the Senate supposedly runs on precedent, so once so firmly established, they should at least show signs of honoring their new rule.
There have been 29 instances of a vacancy occurring in the SCOTUS during an election year. In all 29 examples, the administration in office appointed a new justice to the SC, prior to the election.
There have been 29 instances of a vacancy occurring in the SCOTUS during an election year. In all 29 examples, the administration in office appointed a new justice to the SC, prior to the election.
Well we can always rely on the sage wisdom of Ruth Bader Ginsberg on whether the Senate should vote on a nominee in an election year when asked in 2016: "That's their job, there is nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year." I certainly don't think they have to or always should, but she certainly seemed to want them to...........in 2016.
And she was right, but the Senate supposedly runs on precedent, so once so firmly established, they should at least show signs of honoring their new rule. But: If it was wrong then, it's wrong now, but you gotta admit 45 days before the election, especially now that so many people have already voted, is a lot less cool than 200+ days.
I'd like to see some sense of continuity from any senators, really, but it's all just chitchat since I assume Trump's going to steal this election anyway and the Democrats are going to do jack shit about it. Again. That fucker's going to die in office and they'll blast Roosevelt off Mt. Rushmore to make room for him.
The precedent they are respecting is seeking rank power regardless of the outcome. They are remarkably consistent in that.
There have been 29 instances of a vacancy occurring in the SCOTUS during an election year. In all 29 examples, the administration in office appointed a new justice to the SC, prior to the election.
I think you could use these 2 monuments as litmus test to being reasonable or not. I totally get the objection to the Stone mountain carving which was constructed well after Civil War and one could easily see how offensive this would be to African Americans; but blasting Mt. Rushmore is not something I would ever support.
Yup.
I am not a fan of Stone Mountain but there's something awesome about it as art that I support. Blasting it seems like the Taliban taking out those huge Buddhas. Some things are worth preserving just because of their awesomeness. Either way, I won't be signing any petitions to keep it.
That seems like a pretty fair comparison. I'm not going to defend its message, but I'm not going to call for its removal either. Maybe it could be used as a teaching tool? Mostly for whites - people of color know the lesson all too well. c.
Losers and suckers. I guess that's why DJT didn't ask to be carved in there?
The lessons need to include not only the who they are, but why they were carved into that mountain...who paid for it...who voted for it....who carved it...etc. It's only a lesson if the motivations of its creation are documented in plain sight.
I think you could use these 2 monuments as litmus test to being reasonable or not. I totally get the objection to the Stone mountain carving which was constructed well after Civil War and one could easily see how offensive this would be to African Americans; but blasting Mt. Rushmore is not something I would ever support.
Yup.
I am not a fan of Stone Mountain but there's something awesome about it as art that I support. Blasting it seems like the Taliban taking out those huge Buddhas. Some things are worth preserving just because of their awesomeness. Either way, I won't be signing any petitions to keep it.
That seems like a pretty fair comparison. I'm not going to defend its message, but I'm not going to call for its removal either. Maybe it could be used as a teaching tool? Mostly for whites - people of color know the lesson all too well. c.
I am not a fan of Stone Mountain but there's something awesome about it as art that I support. Blasting it seems like the Taliban taking out those huge Buddhas. Some things are worth preserving just because of their awesomeness. Either way, I won't be signing any petitions to keep it.
I think you could use these 2 monuments as litmus test to being reasonable or not. I totally get the objection to the Stone mountain carving which was constructed well after Civil War and one could easily see how offensive this would be to African Americans; but blasting Mt. Rushmore is not something I would ever support.
Yup.
I am not a fan of Stone Mountain but there's something awesome about it as art that I support. Blasting it seems like the Taliban taking out those huge Buddhas. Some things are worth preserving just because of their awesomeness. Either way, I won't be signing any petitions to keep it.
That guy also funded the Stone Mountain sculpture, which is basically 'The Birth of a Nation' carved in stone. Ugh. c.
I think you could use these 2 monuments as litmus test to being reasonable or not. I totally get the objection to the Stone mountain carving which was constructed well after Civil War and one could easily see how offensive this would be to African Americans; but blasting Mt. Rushmore is not something I would ever support.
Well we can always rely on the sage wisdom of Ruth Bader Ginsberg on whether the Senate should vote on a nominee in an election year when asked in 2016: "That's their job, there is nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year." I certainly don't think they have to or always should, but she certainly seemed to want them to...........in 2016.
And she was right, but the Senate supposedly runs on precedent, so once so firmly established, they should at least show signs of honoring their new rule. But: If it was wrong then, it's wrong now, but you gotta admit 45 days before the election, especially now that so many people have already voted, is a lot less cool than 200+ days.
I'd like to see some sense of continuity from any senators, really, but it's all just chitchat since I assume Trump's going to steal this election anyway and the Democrats are going to do jack shit about it. Again. That fucker's going to die in office and they'll blast Roosevelt off Mt. Rushmore to make room for him.
The precedent they are respecting is seeking rank power regardless of the outcome. They are remarkably consistent in that.
Well we can always rely on the sage wisdom of Ruth Bader Ginsberg on whether the Senate should vote on a nominee in an election year when asked in 2016: "That's their job, there is nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year." I certainly don't think they have to or always should, but she certainly seemed to want them to...........in 2016.
And she was right, but the Senate supposedly runs on precedent, so once so firmly established, they should at least show signs of honoring their new rule. But: If it was wrong then, it's wrong now, but you gotta admit 45 days before the election, especially now that so many people have already voted, is a lot less cool than 200+ days.
I'd like to see some sense of continuity from any senators, really, but it's all just chitchat since I assume Trump's going to steal this election anyway and the Democrats are going to do jack shit about it. Again. That fucker's going to die in office and they'll blast Roosevelt off Mt. Rushmore to make room for him.
Yes I do and have stated as such. As far as Teddy goes, it will not be Trump supporters who are going to eventually blast all of them off the mountain. Quite the contrary, that movement is coming from the left.
The New York Times
@nytimes
Mount Rushmore was built on land that belonged to the Lakota tribe and sculpted by a man who had strong bonds with the Ku Klux Klan. It features the faces of 2 U.S. presidents who were slaveholders.
Well we can always rely on the sage wisdom of Ruth Bader Ginsberg on whether the Senate should vote on a nominee in an election year when asked in 2016: "That's their job, there is nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year." I certainly don't think they have to or always should, but she certainly seemed to want them to...........in 2016.
And she was right, but the Senate supposedly runs on precedent, so once so firmly established, they should at least show signs of honoring their new rule. But: If it was wrong then, it's wrong now, but you gotta admit 45 days before the election, especially now that so many people have already voted, is a lot less cool than 200+ days.
I'd like to see some sense of continuity from any senators, really, but it's all just chitchat since I assume Trump's going to steal this election anyway and the Democrats are going to do jack shit about it. Again. That fucker's going to die in office and they'll blast Roosevelt off Mt. Rushmore to make room for him.
Well we can always rely on the sage wisdom of Ruth Bader Ginsberg on whether the Senate should vote on a nominee in an election year when asked in 2016: "That's their job, there is nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year." I certainly don't think they have to or always should, but she certainly seemed to want them to...........in 2016.
You silly little boy*. Harry Reid is the one who screwed the pooch more times than Goofy and set the precedents we are dealing with right now.
Schumer can't surprise me with anything after Reid.
* I sure don't hang out with Ronald McD like you do. I get it, he's your muse. carry on.
Youâre the one living in a failed fantasy world where Trump is honest and competent.
The key question for any presidential election is âAre you better off now than you were four years ago?â America would have to go back to 1932 for a more emphatic âNOâ than today.
Why break precedent? This administration has had nothing to do with staffing based on competency or even long-term thinking. I mean - for goodness' sake - he's got his daughter and son-in-law on the White House staff! In what world is that anything other than nepotism? (Narrator: "It's nepotism.")
It's all about making sure no one disturbs his morning TV, his weekend golf, or disagrees with him.
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if he nominated his daughter - and the rethuglican senate would approve.
You should be more worried about who Biden might pick, if he gets in, and when the next seat comes open. Biden has outright refused to release ANY list. Vote for Biden, blindly!
Remember this one at all? "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." - Pelosi
That's right. Vote for DEMS. Vote and cross your fingers that they'll do a good thing. Good luck with that.
"Impeach a POTUS for carrying out their Constitutional obligations ? Y'all have lost your collective minds."
Spare me your Bu||$h*^. If Schumer had played McConnell's 3-card monte with the "rules" when it comes to nominating a SC justice near a presidential election, you'd be stroking out.
You silly little boy*. Harry Reid is the one who screwed the pooch more times than Goofy and set the precedents we are dealing with right now.
Schumer can't surprise me with anything after Reid.
* I sure don't hang out with Ronald McD like you do. I get it, he's your muse. carry on.
You and Biden blame every CV 19 death on Trump. Check
I basically watch nothing but bidness newz, including FBN and Bloomberg. I have a good grip on how the economy is working. All things considered, it is doing better than should be expected. I'll worry according to who wins.
Speaking of who wins ... just think, this is one of the most controversial elections ever and we are going into it with 8 SCOTUS justices who may have to decide the election. Should we get a 4 - 4 tie, all hell breaks lose(r)
Trump is going to nominate a Justice as is his duty according to the Constitution. Pelosi when asked about impeaching Trump for nominating a Justice replied that the role of Congress "requires us to use every arrow in our quiver" to stop him from doing this.
Impeach a POTUS for carrying out their Constitutional obligations ? Y'all have lost your collective minds.
Trump is just doing what is required and that is it. This is one of the reasons that I voted for Trump. To nominate SCOTUS judges. This is all about McConnell. He ran the show with Garland and he still runs the show this time around.
I want an originalist, someone who believes in the rule of law and interprets it, not makes it. Pretty much the same way L8 sees it in these terms.
"You and Biden blame every CV 19 death on Trump. Check"
Never claimed that. But you don't want to talk about Trump's responsibility for massively contributing to the pandemic. And you "forget" when repeatedly confronted with the relevant facts.
"I have a good grip on how the economy is working."
Like f#qk you do. You live in a Trump fantasy bubble. You ALWAYS will.
"All things considered, it is doing better than should be expected."
This proves you don't have that grip you claim. And when it comes to "expected"—are you considering the fact that the GOP refuses to pass a credible relief bill? And its refusal is leading to mass bankruptcies, evictions and growing unemployment? And that Trump and Co. have pretty much guaranteed that another Covid19 spike is going to hit Americans and the economy again?
Oh, but blame China. Trump won't take any responsible and won't lead—and you just follow him like a lapdog.
"Impeach a POTUS for carrying out their Constitutional obligations ? Y'all have lost your collective minds."
Spare me your Bu||$h*^. If Schumer had played McConnell's 3-card monte with the "rules" when it comes to nominating a SC justice near a presidential election, you'd be stroking out.
