ADVERTISEMENT

Republicans go on record: Should RGBs seat be left open for the next president?

I'm a republican/conservative and I think RGB's seat should be left open


  • Total voters
    63
  • Poll closed .
LOL. Why do you pretend that they are nonpartisan? No one believes that.


Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dying wish: Not to have Donald Trump choose replacement
"My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed," Ruth Bader Ginsburg told her granddaughter, Clara Spera, in the days before her death, NPR reported.

If that “dying wish” is true then that’s says more about RBG than anything. She needs to stay out of politics.
 
The mental gymnastics being done by many on both sides of this is so typical of where we are as a society.
I don't really gaf if it's filled or not. Where's that option? Life will go on for us all either way.
The fact dems tried putting up garland in 2016, and up until 24 hrs ago believed he should have been nominated and it was a great travesty he wasn't, means they don't have high ground in this argument either.

This is the correct answer.

Joe Biden in 2016: "I would go forward with a confirmation process as chairman, *even a few months before a presidential election,* if the nominee were chosen with the advice, and not merely the consent, of the Senate, just as the Constitution requires."

It's hilarious that the hypocritical Dems are sure only the Repub's are hypocrites, while the Hypocritical Repubas are sure only the Dems are hypocrites.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mattski
This is the correct answer.

Joe Biden in 2016: "I would go forward with a confirmation process as chairman, *even a few months before a presidential election,* if the nominee were chosen with the advice, and not merely the consent, of the Senate, just as the Constitution requires."

It's hilarious that the hypocritical Dems are sure only the Repub's are hypocrites, while the Hypocritical Repubas are sure only the Dems are hypocrites.

I get that this is the Hannity/Levin/GOP talking point, but do you at least acknowledge that the complaint now is that the Garland nomination was held up for months, and that Democrats (rightly) perceive McConnell as having changed the rules of the game in 2016, and now he’s going back the other direction?
 
Please point to the section of the constitution that requires the President of the United States to wait for an election to take place before appointing a Supreme Court Justice. I'll hang up and listen.
I believe Republicans called it the Biden Rule, when they lied about it. Soon to be known as “The Next President Rule”.
 
Changing demographics are going to be a real bitch for the GOP.

It’s why they have resorted to attacking Democracy like making voting locations in black neighborhoods incredibly inadequate, blocking early voting locations in Virginia, and their cult leader encouraging felony voter fraud.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moral
Changing demographics are going to be a real bitch for the GOP.
Lol, yeah bc the dem party cares so much for minorities in this country. What's going to be a bitch is more and more African Americans realizing being dependent on the dem party to take care of them hasn't been working out real well. That day is coming.
 
If Biden wins and the Democrats hold the House and take the Senate, some prominent Dems have promised to end the filibuster. If that's how things stack up, why would the Republicans not fill the seat in December.

Both sides need to show some restraint. Everyone has something to lose here.
No...ONE side needs to show some restraint. And they've already said a big "FVCK YOU" to that. As I said, they want to play games with the court, don't bitch when a Dem Senate adds three seats for a Dem president to fill.
 
I get that this is the Hannity/Levin/GOP talking point, but do you at least acknowledge that the complaint now is that the Garland nomination was held up for months, and that Democrats (rightly) perceive McConnell as having changed the rules of the game in 2016, and now he’s going back the other direction?

I'm vaguey aware of Hannity, and not even sure who Levin is.

But I already acknowledged that the Repubs are hypocrites.

The question is do you recognize the Dems are hypocrites?
 
Packing the court is also constitutional. Rs need to be very careful with this. If they fill before the election, Ds will vote them out of office through shear rage, amend the law, retake control over the court, and leave Rs out in the cold.
 
The mental gymnastics being done by many on both sides of this is so typical of where we are as a society.
I don't really gaf if it's filled or not. Where's that option? Life will go on for us all either way.
The fact dems tried putting up garland in 2016, and up until 24 hrs ago believed he should have been nominated and it was a great travesty he wasn't, means they don't have high ground in this argument either.
This makes zero sense. Garland was nominated nearly a year before the election. Ruth's replacement will be nominated 6 weeks. Can you not see the difference?
 
This is the correct answer.

Joe Biden in 2016: "I would go forward with a confirmation process as chairman, *even a few months before a presidential election,* if the nominee were chosen with the advice, and not merely the consent, of the Senate, just as the Constitution requires."

It's hilarious that the hypocritical Dems are sure only the Repub's are hypocrites, while the Hypocritical Repubas are sure only the Dems are hypocrites.
Scalia died in February. RGB died in September. This is an apples to oranges timeline comparison.
 
Pretending that the two death timelines are interchangeable certainly is beyond my comprehension.

Pretending the Constitution includes a timeline for the POTUS to nominate, and/or the Senate to confirm a SCOTUS is nominee is a SPECIAL kind of stoooooooooooopid.
 
Pretending the Constitution includes a timeline for the POTUS to nominate, and/or the Senate to confirm a SCOTUS is nominee is a SPECIAL kind of stoooooooooooopid.
Pretending that the Dems don't have the constitutional authority to pack the court is also stupid. You reap what you sow.
 
Pretending that the Dems don't have the constitutional authority to pack the court is also stupid. You reap what you sow.

Anybody has the Constitutional Authority. Does that mean Republicans should nominate 5 justices to replace RBG? Or that they would? Or logically could?

If you don't have a brain, try and find someone who does have one before your fingers touch your keyboard.
 
The justification for the R’s will be that Obama was a lame duck POTUS at the time and Trump isn’t. Just saying what they’ll be saying.
 
With all due respect, you have a privilege not everyone else has in not giving AF. There are gay people sweating about whether their marriages will still be recognized. Women wondering if they’ll be able to get an abortion if they need one. People with pre-existing conditions wondering if they’ll still be able to get coverage. People with children wondering if they’ll grow up in a barely habitable hellhole once a corporate right wing court allows big businesses to pollute at will.

Many people have a stake in this pick, whether you think you do or not.
SMH what a dork.
 
This is the correct answer.

Joe Biden in 2016: "I would go forward with a confirmation process as chairman, *even a few months before a presidential election,* if the nominee were chosen with the advice, and not merely the consent, of the Senate, just as the Constitution requires."

It's hilarious that the hypocritical Dems are sure only the Repub's are hypocrites, while the Hypocritical Repubas are sure only the Dems are hypocrites.

JFC. That was before McConnell pulled his shit and created a new precedent with Garland. Stupid conservatives who don't understand the definition of hypocrisy. Geesh.
 
JFC. That was before McConnell pulled his shit and created a new precedent with Garland. Stupid conservatives who don't understand the definition of hypocrisy. Geesh.

No, that was during hte time Republicans refused to vote on Garland's nominatin.

Have you ever wondered what you'd do with a brain if you had one?
 
No, that was during hte time Republicans refused to vote on Garland's nominatin.

Have you ever wondered what you'd do with a brain if you had one?

You're making my point for me. Again, a complete lack of any understanding of the definition of hypocrisy. So you're not just an idiot, you're an arrogant idiot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk
I think he should and will nominate a person. then the dems and nancy pelosi will start impeachment procedings immediately.
 
Poll closed, votes on record.

You can click the voting option to see names. Really surprised we had so many "Yes" votes. Perhaps potential "No" votes were withholding their votes due to names being public.
 
Missing the point here. Of course they can, nobody is debating that.

Should they?

Next time we have a dem senate and repub president, dems will could say.... nope. Just because. They're within their rights.
Which they would do regardless at this point so why act surprised at this point? Nether side is going to "play fair" from this point on.
 
Which they would do regardless at this point so why act surprised at this point? Nether side is going to "play fair" from this point on.

The Republicans helped -- and then some -- to create this problem and now they have the option of fixing it, to an extent, by doing something that would be widely lauded as fair. Instead we're getting a foot on the gas pedal.
 
The Republicans helped -- and then some -- to create this problem and now they have the option of fixing it, to an extent, by doing something that would be widely lauded as fair. Instead we're getting a foot on the gas pedal.
Lol, yeah right. I'm sure if the Rs "fixed it" now the Ds will return the favor in the future. Don't be naive. There isn't a snowballs change in hell the Ds wouldn't be ramming a nominee thru right now if they held the senate and potus and you know it. And the Rs would be screaming about it as well.
 
ADVERTISEMENT