Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed away

[golfballs]

... but Senate Republicans refused to take up a vote the last time it happened. In doing so, they allowed the seat to remain vacant for more than a year.

*except for divided government. This time it’s a Republican President and Senate

 

[0nelilreb]

The best way to handle this really would be for Trump to nominate Merrick Garland... but that won't happen.

I don’t think he will either .

 

[BowlBrother85]

how about Bork?

Bork got a vote. Not the same thing.

 

[AirVol]

... but Senate Republicans refused to take up a vote the last time it happened. In doing so, they allowed the seat to remain vacant for more than a year.

Thanks to black eye Harry.

 

[volfanjustin]

It's definitely coming

I would guess within a week, pressure is then on Mitch

 

[1972 Grad]

That's the first time I've ever seen a hint of humanity from him. And It didn't appear to be sarcastic.

I take it you didn't see him at the Trump Town Hall with Stephanopolous, when he was talking to the woman from another country, who recently lost her mother. I take it you didn't see him at a couple of his rallies, stopping his speech, and calling for a doctor for someone in the crowd with a medical problem.

 

[AM64]

Good

Yes, but dims will absolutely torpedo the confirmation process.

 

[BowlBrother85]

*except for divided government. This time it’s a Republican President and Senate

Senate Republicans didn't make any such qualifications for not taking up a vote on Garland. They simply said that a lame duck president shouldn't be nominating Supreme Court Justices.

 

[1972 Grad]

The problem with people like RGB is they stick around too long and it diminishes their accomplishments.

Very few go out like Jim Brown, Byron Nelson, and Bobby Jones.

 

[1972 Grad]

Tonight's installment of "there's always a tweet"

That looks like a July of 2016 tweet,

 

[luthervol]

Now wait a minute , You guys have spent 4 years tying Trump to more degrees than Kevin Bacon has, so I would say all the cosmic injustices you’ve noticed would be tied to Trump and directly opposed to the lefts agenda . This is where we come full circle and have to look in the mirror . Is it really that bad or is it just the reflection i see that has the problem . Why is it that the Rs just want a constitutionalist to be appointed, and the left is unhappy that a constitutionalist judge could be appointed .

What? I'm not following the conversation.

 

[Rickyvol77]

Politics is king, and the Republicans will push this through...just like Dems would if the situation was reversed

 

[1972 Grad]

He was somewhat justified on this one. Her comments were out of line.

Trump only attacks after he has been attacked. He is a counter puncher.

 

[85SugarVol]

I was wrong. They are on course to raise close to $100 million tonight.

But what are they gonna do with it? Run attack ads? What’s that gonna do? Honestly, I’m not sure what any amount of money buys you here.

 

[GAVol]

Politics is king, and the Republicans will push this through...just like Dems would if the situation was reversed

Absolutely

 

[NCFisher]

define "far right"

Far right: Doesn’t believe the constitution should modified in a craps game by Democrats wagering other peoples money.

 

[AM64]

Gay marriage is not a left a right question but simply a question of do two consenting adults have the right to establish a relationship they both agreed to. Whether the left and right political ideologies agree on that Is immaterial. Marriage is a societal and/or religious construct that government has no business licensing, permitting, or not permitting.

Again, we need constitutionalists, not political catering.

It will always in the end be a legal thing though. For example, income tax and the definition of filing as married or two singles. Family medical coverage - husband/wife and spouse - still bound to be a legal challenge even if marriage is deemed societal and religious.

 

[golfballs]

Senate Republicans didn't make any such qualifications for not taking up a vote on Garland. They simply said that a lame duck president shouldn't be nominating Supreme Court Justices.

Why would a Republican Senate confirm a Lib for SCOTUS? Do you pay attention to Dem votes on Republican judicial appointments? Quit being naive

 

[Rickyvol77]

It will always in the end be a legal thing though. For example, income tax and the definition of filing as married or two singles. Family medical coverage - husband/wife and spouse - still bound to be a legal challenge even if marriage is deemed societal and religious.

which is why Repubs should've passed the civil union protections and there never would have been a "gay marriage" issue

 

[0nelilreb]

What? I'm not following the conversation.

Which part? The cosmic injustice because maybe I’m on the wrong side , or the Rs want a constitutionalist and the liberals aren’t happy with that possibility , because they are on the wrong side ? I thought it was easy to follow .

 

[1972 Grad]

So, assuming hypothetically that the nominee will be a woman, what will be the Democrats' Avenue of attack?

Religion.

 

[golfballs]

Senate Republicans didn't make any such qualifications for not taking up a vote on Garland. They simply said that a lame duck president shouldn't be nominating Supreme Court Justices.

Oh

 

[golfballs]

Thanks Harry!

 

[BowlBrother85]

Why would a Republican Senate confirm a Lib for SCOTUS? Do you pay attention to Dem votes on Republican judicial appointments? Quit being naive

This didn't become such a political process until recently. A Democratic controlled Senate confirmed Clarence Thomas even though he had been accused of sexually harassing Anita Hill. A Republican controlled Senate confirmed RBG by a 96-4 vote. Quit being so damn ignorant.

 

[1972 Grad]

She is not a lawyer.

Not a big fan of her, but not being a lawyer shouldn't matter. They don't rule on the law anyway, but on their political leanings.