Ruth Bader Ginsburg passes away at 87

[St1ck]

Just now, Blarg said:

I didn't care one way or another and when the house holds up Trumps appiontment I will have the same intrest in it. The only satisfaction I would get is if Trump nominates a moderate that leans left and the Democrats try and defame that person, in essence sacrificing one of their own to prove a point. 

The house can't hold up a judge nomination. 

[Blarg]

2 minutes ago, Spin Rate said:

I'd be fine with Trump nominating a moderate, even if it exposed the Dems' hypocrisy, but no way he actually does that. 

He has several moderates on his list including several women judges. Extra juicy would the democrats tearing a woman to shreds in a public forum during this election cycle. The perfect optics to describe their party. 

[JarsOfClay]

We only need 3 more!

[Blarg]

1 minute ago, st1ckboy said:

The house can't hold up a judge nomination. 

Sorry, Senate. it matters not, the next few months are going to be far more entertaining than the MLB playoffs.

[St1ck]

Just now, JarsOfClay said:

We only need 3 more!

I can see Romney holding out. Collins is down in the polls right now, so I can see her sitting it out.

[Blarg]

1 minute ago, JarsOfClay said:

We only need 3 more!

Got to love the fair is fair call when neither is either fair or justified. It will be even better optics if Trump wins and the Democrats are going to eventually have to accept someone. 

[JarsOfClay]

I wonder if Romney, Collins follow Murkowski and refuse to replace RBG?

Grassley already said he wouldn't vote for a SC pick in 2020. I know he's lying though.

But that's 4.

[St1ck]

2 minutes ago, JarsOfClay said:

We only need 3 more!

Oh and that just says election day. Even if Trump loses he still has 2 months.

[Jason]

She was a tough woman. Sad to see her go out like this. Cancer sucks 

[Jason]

4 minutes ago, JarsOfClay said:

We only need 3 more!

Republicans set the precedence but they were stupid in doing what they did 

[fan_since79]

There will be no nomination until 2021. Sen. Murkowski has already announced she won't vote to confirm anyone until then, and I imagine there are a few more RINO's who will join her. They just won't have the votes to confirm anyone right now.

 

[Taylor]

10 minutes ago, JarsOfClay said:

We only need 3 more!

But even if the vote doesn't happen until after Nov. 3, and Biden wins, won't the Republican Senate just confirm Trump's nomination during his lame duck period?

[St1ck]

Just now, Spin Rate said:

But even if the vote doesn't happen until after Nov. 3, and Biden wins, won't the Republican Senate just confirm Trump's nomination during his lame duck period?

Yes. 

[JarsOfClay]

1 minute ago, Spin Rate said:

But even if the vote doesn't happen until after Nov. 3, and Biden wins, won't the Republican Senate just confirm Trump's nomination during his lame duck period?

Not if the Dems win the Senate.

[Taylor]

2 minutes ago, fan_since79 said:

There will be no nomination until 2021. Sen. Murkowski has already announced she won't vote to confirm anyone until then, and I imagine there are a few more RINO's who will join her. They just won't have the votes to confirm anyone right now.

 

Don't worry. There's still a good chance you'll get your 6-3 majority, and sexual harassment will become legal again.

[Taylor]

Just now, JarsOfClay said:

Not if the Dems win the Senate.

The incumbents retain their post until January, no?

[JarsOfClay]

Just now, Spin Rate said:

The incumbents retain their post until January, no?

Jan 3 yes, but I'm guessing she is saying she will only confirm if Trump wins re-election. That's just what I interpret it to be.

[St1ck]

1 minute ago, Spin Rate said:

The incumbents retain their post until January, no?

Yes. Want to know what is even shittier? One of the yes votes would be from McSally of Arizona, who looks to be in line for a second straight Senate race loss. So she could lose twice and would still get a vote for a Supreme Court Justice.

[Taylor]

4 minutes ago, JarsOfClay said:

Jan 3 yes, but I'm guessing she is saying she will only confirm if Trump wins re-election. That's just what I interpret it to be.

I like how we're all just assuming the majority of Republicans in the Senate will prove they have zero integrity by not holding up the confirmation in an election year. Because that's how nefarious they've become.

[UndertheHalo]

Blarg is right.  RBG should have stepped away on her own.  Obama should have rammed Garland down McConnells fucking throat with a recess appointment.  The Democrats are pathetic and weak and that’s why we have this situation.  Enough of the bullshit.  Accept the situation.  
 

now we’re at the mercy of Susan Collins or whatever.  Great and viable system ! 

[Blarg]

1 minute ago, Spin Rate said:

I like how we're all just assuming the majority of Republicans in the Senate will prove they have zero integrity by not holding up the confirmation in an election year. Because that's how nefarious they've become.

What?

You're spinning yourself dizzy. There is no need to hold up anything if a qualified candidate is chosen. 

[Taylor]

31 minutes ago, Blarg said:

As is your strike out looking. 

So I'm Mike Trout?

[JarsOfClay]

Just now, UndertheHalo said:

Blarg is right.  RBG should have stepped away on her own.  Obama should have rammed Garland down McConnells fucking throat with a recess appointment.  The Democrats are pathetic and weak and that’s why we have this situation.  Enough of the bullshit.  Accept the situation.  
 

now we’re at the mercy of Susan Collins or whatever.  Great and viable system ! 

Yep, Obama was a weak ass no spine piece of shit. I fucking hated his ass. It felt like McConnell was the President.

[Taylor]

Just now, Blarg said:

What?

You're spinning yourself dizzy. There is no need to hold up anything if a qualified candidate is chosen. 

So Merrick Garland wasn't qualified? Do you remember the Republicans' reason for holding up his confirmation? 

[Blarg]

I think we covered this already or do you have short term memory loss?