Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.
-
-
So when? Before or after the election? I really think the week before Thanksgiving would be ideal.
The Brad
-
So when? Before or after the election? I really think the week before Thanksgiving would be ideal.
@LuFins-Dad said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
the week before Thanksgiving would be ideal.
Yah, you could get by with a much smaller turkey.
-
So when? Before or after the election? I really think the week before Thanksgiving would be ideal.
@LuFins-Dad said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
Before or after the election?
"We've got the votes to confirm Justice Ginsburg's replacement before the election," Graham said Monday night on the Fox News' "Hannity" show. "We're going to move forward in the committee, we're going to report the nomination out of the committee to the floor of the United States Senate so we can vote before the election. Now, that's the constitutional process."
-
Sen. Mitt Romney said he would support a floor vote on President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court pick, essentially clinching consideration of Trump’s nominee this year despite the impending election.
Just two Republican senators have asked for the party to put the brakes on the confirmation. And with a 53-seat majority, Senate Majority Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) now has the votes he needs to move forward with a nominee to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
“I intend to follow the Constitution and precedent in considering the president’s nominee. If the nominee reaches the Senate floor, I intend to vote based upon their qualifications,” the Utah Republican said in a statement.
Of course, he doesn't say that he'd vote in favor of the nominee.
The other question is this: Now that the vote is a done deal how are the sisters Murkowski and Collins going to vote? Will they vote "No" just because they didn't want a vote before the election?
-
Iowahawk in 3 tweets about Romney:
-
ATTENTION: delete all your tweets regarding Mitt Romney from the previous year. Stay tuned for more alerts from the National Embarrassment Prevention Center
-
Yesterday: 50% of my TL thought Romney was a principled moral adult in the room standing as a bulwark against madness, 50% thought he was a spineless jellyfish opportunist traitor.
Today: same. -
The dude is Schroedinger's Mormon
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
-
If the Republics are so confident that President Trump will win the election and all their Senators will win, why is there the need to have the confirmation now? Why not just wait??
(LOL Not a real question, because I do know that in public, each party will swear that there side is going to win, but in private, each has some real doubts)
-
Because they can.
Seriously, the opportunity is there to have a conservative-leaning court. They can assure it if they move now. If Trump loses, the effort succeeds. If Trump wins, the effort had succeeded anyway.
WOuldn't you do the same?
Graham's comments reflect the anger he felt during the scorched-earth Kavanaugh hearings.
Link to videoHe's a man on a mission.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Because they can.
Seriously, the opportunity is there to have a conservative-leaning court. They can assure it if they move now. If Trump loses, the effort succeeds. If Trump wins, the effort had succeeded anyway.
WOuldn't you do the same?
Graham's comments reflect the anger he felt during the scorched-earth Kavanaugh hearings.
Link to videoHe's a man on a mission.
@George-K said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
WOuldn't you do the same?
Probably and I am sure that the Democrats would also.
They are not breaking any "rules". If anything, it seems like any rule would have been in 2016 when it was 9 month before the election. To me, that one is more of a "rule break" (though I know it is technically not) than now. (I thought I read somewhere that in the Senate "laws" there is something about them having to "consider a nomination given to them by the President" or something like that)
Just because you can do something, doesn't make it right.
-
Iowahawk in 3 tweets about Romney:
-
ATTENTION: delete all your tweets regarding Mitt Romney from the previous year. Stay tuned for more alerts from the National Embarrassment Prevention Center
-
Yesterday: 50% of my TL thought Romney was a principled moral adult in the room standing as a bulwark against madness, 50% thought he was a spineless jellyfish opportunist traitor.
Today: same. -
The dude is Schroedinger's Mormon
@George-K said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
Iowahawk in 3 tweets about Romney:
ATTENTION: delete all your tweets regarding Mitt Romney from the previous year. Stay tuned for more alerts from the National Embarrassment Prevention Center
Yesterday: 50% of my TL thought Romney was a principled moral adult in the room standing as a bulwark against madness, 50% thought he was a spineless jellyfish opportunist traitor.
Today: same.The dude is Schroedinger's Mormon
Romney's primary interest has always been in pandering to those he thinks will get him elected. To get elected governor in MA it helps to be a RINO, to get selected as GOP Presidential candidate, you probably want to be a committed life-long conservative dog-torturer. To get selected post-Trump, you might want to offer an alternative to Trump (unless you're Pence or one of the Trump kids). Right now, you have to do whatever the hell it is he's going to do now.
He truly is a man for all seasons. Let's hope he doesn't share Thomas More's fate.
-
-
@George-K said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
WOuldn't you do the same?
Probably and I am sure that the Democrats would also.
They are not breaking any "rules". If anything, it seems like any rule would have been in 2016 when it was 9 month before the election. To me, that one is more of a "rule break" (though I know it is technically not) than now. (I thought I read somewhere that in the Senate "laws" there is something about them having to "consider a nomination given to them by the President" or something like that)
Just because you can do something, doesn't make it right.
@taiwan_girl said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
@George-K said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
WOuldn't you do the same?
Probably and I am sure that the Democrats would also.
They are not breaking any "rules". If anything, it seems like any rule would have been in 2016 when it was 9 month before the election. To me, that one is more of a "rule break" (though I know it is technically not) than now. (I thought I read somewhere that in the Senate "laws" there is something about them having to "consider a nomination given to them by the President" or something like that)
Just because you can do something, doesn't make it right.
The laws dictate the morality of the situation. If one believes one's politics are moral, it would be immoral to prioritize some ephemeral propriety over the ability to effect those politics.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
@George-K said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
WOuldn't you do the same?
Probably and I am sure that the Democrats would also.
They are not breaking any "rules". If anything, it seems like any rule would have been in 2016 when it was 9 month before the election. To me, that one is more of a "rule break" (though I know it is technically not) than now. (I thought I read somewhere that in the Senate "laws" there is something about them having to "consider a nomination given to them by the President" or something like that)
Just because you can do something, doesn't make it right.
The laws dictate the morality of the situation. If one believes one's politics are moral, it would be immoral to prioritize some ephemeral propriety over the ability to effect those politics.
@Horace said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
@taiwan_girl said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
@George-K said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
WOuldn't you do the same?
Probably and I am sure that the Democrats would also.
They are not breaking any "rules". If anything, it seems like any rule would have been in 2016 when it was 9 month before the election. To me, that one is more of a "rule break" (though I know it is technically not) than now. (I thought I read somewhere that in the Senate "laws" there is something about them having to "consider a nomination given to them by the President" or something like that)
Just because you can do something, doesn't make it right.
The laws dictate the morality of the situation. If one believes one's politics are moral, it would be immoral to prioritize some ephemeral propriety over the ability to effect those politics.
I hate to admit this Horace, because I know you are a super smart guy. But when I read your replies, I have my dictionary out and even then, I am not sure i understand. 5555555 So, I just knock my head and pretend that I do. LOL
-
By ephemeral propriety, I mean an insubstantial temporary feeling like one is doing the right thing. I would have an issue with a politician prioritizing that over their ability to effect politics (such as SCOTUS justices) that they were voted for to effect.
I do understand that there is the court packing consequence. I won't whine that it's immoral when it happens.
-
Because they can.
Seriously, the opportunity is there to have a conservative-leaning court. They can assure it if they move now. If Trump loses, the effort succeeds. If Trump wins, the effort had succeeded anyway.
WOuldn't you do the same?
Graham's comments reflect the anger he felt during the scorched-earth Kavanaugh hearings.
Link to videoHe's a man on a mission.
@George-K said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
Because they can.
Seriously, the opportunity is there to have a conservative-leaning court. They can assure it if they move now. If Trump loses, the effort succeeds. If Trump wins, the effort had succeeded anyway.
WOuldn't you do the same?
Graham's comments reflect the anger he felt during the scorched-earth Kavanaugh hearings.
Link to videoHe's a man on a mission.
I think Graham is going to shove a stick up Feinstein's ass and break it off. There is already talk that there will be NO last minute theatrics in committee.
I'm also leaning Barrett. If you're gonna stick a finger in the Dem's eye, might as well get your money's worth.
-
This feels like an interesting transition point into "fuck you... because I can" politics.
As in - no pretense that there are any higher principles at play and naked disdain of the other side.
To be clear, I'm not saying that the Republicans have contributed to this state of affairs more than the Democrats - it's just a really clear, impactful demonstration of the new normal.
