Why didnt Kamala Harris recuse herself from the vote on Barrett?

[ColonelAngus]

She is running for office, shouldnt she recuse herself like Democrats want Barrett to do?

Doesnt that seem right?

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

She is running for office, shouldnt she recuse herself like Democrats want Barrett to do?

Doesnt that seem right?

Nope..she still has a responsibility to her constituency--BTW...1/3 Of the Senate is running for office..they should recuse themselves?

You really should think a bit before posting..you might avoid looking like an idiot.

 

[DukeU]

[/QUOTE]
Nope..she still has a responsibility to her constituency--BTW...1/3 Of the Senate is running for office..they should recuse themselves?

You really should think a bit before posting..you might avoid looking like an idiot.
[/QUOTE]

And Barret shouldn't either.

 

[OldLady]

Is it over yet? Is she confirmed?

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Why shouldn't someone vote for themselves?

 

[Thinker101]

She is running for office, shouldnt she recuse herself like Democrats want Barrett to do?

Doesnt that seem right?

Nope..she still has a responsibility to her constituency--BTW...1/3 Of the Senate is running for office..they should recuse themselves?

You really should think a bit before posting..you might avoid looking like an idiot.

Good to know, then we're sure you won't want Barrett to recuse herself from any SC cases.

 

[ColonelAngus]

They dont like being held to their own standards.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

She is running for office, shouldnt she recuse herself like Democrats want Barrett to do?

Doesnt that seem right?

Nope..she still has a responsibility to her constituency--BTW...1/3 Of the Senate is running for office..they should recuse themselves?

You really should think a bit before posting..you might avoid looking like an idiot.

Good to know, then we're sure you won't want Barrett to recuse herself from any SC cases.

Not at all the same thing..but....
Only in those cases in which she has a prior interest or conflict...as is the usual case.

BTW..I have no issue at all with Barret being on the SCOTUS--she will vote on the merits..and not on the politics..IMO--again, to the consternation of those who think she is a Conservative rubber stamp.

That lifetime appt. frees people.

 

[Thinker101]

She is running for office, shouldnt she recuse herself like Democrats want Barrett to do?

Doesnt that seem right?

Nope..she still has a responsibility to her constituency--BTW...1/3 Of the Senate is running for office..they should recuse themselves?

You really should think a bit before posting..you might avoid looking like an idiot.

Good to know, then we're sure you won't want Barrett to recuse herself from any SC cases.

Not at all the same thing..but....
Only those cases in which she has a prior interest or conflict...as is the usual case.

BTW..I have no issue at all with Barret being on the SCOTUS--she will vote on the merits..and not on the politics..IMO--again, to the consternation of those who think she is a Conservative rubber stamp.

That lifetime appt. frees people.

And Harris didn't have a prior interest or conflict?

 

[Indeependent]

They dont like being held to their own standards.

What standards?

 

[ColonelAngus]

She is running for office, shouldnt she recuse herself like Democrats want Barrett to do?

Doesnt that seem right?

Nope..she still has a responsibility to her constituency--BTW...1/3 Of the Senate is running for office..they should recuse themselves?

You really should think a bit before posting..you might avoid looking like an idiot.

Good to know, then we're sure you won't want Barrett to recuse herself from any SC cases.

Not at all the same thing..but....
Only those cases in which she has a prior interest or conflict...as is the usual case.

BTW..I have no issue at all with Barret being on the SCOTUS--she will vote on the merits..and not on the politics..IMO--again, to the consternation of those who think she is a Conservative rubber stamp.

That lifetime appt. frees people.

And Harris didn't have a prior interest or conflict?

Running for VP seems like quite a conflict of interest. How dare she be allowed to vote on Barrett?

 

[daveman]

Doesn't matter. ACB will be confirmed, Democrat tantrums notwithstanding.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

She is running for office, shouldnt she recuse herself like Democrats want Barrett to do?

Doesnt that seem right?

Nope..she still has a responsibility to her constituency--BTW...1/3 Of the Senate is running for office..they should recuse themselves?

You really should think a bit before posting..you might avoid looking like an idiot.

Good to know, then we're sure you won't want Barrett to recuse herself from any SC cases.

Not at all the same thing..but....
Only those cases in which she has a prior interest or conflict...as is the usual case.

BTW..I have no issue at all with Barret being on the SCOTUS--she will vote on the merits..and not on the politics..IMO--again, to the consternation of those who think she is a Conservative rubber stamp.

That lifetime appt. frees people.

And Harris didn't have a prior interest or conflict?

No. It's just a confirmation vote..and you won...I think.

Why are you going on about this moot point? Sheesh..just give it a rest and start a Hunter Biden thread or something!

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

She is running for office, shouldnt she recuse herself like Democrats want Barrett to do?

Doesnt that seem right?

Nope..she still has a responsibility to her constituency--BTW...1/3 Of the Senate is running for office..they should recuse themselves?

You really should think a bit before posting..you might avoid looking like an idiot.

Good to know, then we're sure you won't want Barrett to recuse herself from any SC cases.

Not at all the same thing..but....
Only those cases in which she has a prior interest or conflict...as is the usual case.

BTW..I have no issue at all with Barret being on the SCOTUS--she will vote on the merits..and not on the politics..IMO--again, to the consternation of those who think she is a Conservative rubber stamp.

That lifetime appt. frees people.

And Harris didn't have a prior interest or conflict?

Running for VP seems like quite a conflict of interest. How dare she be allowed to vote on Barrett?

Doubling down on stupid? Running for office is no conflict at all! But hey, amuse us..delineate the areas of conflict.

 

[hadit]

She is running for office, shouldnt she recuse herself like Democrats want Barrett to do?

Doesnt that seem right?

Nope..she still has a responsibility to her constituency--BTW...1/3 Of the Senate is running for office..they should recuse themselves?

You really should think a bit before posting..you might avoid looking like an idiot.

Good to know, then we're sure you won't want Barrett to recuse herself from any SC cases.

Not at all the same thing..but....
Only those cases in which she has a prior interest or conflict...as is the usual case.

BTW..I have no issue at all with Barret being on the SCOTUS--she will vote on the merits..and not on the politics..IMO--again, to the consternation of those who think she is a Conservative rubber stamp.

That lifetime appt. frees people.

And Harris didn't have a prior interest or conflict?

Running for VP seems like quite a conflict of interest. How dare she be allowed to vote on Barrett?

Doubling down on stupid? Running for office is no conflict at all! But hey, amuse us..delineate the areas of conflict.

The conflict was much more easily seen during the impeachment process. Those running for president against the TRUMP! should have recused themselves. They did not.

 

[ColonelAngus]

She is running for office, shouldnt she recuse herself like Democrats want Barrett to do?

Doesnt that seem right?

Nope..she still has a responsibility to her constituency--BTW...1/3 Of the Senate is running for office..they should recuse themselves?

You really should think a bit before posting..you might avoid looking like an idiot.

Good to know, then we're sure you won't want Barrett to recuse herself from any SC cases.

Not at all the same thing..but....
Only those cases in which she has a prior interest or conflict...as is the usual case.

BTW..I have no issue at all with Barret being on the SCOTUS--she will vote on the merits..and not on the politics..IMO--again, to the consternation of those who think she is a Conservative rubber stamp.

That lifetime appt. frees people.

And Harris didn't have a prior interest or conflict?

Running for VP seems like quite a conflict of interest. How dare she be allowed to vote on Barrett?

Doubling down on stupid? Running for office is no conflict at all! But hey, amuse us..delineate the areas of conflict.

The conflict was much more easily seen during the impeachment process. Those running for president against the TRUMP! should have recused themselves. They did not.

100%. I could not believe those running against him were voting to impeach. What an obvious conflict of interest.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

She is running for office, shouldnt she recuse herself like Democrats want Barrett to do?

Doesnt that seem right?

Nope..she still has a responsibility to her constituency--BTW...1/3 Of the Senate is running for office..they should recuse themselves?

You really should think a bit before posting..you might avoid looking like an idiot.

Good to know, then we're sure you won't want Barrett to recuse herself from any SC cases.

Not at all the same thing..but....
Only those cases in which she has a prior interest or conflict...as is the usual case.

BTW..I have no issue at all with Barret being on the SCOTUS--she will vote on the merits..and not on the politics..IMO--again, to the consternation of those who think she is a Conservative rubber stamp.

That lifetime appt. frees people.

And Harris didn't have a prior interest or conflict?

Running for VP seems like quite a conflict of interest. How dare she be allowed to vote on Barrett?

Doubling down on stupid? Running for office is no conflict at all! But hey, amuse us..delineate the areas of conflict.

The conflict was much more easily seen during the impeachment process. Those running for president against the TRUMP! should have recused themselves. They did not.

Different situation....not sure just who in the Senate was running against Trump at the time..and if you are correct..the Republican's who were running against him would also have had to recuse themselves..sure you want to go down that road?

The house is moot..the impeachment would have been voted out no matter.

 

[Bush92]

Is it over yet? Is she confirmed?

In moments. Open the champagne!

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

She is running for office, shouldnt she recuse herself like Democrats want Barrett to do?

Doesnt that seem right?

Nope..she still has a responsibility to her constituency--BTW...1/3 Of the Senate is running for office..they should recuse themselves?

You really should think a bit before posting..you might avoid looking like an idiot.

Good to know, then we're sure you won't want Barrett to recuse herself from any SC cases.

Not at all the same thing..but....
Only those cases in which she has a prior interest or conflict...as is the usual case.

BTW..I have no issue at all with Barret being on the SCOTUS--she will vote on the merits..and not on the politics..IMO--again, to the consternation of those who think she is a Conservative rubber stamp.

That lifetime appt. frees people.

And Harris didn't have a prior interest or conflict?

Running for VP seems like quite a conflict of interest. How dare she be allowed to vote on Barrett?

Doubling down on stupid? Running for office is no conflict at all! But hey, amuse us..delineate the areas of conflict.

The conflict was much more easily seen during the impeachment process. Those running for president against the TRUMP! should have recused themselves. They did not.

100%. I could not believe those running against him were voting to impeach. What an obvious conflict of interest.

Noce pivot..but not what your OP is about, now is it?

 

[Bush92]

She is running for office, shouldnt she recuse herself like Democrats want Barrett to do?

Doesnt that seem right?

Nope..she still has a responsibility to her constituency--BTW...1/3 Of the Senate is running for office..they should recuse themselves?

You really should think a bit before posting..you might avoid looking like an idiot.

Exactly.