Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dead At 87

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

[laylalex 7,285]

She hasn't even been buried yet. Have some restraint, both of you.  

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

i'm still wondering if she was counted as a covid-19 death.

[laylalex 7,285]

 

 

That's enough of this thread for me for a bit. I don't like seeing people's deaths treated as a punchline, especially when their families haven't even had a chance to bury them.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Would you prefer her prayers were answered by the OTHER guy?

 

Relax, I’m sure she’s laughing too.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Another key vote:

 

Quote

 

Trump's SCOTUS nominee committed to by Sen. Cory Gardner

'I will vote to confirm' Gardner said in a statement

 

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sen-cory-gardner-commits-to-confirming-trumps-scotus-nominee

 

👍

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

I might agree with dems but. I have watched a 3 year poetically motivated russian witch hunt, a absurdly stupid impeachment with no grounds.

And the Kavanaugh hearing was like watching a bad SNL skit while high as Florida on bubonic chronic. 

 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

11 hours ago, Ban Hammer said:

i'm still wondering if she was counted as a covid-19 death.

Hopefully when she votes she tells us.

[Dashinka 24,509]

8 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I might agree with dems but. I have watched a 3 year poetically motivated russian witch hunt, a absurdly stupid impeachment with no grounds.

And the Kavanaugh hearing was like watching a bad SNL skit while high as Florida on bubonic chronic. 

 

Do you agree with what the Dems say now, or what they said back in 2016?  You need to be specific as their message is 180 degrees different.  My feeling is simply this, a President is President for 4 years, and they have duties which is what President Obama did in 2016, and what President Trump should do now.  As to the Senate, whether they act on a nomination is completely up to them, and considering all politics are self-serving, they will do what is in their best interest now regardless of past precedent.  There is nothing Constitutionally that compels the Senate to act, and there are many instances of nominees either being left hanging (at least one other besides Garland), or being pulled, dropped or withdrawn due to politics.  Almost all of these happen when the President and the Senate are of different political parties.  I do agree with not confirming a nominee from a lame duck president, but even that flies in the face of a President being the President for a complete term.  Does anyone think that if the tables were turned and it was Hillary in office and the Dems controlled the Senate they would fast track a confirmation for RBG or anyone else?  As @KnoxThaimentioned, in 2016 McConnell rolled the dice, and won as all bets were on Hillary winning the election.  At that time, the People did speak and the GOP gained seats in the Senate as well as Donald Trump winning the election for President.  We will see what happens in less than two months, but with the threats coming from the Democrat leaders stating their long-term plans for maintaining power, I hope the People are listening.

[Crazy Cat 41,886]

9 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I might agree with dems but. I have watched a 3 year poetically motivated russian witch hunt, a absurdly stupid impeachment with no grounds.

And the Kavanaugh hearing was like watching a bad SNL skit while high as Florida on bubonic chronic. 

 

I see no reason for Trump to forgo his duties as President based on accusations by the most morally corrupt political party I have ever witnessed.  Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, Nadler, and others are ruthless, dishonest, lying snakes imo.  They knew, all along, that the "evidence" they were using were all lies.  Yet, they boasted of "irrefutable evidence" directly to our faces daily for months and months.  I hope they pay a steep political price in November.  We are going to see just how morally low these people can go.

 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

16 minutes ago, Lucky Cat said:

I see no reason for Trump to forgo his duties as President based on accusations by the most morally corrupt political party I have ever witnessed.  Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, Nadler, and others are ruthless, dishonest, lying snakes imo.  They knew, all along, that the "evidence" they were using were all lies.  Yet, they boasted of "irrefutable evidence" directly to our faces daily for months and months.  I hope they pay a steep political price in November.  We are going to see just how morally low these people can go.

 

exactly

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

In an utter shock, apparently Romney is trying to be more than a one-term Senator:

 

 

I still hope this doesn't stop a re-elected Trump from getting him primary'd.. 

 

If you want a good laugh, make sure to read the comments from upset Democrats (especially the media checkmarks who trashed him in 2012 but temporarily pretended to like him as he did what they wanted) who never supported the guy to begin with, but were just saying whatever to try and pressure him to tip over (which I can't blame them for as it usually works).

 

Conservative voters (even if shaky sometimes) take SCOTUS picks very seriously.. Murkowski likely believes she can weather this (from past attempts to primary her by her party), but if she trashes a second GOP SCOTUS seat in a row in 2 years (she didn't vote in the affirmative on Kavanaugh), when this comes down to a floor vote, I think she's done. Same with Collins, but Collins doesn't command moderates and independents the way Murkowski does. She still has a good chance if she has the backing of her voters, but if she abandons them to play to the left (she placated them far too much on Kavanaugh just to vote to confirm him in the end), she's done.. she will not get any more moderate/independent votes by placating them, and the left wouldn't vote for her anyways, so if she's smart she'll back the nominee on a floor vote. And we'll see where Manchin's polls are at, the guy always makes last second choices on high profile issues based entirely on that.

[Dashinka 24,509]

32 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

In an utter shock, apparently Romney is trying to be more than a one-term Senator:

 

 

I still hope this doesn't stop a re-elected Trump from getting him primary'd.. 

 

If you want a good laugh, make sure to read the comments from upset Democrats (especially the media checkmarks who trashed him in 2012 but temporarily pretended to like him as he did what they wanted) who never supported the guy to begin with, but were just saying whatever to try and pressure him to tip over (which I can't blame them for as it usually works).

 

Conservative voters (even if shaky sometimes) take SCOTUS picks very seriously.. Murkowski likely believes she can weather this (from past attempts to primary her by her party), but if she trashes a second GOP SCOTUS seat in a row in 2 years (she didn't vote in the affirmative on Kavanaugh), when this comes down to a floor vote, I think she's done. Same with Collins, but Collins doesn't command moderates and independents the way Murkowski does. She still has a good chance if she has the backing of her voters, but if she abandons them to play to the left (she placated them far too much on Kavanaugh just to vote to confirm him in the end), she's done.. she will not get any more moderate/independent votes by placating them, and the left wouldn't vote for her anyways, so if she's smart she'll back the nominee on a floor vote. And we'll see where Manchin's polls are at, the guy always makes last second choices on high profile issues based entirely on that.

I wonder if Murkowski and Collins would chose to vote Present.  As to the comments on Mit's feed, they are priceless.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

and from facebook
"Ultimate troll move: Trump nominates Kamala Harris for Supreme Court Justice."

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

10 hours ago, Dashinka said:

As to the comments on Mit's feed, they are priceless.

These comments are almost as good as the comments in this thread: