Ginsberg

[Jim2Dokes 3]

That’s a very interesting reference.

While some people may argue that the National Review is a partisan right-wing source, the writing tends to be done on a scholarly rather than emotional level, well-researched and well-presented.

I suspect the Times and the Post will be publishing their own well-researched and well-presented views as well.

 

Methinks more protestations this way cometh.

 

4 republicans said they won’t vote before the election which is a smart move considering that a few are going to lose in Nov. and this could make it worse. However, I do see a vote after the election, if all stands as current with the polls there will be a few outed republicans that will have to make a moral decision on there way out, Susan Collins being the biggest.

[Kelly Gruene 26]

4 republicans said they won’t vote before the election which is a smart move considering that a few are going to lose in Nov. and this could make it worse. However, I do see a vote after the election, if all stands as current with the polls there will be a few outed republicans that will have to make a moral decision on there way out, Susan Collins being the biggest.

 

Collins looks like she’ll lose.

All of them just have to decide if they want a judge that’s on the conservative side or a judge appointed by Harris-Biden. Biden’s reluctance to release a list of candidates he would choose from for the Court May come back to bite him hard. Now he may have to release a list and that may be even worse for him.

The senators, winning or losing, just have to decide what they think is best for the country. Is that a moral decision?

Separately, I wonder if Harris would rather be on the Supreme Court.

 

From the National Review article linked earlier, it looks like historical precedent lies with the Republicans. I’m sure the arguments will be loud, forceful, and divisive. Hopefully peaceful too, but if the last three months are any indication, ‘peaceful’ may just be in the eye of the beholder and television commentator.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Kelly Gruene

[jessemoore97 1,279]

That’s a very interesting reference.

While some people may argue that the National Review is a partisan right-wing source, the writing tends to be done on a scholarly rather than emotional level, well-researched and well-presented.

I suspect the Times and the Post will be publishing their own well-researched and well-presented views as well.

 

Methinks more protestations this way cometh.

 

That's generally the way to go, present the historical facts of the matter. Getting people to read it is another story especially in our current society where many have the attention span of gnat.

[Jim2Dokes 3]

Collins looks like she’ll lose.

All of them just have to decide if they want a judge that’s on the conservative side or a judge appointed by Harris-Biden. Biden’s reluctance to release a list of candidates he would choose from for the Court May come back to bite him hard. Now he may have to release a list and that may be even worse for him.

The senators, winning or losing, just have to decide what they think is best for the country. Is that a moral decision?

Separately, I wonder if Harris would rather be on the Supreme Court.

 

From the National Review article linked earlier, it looks like historical precedent lies with the Republicans. I’m sure the arguments will be loud, forceful, and divisive. Hopefully peaceful too, but if the last three months are any indication, ‘peaceful’ may just be in the eye of the beholder and television commentator.

 

Oh they’ll vote and democrats would do the same. I don’t think any reasonable logical person would think otherwise. It just won’t be in their best interest to do it before the election since there are already so many republicans desperately trying to hold their seat. Even the Alaska senotot who’s not even running for a few more years is not going to vote until after the electron. Then they will have to make the decision on their way out if they vote or not. Collins could just say f it I’m done and not be apart of it for example.

[Synoptico 334]

Oh they’ll vote and democrats would do the same. I don’t think any reasonable logical person would think otherwise. It just won’t be in their best interest to do it before the election since there are already so many republicans desperately trying to hold their seat. Even the Alaska senotot who’s not even running for a few more years is not going to vote until after the electron. Then they will have to make the decision on their way out if they vote or not. Collins could just say f it I’m done and not be apart of it for example.

 

I would have no problem with republicans voting if they didnt pull the BS they did with Gardland. Scalia passed away in Feb, yet that was too close to the election.

 

the hypocrisy kills me.

[Jim2Dokes 3]

I would have no problem with republicans voting if they didnt pull the BS they did with Gardland. Scalia passed away in Feb, yet that was too close to the election.

 

the hypocrisy kills me.

 

That’s why they posted the national review article, which I don’t disagree with that point. I also don’t disagree with your point. Scott Walker sent every Wisconsin parent $100 a few months before he got booted out and cries about socialism everyday for example. Hypocrisy is what the right does best.

[Synoptico 334]

That’s why they posted the national review article, which I don’t disagree with that point. I also don’t disagree with your point. Scott Walker sent every Wisconsin parent $100 a few months before he got booted out and cries about socialism everyday for example. Hypocrisy is what the right does best.

 

To be clear i would have issues with either party doing it.

[Jim2Dokes 3]

To be clear i would have issues with either party doing it.

 

I didn’t misinterpret, I got you. That’s just the way the game goes unfortunately.

[jessemoore97 1,279]

I would have no problem with republicans voting if they didnt pull the BS they did with Gardland. Scalia passed away in Feb, yet that was too close to the election.

 

the hypocrisy kills me.

 

In what way is it hypocrisy? And remember the Dems under Harry Reid nulified the filibuster and the 60 votes required to pass a nominee, instead deciding a simple majority vote would suffice. This was done despite repeated warnings from the right about the damage that could be inflicted. They never thought she would lose and were too shortsighted to see their schemes turned back against them. New rules, their rules, don't hate the player hate the game.

[Jim2Dokes 3]

In what way is it hypocrisy? And remember the Dems under Harry Reid nulified the filibuster and the 60 votes required to pass a nominee, instead deciding a simple majority vote would suffice. This was done despite repeated warnings from the right about the damage that could be inflicted. They never thought she would lose and were too shortsighted to see their schemes turned back against them. New rules, their rules, don't hate the player hate the game.

 

No, they used that option because the republicans used the filibuster 500 times, 135 more times than had ever been done in the history of the USA. But yes, the game. In which, the Dems will certainly play sooner or later and you won’t like it. So, in the end what’s the point of enjoying it when regular citizens are always the losers?

[jessemoore97 1,279]

No, they used that option because the republicans used the filibuster 500 times, 135 more times than had ever been done in the history of the USA. But yes, the game. In which, the Dems will certainly play sooner or later and you won’t like it. So, in the end what’s the point of enjoying it when regular citizens are always the losers?

 

Regular citizen here. I'm enjoying keeping my rights.

[Jim2Dokes 3]

Regular citizen here. I'm enjoying keeping my rights.

Not to get personal, but context matters with our debate here.

I thought you were police? Govt employee, govt healthcare, govt pension and all that? No? You make “civilian arrests”?

[Jim2Dokes 3]

Interesting development

 

“For weeks, I have stated that I would not support taking up a potential Supreme Court vacancy this close to the election. Sadly, what was then a hypothetical is now our reality, but my position has not changed," the Alaska Republican said in a statement.

"I did not support taking up a nomination eight months before the 2016 election to fill the vacancy created by the passing of Justice Scalia. We are now even closer to the 2020 election -- less than two months out -- and I believe the same standard must apply."

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/09/20/politics/lisa-murkowski-supreme-court-election-day/index.html

 

 

Meanwhile: “If there’s a Supreme Court opening in the “last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait ’til the next election” to confirm a new justice, Graham swore in a 2018 Atlantic interview featured in the ad.

 

If he ever contradicted that vow, “I want you to use my words against me,” Graham challenged the media and the public.“

 

Lol yeah standard issue politician there.

Edited September 20, 2020 by Jim2Dokes

[jessemoore97 1,279]

Not to get personal, but context matters with our debate here.

I thought you were police? Govt employee, govt healthcare, govt pension and all that? No? You make “civilian arrests”?

 

And all of the above has absolutely zero to do with the Constitutional rights afforded to me as a citizen of the United States. As a citizen I certainly want SCOTUS picks who adhere to those rights while presiding over cases. The officers involved in George Floyd's death, for instance, have the right to a fair trial like other citizens.

[jbrown_9999 1,020]

Not to get personal, but context matters with our debate here.

I thought you were police? Govt employee, govt healthcare, govt pension and all that? No? You make “civilian arrests”?

 

Are we now limiting who can call themselves a "regular citizen"?

 

If so, please let me know who does not qualify?