Crixus
Gold Member
Why would they need balls for that ?that would be somethng to see, but i doubt republicans have the balls to do it.
because it will be a big fight and they have shown in the past they dont have the stomach for that.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why would they need balls for that ?that would be somethng to see, but i doubt republicans have the balls to do it.
Maybe not every day, but at least every YEAR we do - like Pelosi, Schumer, Obama, etc saying they were opposed to illegal immigration just a few years ago ; now support sanctuary cities.Oooo....A politician expressed the exact opposite opinion of that which he held just a few years ago.
There's something we don't see every day!
FALSE! They fought for Kavanaugh. They fought for Trump in 2016, fought for him in 2019 with the impeachment laughingstock, and they're fighting for him again right now.because it will be a big fight and they have shown in the past they dont have the stomach for that.
GOP up for office can only succeed with a far-right, strong law & order nominee to point to as one of their own. The Trumped-Up election prospects get way more support, the further anti BLM, anti-Antifa, anti-Democrat mayors they go:GOP up for office can only succeed with a Center-liberal nominee to point to as one of their own. The Trumped-Up election prospects get way less support, the further down-ticket they go: Already.
I tried to ask him that too. He DODGED it, in his typical chickenshit style.Who says it is against the will of the people?
FALSE! They fought for Kavanaugh. They fought for Trump in 2016, fought for him in 2019 with the impeachment laughingstock, and they're fighting for him again right now.because it will be a big fight and they have shown in the past they dont have the stomach for that.
Should be 4 nominations THIS WEEK, when the other 3 liberals quit, since their votes will be meaningless.I say replace her.. Payback for the sham impeachment
I didn't know the "they" you were speaking of, was the Republicans' 4 worst RINO traitors.no they diddnt. they let him get publicly horse whipped for weeks when they diddnt have to. already Merkowski and collins are o their knees blowing chucky, Romney soon to follow and corey gardener next. romney knows he is out, and thwt be has been out. the other three are out, and the gop should cut them loose and let them fend for them selves. so that leaves it until after the election.
There's already 2, likely 3 nay votes should they try that. Plus there's Graham, who's on record for saying the American people should decide in an upcoming election ... and he himself is up for re-election. Is he willing to gamble his seat to get Ginsburg's replacement in before the election?what about any one of the other nearly 2 dozen Republican Senators up for re-election in November. It would prolly only take one.No reason to not hold them now.If Impeached Trump wins the election and Republicans retain control of the Senate, then there's no reason not to hold confirmation hearings.So if trump declared winner night of the election democrats will concede?Democrats don't plan to challenge anything, except Trump abuse of power and cheating.Democrats plan to challenge the 2020 election, and having a 4-4 court would “risk a constitutional crisis” given that likelihood.Oh? Why would there be a Constitutional crisis?It’s not a option we need her seat filled, it could be a constitutional crisis if it’s not filled.. I would hold hearings ASAPI'm torn over the replacing of Ms Ginsberg before the end of the year. On one hand, it would insure a conservative justice replacing her.
On the other hand, it would give the left a lot of negative ammunition to go after Trump for trying to replace her after what McConnell did in 2016.
Trump doesn't need the extra distraction during the campaigning, along with the msm going after him relentlessly for trying.
If he was upfront and saying that he's going to hold off, it could give him some positive momentum in the eyes of the voters in the swing states.
What say you?
If Trump doesn't try to pull a fast one, the winner will be who all the citizens voted for, on their ballot...
The supreme court is not suppose to decide any election.... if there are problems, the it is Congress who decides, according to the Constitution, not the Court.
If the way Republicans need to win elections is to capitulate to the Democrats, they they've lost already. Full speed ahead!
They don't have to capitulate to anyone.
They can abide by what they said in 2016.
It's as simple as that.
Nominate Barrett on Monday. Why wait? Chuck and Nancy wouldn't.......
It's not capitulation to Democrats -- it's capitulation to the Republicans who held that very position 4 years ago. I didn't think Biden stood a chance at winning this election. I think this would change that.There's already 2, likely 3 nay votes should they try that. Plus there's Graham, who's on record for saying the American people should decide in an upcoming election ... and he himself is up for re-election. Is he willing to gamble his seat to get Ginsburg's replacement in before the election?what about any one of the other nearly 2 dozen Republican Senators up for re-election in November. It would prolly only take one.No reason to not hold them now.If Impeached Trump wins the election and Republicans retain control of the Senate, then there's no reason not to hold confirmation hearings.So if trump declared winner night of the election democrats will concede?Democrats don't plan to challenge anything, except Trump abuse of power and cheating.Democrats plan to challenge the 2020 election, and having a 4-4 court would “risk a constitutional crisis” given that likelihood.Oh? Why would there be a Constitutional crisis?It’s not a option we need her seat filled, it could be a constitutional crisis if it’s not filled.. I would hold hearings ASAPI'm torn over the replacing of Ms Ginsberg before the end of the year. On one hand, it would insure a conservative justice replacing her.
On the other hand, it would give the left a lot of negative ammunition to go after Trump for trying to replace her after what McConnell did in 2016.
Trump doesn't need the extra distraction during the campaigning, along with the msm going after him relentlessly for trying.
If he was upfront and saying that he's going to hold off, it could give him some positive momentum in the eyes of the voters in the swing states.
What say you?
If Trump doesn't try to pull a fast one, the winner will be who all the citizens voted for, on their ballot...
The supreme court is not suppose to decide any election.... if there are problems, the it is Congress who decides, according to the Constitution, not the Court.
If the way Republicans need to win elections is to capitulate to the Democrats, they they've lost already. Full speed ahead!
In 1992, a Republican sat in the White House. And Biden’s position at the time was to hold off confirmation hearings, had there been a vacancy, until after the election.Even some Republicans say confirmation hearings should wait until after the election in circumstances like this. Forcing it through means going against that.WTF do you mean "force it thru"? The normal process will be followed.Again, there is no crisis. But try to force this through and there's a good chance the Senate will vote against confirmation.Hence the crisis,, we are just going to fill it real quick to avoid any chaos.If that were to happen, then the most recent ruling by a lower court would stand. So no, there would be no Constitutional crisis.Democrats plan to challenge the 2020 election, and having a 4-4 court would “risk a constitutional crisis” given that likelihood.Oh? Why would there be a Constitutional crisis?It’s not a option we need her seat filled, it could be a constitutional crisis if it’s not filled.. I would hold hearings ASAPI'm torn over the replacing of Ms Ginsberg before the end of the year. On one hand, it would insure a conservative justice replacing her.
On the other hand, it would give the left a lot of negative ammunition to go after Trump for trying to replace her after what McConnell did in 2016.
Trump doesn't need the extra distraction during the campaigning, along with the msm going after him relentlessly for trying.
If he was upfront and saying that he's going to hold off, it could give him some positive momentum in the eyes of the voters in the swing states.
What say you?
So just to be clear, you're claiming that in 92 Biden meant that if Democrats had the Senate and White House, he would not have moved ahead with confirmation hearings. You're actually claiming that?
I never said otherwise.They did in 2012 too. In 2016, Republicans threw that notion out the window.They did. In 2016.The American people should decide which president replaces Ginsburg.Well he won and can make a pickIf Impeached Trump wins the election and Republicans retain control of the Senate, then there's no reason not to hold confirmation hearings.So if trump declared winner night of the election democrats will concede?Democrats don't plan to challenge anything, except Trump abuse of power and cheating.Democrats plan to challenge the 2020 election, and having a 4-4 court would “risk a constitutional crisis” given that likelihood.Oh? Why would there be a Constitutional crisis?It’s not a option we need her seat filled, it could be a constitutional crisis if it’s not filled.. I would hold hearings ASAPI'm torn over the replacing of Ms Ginsberg before the end of the year. On one hand, it would insure a conservative justice replacing her.
On the other hand, it would give the left a lot of negative ammunition to go after Trump for trying to replace her after what McConnell did in 2016.
Trump doesn't need the extra distraction during the campaigning, along with the msm going after him relentlessly for trying.
If he was upfront and saying that he's going to hold off, it could give him some positive momentum in the eyes of the voters in the swing states.
What say you?
If Trump doesn't try to pull a fast one, the winner will be who all the citizens voted for, on their ballot...
The supreme court is not suppose to decide any election.... if there are problems, the it is Congress who decides, according to the Constitution, not the Court.
Here's an interesting fact for you. In 2016 Obama did nominate a justice for the supreme court. No one took that power away from him.
Here's another interesting fact. The Senate was also elected and they have the Constitutional power of "advice and consent." And guess what. They were elected by the people too ...
Oooo....A politician expressed the exact opposite opinion of that which he held just a few years ago.America is the entire continent of north america and south america and central america. Perhaps you mean US citizens.Notice how liberals carefully use such terms as "voters" and "The people in this country", rather than Americans (which would have to exclude millions of illegal alien voters).But he can easily say that, because the majority of voters, chose him to be President.
President Trump doesn't have that luxury of support...
The people in this country, by majority, chose someone else to be President....the electoral college got him there....
Obama won both.
And it is the electoral college that gives the power of the vote to the 50 STATES, not the population. Somebody doesn't like that ? Plenty of countries out there to move to. Bon Voyage!
There's something we don't see every day!