Texas case importance (accepted to take case 6-3) - in the end if Biden wins - be afraid - be very afraid

[LizardGrad89]

Dems? Same party that argued that the Senate must approve a SC nominee in 2016, then flip-flopped and said they were destroying democracy by doing that same thing in 2020?

You sheep are the best!

You mean when the Republicans refused to allow a sitting President to choose a SC justice a year before an election, but rushed the selection of a SC justice a month before the very next presidential election.

Thank you. I had suspected you were delusional, your post is proof.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

You mean when the Republicans refused to allow a sitting President to choose a SC justice a year before an election, but rushed the selection of a SC justice a month before the very next presidential election.

Thank you. I had suspected you were delusional, your post is proof.

McConnell was consistent both times: We are in power, so we call the shots.

Or put another way "Elections have consequences". Wonder where he got that from?

 

[LizardGrad89]

McConnell was consistent both times: We are in power, so we call the shots.

Or put another way "Elections have consequences". Wonder where he got that from?

That's not how ethics works. But hey, you are a Republican, that's a dirty word to your crew.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

That's not how ethics works. But hey, you are a Republican, that's a dirty word to your crew.

So you admit obama was unethical?

 

[BSC911]

No, but there should be.

I don't want Dems to fall into the same trap Pubs keep falling into, making changes for short term gain without taking the long view on the impact. If Dems increase the SC number to 11 or 13, what's to keep the Pubs from jumping it up to 17 when they get power again? Because they will, it's all about the pendulum. If the Dems want to show they are really the party of leadership, they will sponsor a constitutional amendment to lock the number of judges at 9.

I agree. And I dont Think one guy, eg. Mitch McConnel, should be able to block a presidents nominee from getting a confirmation hearing. Once you start playing games with the SC process, the other side will then be forced to do the same. I hate that the whole thing has devolved into a partisan mess.

 

[BamaFan1137]

Quit being so dramatic.

Mirrors.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

I agree. And I dont Think one guy, eg. Mitch McConnel, should be able to block a presidents nominee from getting a confirmation hearing. Once you start playing games with the SC process, the other side will then be forced to do the same. I hate that the whole thing has devolved into a partisan mess.

IOW you like following the Constitution when it works for your team, and don't when it doesn't.