RBG has Cancer...Again

[BDKJMU]

[UNI88]

They won’t. They’ll ignore their own hypocrisy. This is politics.

There’s one big difference. In 2016 we KNEW we’d have a different president, because Obama was done.

That’s not the case here. That being said, I don’t think there’s any way they can push a candidate through with a vote prior to the election.

But the histrionics of liberals on FB and twitter is fucking comical. “I’m terrified”. “I fear for our country’s future”...”I’ve never been so afraid for our country”.... What in the actual fuck?

There are differences but there also enough similarities that there will be an element of hypocrisy if Trump and McConnell try to push a nomination through.

[SeattleGriz]

There’s one big difference. In 2016 we KNEW we’d have a different president, because Obama was done.

That’s not the case here. That being said, I don’t think there’s any way they can push a candidate through with a vote prior to the election.

But the histrionics of liberals on FB and twitter is fucking comical. “I’m terrified”. “I fear for our country’s future”...”I’ve never been so afraid for our country”.... What in the actual fuck?

There are differences but there also enough similarities that there will be an element of hypocrisy if Trump and McConnell try to push a nomination through.

Leave Trump out of it. He would be doing the job he was elected to do. This solely rests on the Senate.

Harry Reid set this up by getting rid of the filibuster. Now you don't need any buy in from the other side. If the filibuster was in, the Dems wouldn't be sweating this.

[UNI88]

There are differences but there also enough similarities that there will be an element of hypocrisy if Trump and McConnell try to push a nomination through.

Leave Trump out of it. He would be doing the job he was elected to do. This solely rests on the Senate.

Harry Reid set this up by getting rid of the filibuster. Now you don't need any buy in from the other side. If the filibuster was in, the Dems wouldn't be sweating this.

Lil' Donny could show some leadership by stating that nominating a replacement would further divide an already dividing country so he will hold off on nominating a replacement until after he is re-elected. Or isn't he the leader of the whole country?

[SDHornet]

RIP RBG. She leaves a lasting legacy even if one disagrees with her decisions. Thoughts and prayers to her family.



It the votes are there and procedurally there is enough time to get a selection through, then the conks need to do grow a pair of balls and do it. Put the shoe on the other foot and you can guarantee a donk POTUS and donk majority Senate ram through a liberal judge. Elections have consequences after all.

[SDHornet]

[SeattleGriz]

Leave Trump out of it. He would be doing the job he was elected to do. This solely rests on the Senate.

Harry Reid set this up by getting rid of the filibuster. Now you don't need any buy in from the other side. If the filibuster was in, the Dems wouldn't be sweating this.

Lil' Donny could show some leadership by stating that nominating a replacement would further divide an already dividing country so he will hold off on nominating a replacement until after he is re-elected. Or isn't he the leader of the whole country?

Isn't that why we have elected officials? To represent the whole country? If the Dems don't like the candidate, they can vote no.

[SeattleGriz]

RIP RBG. She leaves a lasting legacy even if one disagrees with her decisions. Thoughts and prayers to her family.



It the votes are there and procedurally there is enough time to get a selection through, then the conks need to do grow a pair of balls and do it. Put the shoe on the other foot and you can guarantee a donk POTUS and donk majority Senate ram through a liberal judge. Elections have consequences after all.

You bet they would. If these last four years have been an indicator of how the Dems act, they would have NO hesitancy in ramming someone through...then blaming Trump.

[SDHornet]

RIP RBG. She leaves a lasting legacy even if one disagrees with her decisions. Thoughts and prayers to her family.



It the votes are there and procedurally there is enough time to get a selection through, then the conks need to do grow a pair of balls and do it. Put the shoe on the other foot and you can guarantee a donk POTUS and donk majority Senate ram through a liberal judge. Elections have consequences after all.

You bet they would. If these last four years have been an indicator of how the Dems act, they would have NO hesitancy in ramming someone through...then blaming Trump.

They are already threatening to riot (again) if the Senate does its job and confirms a Trump selection.

[SDHornet]

[SDHornet]

Another tweet that aged well.

[SeattleGriz]

Absolutely shameless display of hypocrisy by the Democrats on display. Everything they said about the need to get their nominee in place has all changed now that Trump is the one nominating.

[BDKJMU]

Amy Coney Barrett.

And let the donks go apeshit.

[UNI88]

"Democracy dies in Darkness" Indeed

Headline after Scalia died vs. the headline after Ginsburg passing.

Lesson: want better headlines? Don’t be a dick.

I guess you're fvcked1

[JohnStOnge]

Yeah I figured when I saw the "P" word (pancreatic) this last time the jig was up for her. Two years ago I'd have unreservedly seen the appointment of three conservative justices as a silver lining to the nightmare of having Trump as President. Now I'm a little concerned because of that extreme Unitary Executive"philosophy I've come to see as associated with what we call the conservative movement. You know...the one Barr espouses. I don't want Supreme Court Justices that embrace that outlook and I hope the two Trump already got on the court as well as the one he's about to get on the court don't. To me that's a very dangerous philosophy.

[UNI88]

Absolutely shameless display of hypocrisy by both parties on display. Everything they said about the need to get their nominee in place/wait for the election has all changed now that the other party is the one nominating.

FYP

[JohnStOnge]

Amy Coney Barrett.

And let the donks go apeshit.

The Democrats are eventually going to assume complete control. The handwriting is on the wall. If it doesn't happen this year it is still going to happen relatively soon in historical context. And when they do they are not going to tolerate a "conservative" Supreme Court. They will do what's necessary to eliminate that. Have your fun while you can.

[UNI88]

‘Change the rules’? You mean like when Reid put forth the nuclear option?

Read BDK’s post above as to why this is McIntosh Apples and Red Delicious Apples.

Yep. McIntosh Apples to Red Delicious Apples.

FYP

[AZGrizFan]

There are differences but there also enough similarities that there will be an element of hypocrisy if Trump and McConnell try to push a nomination through.

Leave Trump out of it. He would be doing the job he was elected to do. This solely rests on the Senate.

Harry Reid set this up by getting rid of the filibuster. Now you don't need any buy in from the other side. If the filibuster was in, the Dems wouldn't be sweating this.

The other big difference in ‘16 was a Dem president and R senate. That’s obviously not the case now.

If the shoe were on the other foot, and it was a Dem President and a Dem senate you goddamned know they’d be ramming through another candidate...anyone who says otherwise is 100% full of shit.

[GannonFan]

The beauty of politics is you can say one side is being hypocritical without facing the reality that the other side is just as hypocritical. In 2016 the GOP was saying they didn't want a nominee in an election year and of course now they are saying they're good with it - hypocritical. In 2016, the Dems were saying it was right and proper for the President to nominate someone to fill the opening, even in an election year, and now they are saying to do so would be to destroy democracy - hypocritical as well. IMO, the GOP did themselves no favor by not having a vote on Garland in 2016 - of course they weren't going to confirm him, but better to let it go to a vote and the let Obama nominate another and vote that one down and so on. That would've been the proper exercising of the advise and consent power.

On a different note, though, it's certainly sad to see RBG go - she was an excellent jurist and the type of person we need on the Court, no matter which way they lean. Like Scalia before her, the Court is better with top-notch justices. We still have some on the Court now, but we're certainly down one now.

[SeattleGriz]

Amy Coney Barrett.

And let the donks go apeshit.

The Democrats are eventually going to assume complete control. The handwriting is on the wall. If it doesn't happen this year it is still going to happen relatively soon in historical context. And when they do they are not going to tolerate a "conservative" Supreme Court. They will do what's necessary to eliminate that. Have your fun while you can.

D1B. Your stuff never gets old.

[kalm]

The beauty of politics is you can say one side is being hypocritical without facing the reality that the other side is just as hypocritical. In 2016 the GOP was saying they didn't want a nominee in an election year and of course now they are saying they're good with it - hypocritical. In 2016, the Dems were saying it was right and proper for the President to nominate someone to fill the opening, even in an election year, and now they are saying to do so would be to destroy democracy - hypocritical as well. IMO, the GOP did themselves no favor by not having a vote on Garland in 2016 - of course they weren't going to confirm him, but better to let it go to a vote and the let Obama nominate another and vote that one down and so on. That would've been the proper exercising of the advise and consent power.

On a different note, though, it's certainly sad to see RBG go - she was an excellent jurist and the type of person we need on the Court, no matter which way they lean. Like Scalia before her, the Court is better with top-notch justices. We still have some on the Court now, but we're certainly down one now.

You mean to tell me some politicians are acting hypocritical and unprincipled?

Is there a constitutional argument regarding how long they have to confirm? What if RBG has retired around the Garland time?

[89Hen]

Amy Coney Barrett.

And let the donks go apeshit.

The Democrats are eventually going to assume complete control. The handwriting is on the wall. If it doesn't happen this year it is still going to happen relatively soon in historical context. And when they do they are not going to tolerate a "conservative" Supreme Court. They will do what's necessary to eliminate that. Have your fun while you can.

You sure hope so. Everyone is fawning over the legacy of RBG. She was a firm believer in the SCOTUS rewriting the Constitution.

[BDKJMU]

Trump announces during Fayetteville, NC rally that he will be submitting a female nominee next week..

I’m calling it now: Amy Coney Barrett.

[89Hen]

Trump announces during Fayetteville, NC rally that he will be submitting a female nominee next week..

I’m calling it now: Amy Coney Barrett.

Really going out on a limb there B.