RIP RBG

[twocoach]

I sincerely hope that there are four Republican Senators who have the decency and integrity to resist Moscow Mitch’s naked power grab. If Mitch succeeds it would be the end of SCOTUS’ legitimacy.

Also Dems should just expand the Court to 15 justices and seat an additional 6 justices.

Sorry, but if anyone thinks any congressional Republicans have any morals, it has been proven over and over for the last 4 years to not be the case.

We're about to watch women's rights be rolled back 50 years. After they overturn Roe vs. Wade, it will no longer be the say of a woman as to whether or not she will be giving birth. After that, if a man manages to impregnate a woman, whether she was OK with it or not, she will have no choice but to give birth.

An unborn child who is not yet a citizen of the United States will have more rights than a female citizen of the Unites States. Because "The Church".

This is a truly sad day for America.

[Deleted User 310]

I sincerely hope that there are four Republican Senators who have the decency and integrity to resist Moscow Mitch’s naked power grab. If Mitch succeeds it would be the end of SCOTUS’ legitimacy.

Also Dems should just expand the Court to 15 justices and seat an additional 6 justices.

Sorry, but if anyone thinks any congressional Republicans have any morals, it has been proven over and over for the last 4 years to not be the case.

We're about to watch women's rights be rolled back 50 years. After they overturn Roe vs. Wade, it will no longer be the say of a woman as to whether or not she will be giving birth. After that, if a man manages to impregnate a woman, whether she was OK with it or not, she will have no choice but to give birth.

An unborn child who is not yet a citizen of the United States will have more rights than a female citizen of the Unites States. Because "The Church".

This is a truly sad day for America.

4 republican senators already publicly said they won't confirm before the election.

So take a deep breath.

Also, do you have any proof that the current supreme court justices would vote to take away women's right to choose in the ways you are alleging?

[twocoach]

I sincerely hope that there are four Republican Senators who have the decency and integrity to resist Moscow Mitch’s naked power grab. If Mitch succeeds it would be the end of SCOTUS’ legitimacy.

Also Dems should just expand the Court to 15 justices and seat an additional 6 justices.

Sorry, but if anyone thinks any congressional Republicans have any morals, it has been proven over and over for the last 4 years to not be the case.

We're about to watch women's rights be rolled back 50 years. After they overturn Roe vs. Wade, it will no longer be the say of a woman as to whether or not she will be giving birth. After that, if a man manages to impregnate a woman, whether she was OK with it or not, she will have no choice but to give birth.

An unborn child who is not yet a citizen of the United States will have more rights than a female citizen of the Unites States. Because "The Church".

This is a truly sad day for America.

4 republican senators already publicly said they won't confirm before the election.

So take a deep breath.

I'll believe it when I see it.

[Deleted User 310]

You are so dramatic.

But have no problem with the comment "dems should just expand the court to 15 so they can add 6"?

Would you feel similar if it was republicans adding 6 seats? Doubt it.

[twocoach]

You are so dramatic.

But have no problem with the comment "dems should just expand the court to 15 so they can add 6"?

Would you feel similar if it was republicans adding 6 seats? Doubt it.

Who are the four Republican senators who have stated that they will not vote on confirmation before the election?

Edit: I found one from Murkowski

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/lisa-m ... rt-nominee

[Deleted User 310]

You are so dramatic.

But have no problem with the comment "dems should just expand the court to 15 so they can add 6"?

Would you feel similar if it was republicans adding 6 seats? Doubt it.

Who are the four Republican senators who have stated that they will not vote on confirmation before the election?

Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Mitt Romney, Chuck Grassley, and potentially Lindsay Graham (although his comments came in 2018, and there have been statements made since the Kavanaugh drama that muddy his stance a bit...and now Romney's camp isn't really saying 1 way or the other this morning, but that feels like a calculated move to not show their hand too early).


Also, not surprised you chose not to answer the question about adding more seats.

[Deleted User 310]

Twocoach...

Read this article.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... mp/613642/

Just because a justice is conservative doesn't automatically mean they want to overturn roe v wade or take away women's abortion rights. This is why it is hard to take you seriously at times. Some have literally voted in ways that would be opposite of what you claim they will do simply based on who appointed them or whether you view them as "conservative" or not.

Like it says in the article, Justices shouldn't be arms of a political party. And i am glad they are showing not to be thru their decisions.

It doesn't mean they will never vote in ways you don't like....but it should help ease your concerns that they just do whatever trump says. Trump is an idiot, when he said he will nominate people who will automatically overturn roe v wade (or whatever he said along those lines) he was wrong. As usual.

[ousdahl]

In this edition of “republican profiles in courage...”

For real though what do gop senators have to gain by not voting in lock step?

Where were these guys 8 months ago?

[Deleted User 310]

In this edition of “republican profiles in courage...”

For real though what do gop senators have to gain by not voting in lock step?

Where were these guys 8 months ago?

What does anyone ever have to gain by not voting in lock step with their party?

Although it is sort of interesting to watch all of this unfold...as dems would have had no issue if they had senate majority and it was a dem president's nomination to the court with only a few months before the election. Both sides are so transparent.

[ousdahl]

Oh so you’re going with a “both sides” argument - when have Dems done this then?

Bear in mind, it was ol’ Cocaine Mitch himself who changed the rules on senate votes for court nominees to a simple majority vote instead of the original supermajority that the founding fathers established, so as to prevent partisanship among the Supreme Court...

[twocoach]

Twocoach...

Read this article.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... mp/613642/

Just because a justice is conservative doesn't automatically mean they want to overturn roe v wade or take away women's abortion rights. This is why it is hard to take you seriously at times. Some have literally voted in ways that would be opposite of what you claim they will do simply based on who appointed them or whether you view them as "conservative" or not.

Like it says in the article, Justices shouldn't be arms of a political party. And i am glad they are showing not to be thru their decisions.

It doesn't mean they will never vote in ways you don't like....but it should help ease your concerns that they just do whatever trump says. Trump is an idiot.

Oh, no, Illy can't take me seriously. The horror.

I'll be OK.

I never thought this was about them just "doing what Trump tells them". But 6-3 is 6-3. And if another Federalist Society appointment, it just gets that much more likely.

[twocoach]

In this edition of “republican profiles in courage...”

For real though what do gop senators have to gain by not voting in lock step?

Where were these guys 8 months ago?

What does anyone ever have to gain by not voting in lock step with their party?

Although it is sort of interesting to watch all of this unfold...as dems would have had no issue if they had senate majority and it was a dem president's nomination to the court with only a few months before the election. Both sides are so transparent.

I love when you create an alternate reality, declare it to be fact with nothing to support it and then finger wag for it.

[ousdahl]

“And the Court will likely continue to hear cases about incremental restrictions on abortion rights.”

I think the strategy all along was and is, rather then a blanket overturn of Roe, to go for the death by a thousand cuts.

[ousdahl]

tzaddik

[Deleted User 310]

In this edition of “republican profiles in courage...”

For real though what do gop senators have to gain by not voting in lock step?

Where were these guys 8 months ago?

What does anyone ever have to gain by not voting in lock step with their party?

Although it is sort of interesting to watch all of this unfold...as dems would have had no issue if they had senate majority and it was a dem president's nomination to the court with only a few months before the election. Both sides are so transparent.

I love when you create an alternate reality, declare it to be fact with nothing to support it and then finger wag for it.

Dems spoke out and were against Obama making an appointment during his final year?

Got any links?

[Deleted User 310]

“And the Court will likely continue to hear cases about incremental restrictions on abortion rights.”

I think the strategy all along was and is, rather then a blanket overturn of Roe, to go for the death by a thousand cuts.

So far it hasn't been.

The strategy that came straight out of trumps mouth was automatically overturn....and he was wrong.

[Deleted User 310]

Twocoach...

Read this article.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... mp/613642/

Just because a justice is conservative doesn't automatically mean they want to overturn roe v wade or take away women's abortion rights. This is why it is hard to take you seriously at times. Some have literally voted in ways that would be opposite of what you claim they will do simply based on who appointed them or whether you view them as "conservative" or not.

Like it says in the article, Justices shouldn't be arms of a political party. And i am glad they are showing not to be thru their decisions.

It doesn't mean they will never vote in ways you don't like....but it should help ease your concerns that they just do whatever trump says. Trump is an idiot.

Oh, no, Illy can't take me seriously. The horror.

I'll be OK.

I never thought this was about them just "doing what Trump tells them". But 6-3 is 6-3. And if another Federalist Society appointment, it just gets that much more likely.

So should there be 6 more justices?

Or only if it is a Dem choosing them?

[Cascadia]

It’s threads like this that confirm Illy is a Trumper

[twocoach]

Twocoach...

Read this article.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... mp/613642/

Just because a justice is conservative doesn't automatically mean they want to overturn roe v wade or take away women's abortion rights. This is why it is hard to take you seriously at times. Some have literally voted in ways that would be opposite of what you claim they will do simply based on who appointed them or whether you view them as "conservative" or not.

Like it says in the article, Justices shouldn't be arms of a political party. And i am glad they are showing not to be thru their decisions.

It doesn't mean they will never vote in ways you don't like....but it should help ease your concerns that they just do whatever trump says. Trump is an idiot.

Oh, no, Illy can't take me seriously. The horror.

I'll be OK.

I never thought this was about them just "doing what Trump tells them". But 6-3 is 6-3. And if another Federalist Society appointment, it just gets that much more likely.

So should there be 6 more justices?

Or only if it is a Dem choosing them?

I have no idea if that is even an option legally so I dont have an opinion on it until I read more about it from people who do know.

[twocoach]

So has anyone else seen an actual statement from a Republican Senator besides Murkowski stating that they would not support a vote on this before the election? Illy claims that four have stated as much, I would like to see who those other three are and read their statements and the context in which they were provided.