Drop them f-bombs here
Good thing you can't replace a Supreme Court justice in an election year!!!!1
:hm:
Bloody hell.
The presidential election is still 45 days away.
I assume the Thurmond "Rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurmond_rule)" will be ignored. The average number of days from nomination to final confirmation by the senate is 70 days, but the minimum was 19 days. ( https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44234.pdf )
Barring a republican revolt, Trump's pick will be confirmed before the election results come in.
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on September 19, 2020, 01:48:57 AM
Bloody hell.
The presidential election is still 45 days away.
I assume the Thurmond "Rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurmond_rule)" will be ignored. The average number of days from nomination to final confirmation by the senate is 70 days, but the minimum was 19 days. ( https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44234.pdf )
Barring a republican revolt, Trump's pick will be confirmed before the election results come in.
Tom Cotton will be a SCOTUS justice by this time next week.
McConnell has already said why this is "different" from 2015/2016.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 19, 2020, 02:10:47 AM
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on September 19, 2020, 01:48:57 AM
Bloody hell.
The presidential election is still 45 days away.
I assume the Thurmond "Rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurmond_rule)" will be ignored. The average number of days from nomination to final confirmation by the senate is 70 days, but the minimum was 19 days. ( https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44234.pdf )
Barring a republican revolt, Trump's pick will be confirmed before the election results come in.
Tom Cotton will be a SCOTUS justice by this time next week.
McConnell has already said why this is "different" from 2015/2016.
Can we flay him?
I'm getting ready to go out like a rat on the sales floor on Black Friday. Unfortunately, that's the best I can hope for.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 19, 2020, 02:10:47 AM
McConnell has already said why this is "different" from 2015/2016.
Because IOKIYAR and any pretence at consistency is for liberal sissies?
Quote from: Cain on September 19, 2020, 02:26:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 19, 2020, 02:10:47 AM
McConnell has already said why this is "different" from 2015/2016.
Because IOKIYAR and any pretence at consistency is for liberal sissies?
No, boiled down it was "because I can, peasants."
Basically the same thing. And yeah, I read the "official reasoning". Contemptible doesn't even begin to describe it.
She has been in bad health for a while, but I really thought she was going to make it through this hellscape of a year.
She should have retired when Obama was President, but no, she wanted to stay in so she could retire to President Hillary Clinton. She was pushing 90, for goodness sake.
Quote from: Cain on September 19, 2020, 10:04:37 PM
She should have retired when Obama was President, but no, she wanted to stay in so she could retire to President Hillary Clinton. She was pushing 90, for goodness sake.
How'd that work out when Merrick Garland was nominated by Obama?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2020, 03:17:36 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 19, 2020, 10:04:37 PM
She should have retired when Obama was President, but no, she wanted to stay in so she could retire to President Hillary Clinton. She was pushing 90, for goodness sake.
How'd that work out when Merrick Garland was nominated by Obama?
Obama could have put in whoever he wanted in 2009-10. What's Garland got to do with anything?
It's not like this wasn't raised at the time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg#Longevity_on_the_court).
QuoteDuring the presidency of Barack Obama, some progressive attorneys and activists called for Ginsburg to retire so that Obama could appoint a like-minded successor, particularly while the Democratic party held control of the U.S. Senate.They mentioned Ginsburg's age and past health issues as factors making her longevity uncertain. Ginsburg rejected these pleas. She affirmed her wish to remain a justice as long as she was mentally sharp enough to perform her duties. Some believed that in the lead up to the 2016 US presidential election, she was waiting for candidate Hillary Clinton to beat candidate Donald Trump before retiring, so that Clinton would be able to nominate an even more liberal justice.