Kansas Crimson

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:02 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:52 am

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:47 am

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?

McConnell and the Republican Senate took unprecedented steps in refusing a vote for Obama's selection. THEY set this precedent. I dont think it's unreasonable to ask that they hold true to their own words or suffer being called out as hypocrites.

In a sense, they aren’t hypocrites at all, once you consider their only real tenet any more is owning the libs.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:56 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:23 pmtzaddik

Someone needs to ask Nina what exactly is this "teaching" she is referring to.


Yes, I realize the difference that in 2016 there was going to be a new President elected no matter what but.....

2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”
2018, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.”
2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term - I would say that if it was a Republican president.”
2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”
2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”
2016, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”
2016, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”
2016, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”
2016, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”
2016, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”
2016, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”

We'll see what they have to say in 2020

Oh trump. He is such an idiot....but this will undoubtedly rally some fringe people who were going to vote for biden to swing back to trump. How significant a number of people that is will be harder to predict.

Going go be a wild November/(December?)

twocoach wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:20 am We'll see what they have to say in 2020

Mitch has already twisted himself into a pretzel to justify his hypocrisy. I have no doubt that others would similarly follow.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/517 ... -vacancies

time for senate pubs to put their money where their mouth is

hypocrisy vs integrity

i won’t hold my breath

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:47 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:42 am 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.

This is remarkably facile.

To answer the first question - how about a better fucking country. They swear an oath to their country when sworn in, not their party.

As for the second paragraph, if they had set a precedent of not hearing a SC nominee nearly a year before the election, then yes, I would absolutely expect them to not hear a nominee less than two months before an election. Because both parties are not the same in terms of ethics and principles.

Not saying the Dems don't play politics and stretch the truth. But with the Republicans the last few years it is on an entirely different level. What have Dems done equivalent to this for you to say with such sureity that they would do the same thing?

Lindsey Graham proves he’s an excretory orifice

For the second (2nd) time in about seven (7) months, way too much rides on finding just a small handful of Republicans with a conscience. Last time they failed, and it potentially cost us a half million lives.

I do wonder if ramming a nominee through is a losing issue, electorally, for them. I’d imagine it would be horrifically unpopular outside the base of the base.

she was pronounced dead at 7:28pm.

Mitch announced he would confirm a Trump appointee at 8:51pm.

almost an hour and a half. surprising he even waited that long.

Trump rally in Fayetteville NC Trump rally today:

“Fill that seat! Fill that seat! Fill that seat!”

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:16 pm she was pronounced dead at 7:28pm.

Mitch announced he would confirm a Trump appointee at 8:51pm.

almost an hour and a half. surprising he even waited that long.

That is so disrepectful. Even if he thought it, there was no reason to say it.

I probably hate Mitch even more than Trump....and that is saying a lot. How those 2 are in positions of power in our country is sad as fuck.

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:48 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:16 pm she was pronounced dead at 7:28pm.

Mitch announced he would confirm a Trump appointee at 8:51pm.

almost an hour and a half. surprising he even waited that long.

That is so disrepectful. Even if he thought it, there was no reason to say it.

I probably hate Mitch even more than Trump....and that is saying a lot. How those 2 are in positions of power in our country is sad as fuck.

And there are those who run around claiming we live in the greatest democracy!

Old but interesting...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/opin ... llege.html

So on a practical level, hows this gonna play out?

If it was entirely up to Republicans they’d appoint, hear, and confirm by 5pm Monday.

But Dems are no doubt gonna drag this out, right? They request more hearings, more vetting, more time, (and also more digging for dirt), in hopes that a vote will maybe just not even happen in time for the election - or as precariously close to the election as possible?

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:22 am So on a practical level, hows this gonna play out?

If it was entirely up to Republicans they’d appoint, hear, and confirm by 5pm Monday.

But Dems are no doubt gonna drag this out, right? They request more hearings, more vetting, more time, (and also more digging for dirt), in hopes that a vote will maybe just not even happen in time for the election - or as precariously close to the election as possible?

I am not so sure you are right when it comes to republicans. There are numerous ones that actually have something to gain by NOT rushing this through.

CNN talked in depth about it yesterday. Some of their experts also think Trump has something to gain by not rushing it thru.

Guess we will have to wait and see.

To say the least, you and CNN are a lot more optimistic than I.