It's an easy walk back because they can and will rationalize their reversal/hypocrisy by pointing to the way the Dems handled the Kavanaugh hearings. It was UGLY. And they impeached a president in an election year. If you haven't heard them say, stay tuned. BTW, Kavanaugh was confirmed during Trump's presidency. Check your timeline, smartass.
Packing the bench is a big step. When FDR wanted to do it, he was blocked by his own party. We've already crossed several lines in the sand that shouldn't have been crossed, but packing the bench is a big one. One, it damages the republic. Two, it has lots of potential to cause the president doing it political damage. Three, it'll be avenged with more packing later. I'd say as things stood a week ago with a 5-4 conservative court, no way would Biden do it. There will be more pressure to do it and more political cover for Biden if Trump makes a 6-3 court with a loathed appointment like Barrett. An unknown or more moderate nomination would help avoid the impetus to pack the court. Imo, Biden should stick to 9 justices even if we hate who's on it. The future of our democratic republic is more important than whatever **** decisions the USSC will come up with over the next couple of decades.
Dumbass? https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...ote-on-scotus-pick-in-last-year-of-trump-term "I'll tell you this – this may make you feel better, but I really don't care – if an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait until the next election," Graham said during a forum with The Atlantic. His comments came at the tail end of the confirmation process for Trump's most recent Supreme Court pick, Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Graham said this after Kavanaugh went through confirmation. So you think its ok to play tit for tat about electing someone to the SC? What about the Garland? How does that stack up in your tit for tat game? Keep being loud and wrong and I will continue to call you out.
Our democracy is indeed at risk as many of us said in 2017. Trump has done much damage to it. The appointment of a judge this way, 4 years after unconstitutionally denying Obama's pick to even have a vote already de-legitimizes the SCOTUS. The Republican attack the republic and showed they will do whatever it takes to stack the odds in their favor. If the situation was reverse you bet the Republicans would stack the court. The only way you get this done is if you increase the court to 11 and appoint two liberal justices to make it 6-5 and in return for not making it 13 with 4 more liberal justices you get the Republicans to agree not to change the court and to never pull a Mitch McConnell ever again.
I didn't call you a dumbass. You insinuated that I'm one. Here's your video for context. It's from 2016, as I asserted before. He said, "You could use my words against me..." You can ignore it if you want. It's possible we were referencing different quotes from different time periods. "Keep being loud and wrong and I will continue to call you out" - I hope you'll hold yourself accountable to the same standards you set for me.
Did you just ignore what I posted? He just said the same thing in 2018 after Kavanaugh. I never insuated anything, you have al ready admitted you don't do actual research on stuff you post. Once again this has proven to be fact. I have no problem admitting I am wrong and my history shows that.
WTF?! "Use my words against me" - 2016 Senate Hearing. You can hear him say it in the video. Your link - he doesn't say it. He does says the Senate would not vote in the last year of a term. I'm obviously referring to the 2016 sound bite. Dude, you're being a d!ck. We're done with this conversation.
But what do you do if they are making decisions that hurt people and hurt the republic? At some point, people will stop caring about protecting something that doesn't protect them.
You're right. He just acknowledges being on the record and saying hold the tape. There is zero question he was adamant and guaranteeing his position even after the Kavanaugh hearing. Reality is he'll just do or say anything. It is the sickness of Donald Trump that has spread rapidly throughout the Republican party.
At this point, no. If Lagoa was Trump's first pick I think Democrats would be high-fiving...I mean at that point you are settling for what you can get. But, if Trump is voted out why should Democrats accept her or any consevative pick when the pick should be theirs? It's like if you have the #1 pick you want a superstar HOF player...you'd be upset at anything less. If you have the #30th pick though...you'd happily settle for a player that can play 10 productive minutes a night... If the Democrats lose, Lagoa would be fine. If Democrats win? They will rightfully want to make their own pick.
He said this in 2018 after the Kavanaugh hearings. https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...ote-on-scotus-pick-in-last-year-of-trump-term "I'll tell you this – this may make you feel better, but I really don't care – if an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait until the next election," Graham said during a forum with The Atlantic. His comments came at the tail end of the confirmation process for Trump's most recent Supreme Court pick, Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Care to comment on that?
Graham said it again in 2018. https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...ote-on-scotus-pick-in-last-year-of-trump-term "I'll tell you this – this may make you feel better, but I really don't care – if an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait until the next election," Graham said during a forum with The Atlantic. His comments came at the tail end of the confirmation process for Trump's most recent Supreme Court pick, Justice Brett Kavanaugh." [edit] damn.. Jiggyfly beat me again..
I agree. Trump could nominate Merrick Garland and I don't think Democrats would go along with it, right now.
No. There are some moderate judges but it is highly unlikely that some conservative senators would agree to their confirmation, and I doubt that the president would either. At this point, McConnell only has to not make a major screw up and he will add a very conservative justice to the court. He only needs 51 votes and he has a 53-47 majority with Pence available to cast a deciding vote. So far two Republican Senators have said that they will not support the confirmation of a justice before the election (Murkowski and Collins). Collins has said she will not support any effort to name a new justice before the swearing in of a new President. Murkowski has not clarified if she will agree to vote during the lame duck session. There was a report that Romney's top aid said he will not support a vote before the election. So....... right now, (counting Collins) it is 52-48 for no new justice until there is a new President....... this is pretty iron clad. It is probably.......... 50-50 for no vote until AFTER the election and possibly not until a new President is appointed..... in that case Pence would cast the tie breaker. So the Democrats need to get three more republican senators to agree to no vote until there is a new president......... they have an outside shot at Romney and Murkowski........ but they need to flip someone else like..... Cory Gardner.... which is a long shot.
My comment would be that we are both correct??? My initial thought's were how does Lindsey walk back what he said. I was referring to the 2016 hearings, but if he said it twice, so be it. But I found his walk back statement he issued today. I hadn't read it until just now and it was predictable.
McConnell will be the one doing the recruiting. Trump could easily alienate someone like Gardner. He's attacked Cheney recently.
McConnell will certainly need to be the one talking to Gardner. I don't think Gardner is going to want to speak to Trump because he is in a state that has slid strongly to Biden.... so Gardner likely doesn't want anything from Trump. McConnell will be able to get Gardner additional political funding help. My "guess" is that the Republicans end up having to wait until the lame duck session to vote because Gardner doesn't want his electoral fortunes being negatively impacted by voting to approve a nominee........ Gardner can agree to support a nominee during the lame duck session in private and then save face during the election season.
There is no way Graham can really walk it back. He has said it a couple time and the general public sentiment isn't going to be positive for Graham and the other Republican Senators........ but Graham will take the blow back and being a hypocrite so he can get another conservative on the court. It isn't like he will lose an election over this and he isn't interested in being President.