idw.community

4 6

President Trump urges GOP to move quickly on SCOTUS nomination: 'We have this obligation, without delay!'-
[thefederalist.com]

For those of you who think The Federalist is strictly a right-leaning source, they present the other side as well...
Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a great American-
[thefederalist.com]

SpikeTalon 9 Sep 19
Share

Post a comment Author often replies/likes Reply Author often replies/likes Add Photo

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

4 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

3

For Democrats the rules have always been simple: don’t just win; destroy your opponent. This rule overrides all others.

If the right had been willing to play to win any time in the past five decades, we might not be balanced right now on the edge of a cliff, with worms like Mitt Romney actually having the will and the ability to push us off.

2

[achievement.org]

"One of only nine women in a class of more than 500, Ruth encountered resistance from some of the older faculty. The law dean asked all the women students to justify taking places at the school that could be occupied by men."

I may not have agreed with some of her stances on issues. But, she really was an amazing woman who achieved a lot despite sex discrimination. Younger women these days, decades after her, can't understand the kinds of discrimination women who lived in these times faced. Additionally, I feel the accomplishments achieved since these years haven't been appreciated by some.

I appreciate the roads that were paved by such leaders with the support of both men and women alike. It was sad to hear she passed, and infuriating to hear the callus response by some of the more extreme leftist individuals.

Additionally, I'm in full support of Trump picking. Isn't it unconstitutional if they try and stop it? I've been reading through articles as to the reason this is so controversial, and still can't figure it out.

Where have you been the past four years? The Dems don't do "constitutional." There really should be no surprise in this dept anymore.

You should also not be surprised to see another Kavanaugh travesty attempted.

McConnell stopped Obama from filling a vacancy with almost a year left of his presidency. They wouldn't even allow hearings. To push this through just because it's Trump is the height of hypocrisy.

And just know, the Democrats have stated that if the Republicans do push through a new justice before the election, they will do everything within their power to add seats to the court to balance it out, which is also Constitutional.

@NonAgrssvMight Being entirely honest, I just really have been continually stunned by our politicians. Gradually over the last 10+ years, and even more so since Trump took office. This year, however, has made me realize a lot of things I didn't see before. But, yeah, still find myself saying "I don't underdstand... " a lot.πŸ˜•

@JacksonNought I disagreed with the 2016 decision. Sure enough there's Lindsey Graham, all over social media. I agree that it's hypocritical to say "I stand by my words" and then change the words to fit the sitiation.

I still think Trump should pick.

The "Dems did this- so they deserve payback" and "Reps did that- so they deserve payback", is really irratating. I know it's nothing new. It still is annoying none the less.

5

Biden says the position should be filled by the President's choice... hate to tell him, but Trump is the President.

0

Video of Lindsey Graham insisting Supreme Court vacancies should never be filled in election years goes viral - [independent.co.uk]

Graham commits to supporting Trump 'in any effort to move forward' in filling Ginsburg's seat - [amp.cnn.com]

Graham doesn't believe that now...

He has qualified that statement now

All statements are active and operative for the time that it takes to state them, after which they are subject to change without warning or explanation.

Graham has clearly made the political calculation that it is better to stand with the president and suffer the charges of blatant hypocrisy that his opponent will most certainly make against him. According to the poles, the Senate race in SC is a dead heat. Either Graham believes the poles are wrong and he will win easily, so he simply made the safe political decision and toed the party line (not likely), or 2) he believes he is in serious political trouble and thinks his decision will energize his base to go out and vote because this issue is so important to them (more likely), or 3) he knows he is going to lose and he's simply letting his anti-democratic colors shine (less likely). It will all boil down to how the voters in SC react to this, whether they care or don't care that a politician keeps his word or whether whatever policy they favor and how strongly they favor it is more important.

@Edgework True, but there are political consequences to this. The voters in SC could react negatively to this. If so, Graham could be looking for another line of work come January.

Write Comment More
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:133637
IDW.community does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.