’t want Dems doing it either.

This shouldn’t be a game.

[twocoach]

Voters had the opportunity in the 2016 election to have a say in who gets to fill any Supreme Court seats that came open between January 2017 and January 2021. Sorry, but I actually agree with the 'Pubs on this one.

[Deleted User 310]

Voters had the opportunity in the 2016 election to have a say in who gets to fill any Supreme Court seats that came open between January 2017 and January 2021. Sorry, but I actually agree with the 'Pubs on this one.

I don't agree with it, i didn't agree with it in 2015, but i get it. Just like in 2015 when the republicans were hypocrites by trying to come up with an excuse for a reason not to vote on garland, the dems come off as hypocrites by pretending if the tables were turned they wouldn't be doing the exact thing republicans just did. Most of us feel like they would and i wouldn't blame them.

It sucks becuase the supreme court shouldn't be used like this and it shouldn't be a legislative arm that is so politically influenced....yet here we are. And now AOC and her squad want to make it even more politically influenced... i just don't agree with any of it. We are ruining our country right before our eyes. We are a relatively young country and shit could truly go in a bad direction (civil war type direction) in our lifetime or our kids lifetime if we don't repair some of the divisions within our country.

[zsn]

Voters had the opportunity in the 2016 election to have a say in who gets to fill any Supreme Court seats that came open between January 2017 and January 2021. Sorry, but I actually agree with the 'Pubs on this one.

But what about what the voters’ choice for openings between Jan 2013 and Jan 2017? Sorry, the Pubs are pubes. They just do what suits them, and alter the rules accordingly.

[dolomite2]

Elections have consequences

[Sparko]

Elections have consequences

Goddamned right. Have to kick the GOP to the curb forever.

[Deleted User 310]

Voters had the opportunity in the 2016 election to have a say in who gets to fill any Supreme Court seats that came open between January 2017 and January 2021. Sorry, but I actually agree with the 'Pubs on this one.

But what about what the voters’ choice for openings between Jan 2013 and Jan 2017? Sorry, the Pubs are pubes. They just do what suits them, and alter the rules accordingly.

Coming from the party with AOC vocally advocating to expand the courts now, that gives me a chuckle.

Both parties do whatever suits them. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[zsn]

Voters had the opportunity in the 2016 election to have a say in who gets to fill any Supreme Court seats that came open between January 2017 and January 2021. Sorry, but I actually agree with the 'Pubs on this one.

But what about what the voters’ choice for openings between Jan 2013 and Jan 2017? Sorry, the Pubs are pubes. They just do what suits them, and alter the rules accordingly.

Coming from the party with AOC vocally advocating to expand the courts now, that gives me a chuckle.

Both parties do whatever suits them. Nothing more. Nothing less.

There you go again with your bothsiderism. When was the last time the Dems stole one Supreme Court seat, let alone two?

No. Only one side wants to deny people healthcare and ability to make healthcare decisions for themselves and the ability to not turn their neighborhoods into toxic waste dumps.

[jhawks99]

But what about what the voters’ choice for openings between Jan 2013 and Jan 2017? Sorry, the Pubs are pubes. They just do what suits them, and alter the rules accordingly.

Coming from the party with AOC vocally advocating to expand the courts now, that gives me a chuckle.

Both parties do whatever suits them. Nothing more. Nothing less.

There you go again with your bothsiderism. When was the last time the Dems stole one Supreme Court seat, let alone two?

No. Only one side wants to deny people healthcare and ability to make healthcare decisions for themselves and the ability to not turn their neighborhoods into toxic waste dumps.

Well, to be fair, it's not their neighborhood they want to turn into a toxic waste zone. It's yours.

[Deleted User 310]

But what about what the voters’ choice for openings between Jan 2013 and Jan 2017? Sorry, the Pubs are pubes. They just do what suits them, and alter the rules accordingly.

Coming from the party with AOC vocally advocating to expand the courts now, that gives me a chuckle.

Both parties do whatever suits them. Nothing more. Nothing less.

There you go again with your bothsiderism. When was the last time the Dems stole one Supreme Court seat, let alone two?

No. Only one side wants to deny people healthcare and ability to make healthcare decisions for themselves and the ability to not turn their neighborhoods into toxic waste dumps.

Nobody "stole" anything.

[MICHHAWK]

It’s called the perks of winning.

[Sparko]

It will be called Karma soon MFers.

[zsn]

Illy- no matter how you spin it Mitch and his cabal stole the Merrick Garland nomination. In the end it would still have ended up being 5-4 Cons but there would have been a time when it would have been 5-4 the other way. I would have had no issues with ACB being rushed (her blatant incompetence notwithstanding) if there had been a Justice Garland.

To deny this fact is being ignorant, at best; hyper partisan at worst.

[Deleted User 310]

Illy- no matter how you spin it Mitch and his cabal stole the Merrick Garland nomination. In the end it would still have ended up being 5-4 Cons but there would have been a time when it would have been 5-4 the other way. I would have had no issues with ACB being rushed (her blatant incompetence notwithstanding) if there had been a Justice Garland.

To deny this fact is being ignorant, at best; hyper partisan at worst.

They didn't steal anything.

They could have just voted no on him and everything would still be the same.

Garland wasn't getting confirmed no matter what the method was for denying Obama that pick by the republicans. Dems didn't have enough votes in the senate to get him confirmed.

I don't agree with it, but that is the reality.

If trump/Republicans didn't have the senate the last 4 years then i don't think any of trumps picks would have been confirmed.

The game is broken.

[Deleted User 310]

Is John Roberts actually conservative or is it just because he was chosen by a conservative?

[twocoach]

Voters had the opportunity in the 2016 election to have a say in who gets to fill any Supreme Court seats that came open between January 2017 and January 2021. Sorry, but I actually agree with the 'Pubs on this one.

But what about what the voters’ choice for openings between Jan 2013 and Jan 2017? Sorry, the Pubs are pubes. They just do what suits them, and alter the rules accordingly.

Oh that we agree on. And if Biden did something to offset that travesty then I would have zero problem with it. I am speaking only about this particular situation.

[twocoach]

Elections have consequences

Yes they do and yes they will.

[Deleted User 310]

It is sad that nowadays it is a travesty when a president from the party you don't affiliate with picks a supreme court justice. The days of picks being confirmed with a large disparity in yes and no votes are long gone it appears.