Should the Senate vote on a new Supreme Court Justice before the inauguration?

[Taylor]

Have at it, libs and cons.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Spin Rate

[arch stanton]

Anyone interested in principles beyond short-term self interest should want the nomination and vote to happen

[Taylor]

5 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

Anyone interested in principles beyond short-term self interest should want the nomination and vote to happen

I believe the opposite but for the same reason.

[Lhalo]

You poll is gay AF. 

[arch stanton]

6 minutes ago, Spin Rate said:

I believe the opposite but for the same reason.

So you didn't want the Obama nomination to be voted on, either?

[Lou]

3 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

So you didn't want the Obama nomination to be voted on, either?

Of course not!

[JarsOfClay]

1 hour ago, arch stanton said:

Anyone interested in principles beyond short-term self interest should want the nomination and vote to happen

Republicans threw principles out the window when they blocked Garland. Now that they are faced with the same predicament, they have to follow the precedent they established.

They can't have it both ways.

[Jason]

i don’t think we need mediabiasfactcheck to determine slant the way the questions are worded? 

[Jason]

1 minute ago, JarsOfClay said:

Republicans threw principles out the window when they blocked Garland. Now that they are faced with the same predicament, they have to follow the precedent they established.

They can't have it both ways.

It’s kind of the same but different too. Last go around you had a republican controlled senate and a dem controlled executive branch. That process likely would have went well into Trumps term and possibly not have Garland confirmed. Anyways, I get the what goes around, comes around sentiment but that doesn’t make it right. Politics are shit and they all play dirty. I imagine it’s going to be very ugly. Kavanaugh got of easy compared to this next one 

[arch stanton]

4 minutes ago, JarsOfClay said:

Republicans threw principles out the window when they blocked Garland. Now that they are faced with the same predicament, they have to follow the precedent they established.

They can't have it both ways.

Short-term self interest. Got it

[tdawg87]

3 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

Short-term self interest. Got it

Correct.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

McConnell blocked Obama's nominee but will fast track Trump's. The very definition of short term self interest.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Vegas Halo Fan

[St1ck]

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

There’s nothing short term about appointing Supreme Court justices.  

I’d say turnabout is fair play and they should wait until after the election but unlike the last go around the senate may have the votes. Both parties forcing things through is nothing new.  Sadly that’s about the only way they get things done these days. 

[Taylor]

2 hours ago, Lhalo said:

You poll is gay AF. 

I wish the "crying" reaction was still available.

[Taylor]

47 minutes ago, Jason said:

i don’t think we need mediabiasfactcheck to determine slant the way the questions are worded? 

The first question is neutral. The second one is slanted toward the truth.

[Taylor]

Poll updated for you whiners.

[Chuck]

Yes, it's time to overturn Roe vs. Wade! 

[Taylor]

Just now, Chuckster70 said:

Yes, it's time to overturn Roe vs. Wade! 

I'm pro-life, but outlawing abortion won't solve the problem. 

You know what will cause abortion rates to plummet? Ensuring that every American has access to healthcare, regardless of their financial status.

[Chuck]

 

[tdawg87]

5 minutes ago, Chuckster70 said:

Yes, it's time to overturn Roe vs. Wade! 

No, it isn't.

[Chuck]

3 minutes ago, Spin Rate said:

I'm pro-life, but outlawing abortion won't solve the problem. 

You know what will cause abortion rates to plummet? Ensuring that every American has access to healthcare, regardless of their financial status.

I completely disagree with this. If it's against the law it would stop many law abiding citizens from getting one. Will there be underground abortions from corrupt doctors? Of course, but if you stopped 50-75% of abortions that's hundreds of thousands of lives saved every year. 

[Chuck]

1 minute ago, tdawg87 said:

No, it isn't.

Yes it is. 

[arch stanton]

The way to prevent abortion is to prevent unwanted pregnancies 

[tdawg87]

Do we want an abortion debate?