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

[OldLady]

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

Doesnt that seem right?

I thought the Dems were going to boycott?

 

[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.

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.

1. There were several democrats that were running against him.
2. There were no Republicans that were running against him.

 

[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.

1. There were several democrats that were running against him.
2. There were no Republicans that were running against him.

In truth..as it was the primaries..no one was running against him..they were running for the chance to run against him. I don't remember if any primary challengers were left on the republican side..but if there were...they had more of a conflict than the Democrats....at that time.

 

[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.

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.

1. There were several democrats that were running against him.
2. There were no Republicans that were running against him.

In truth..as it was the primaries..no one was running against him..they were running for the chance to run against him. I don't remember if any primary challengers were left on the republican side..but if there were...they had more of a conflict than the Democrats....at that time.

If you want to hide behind technicalities, you can, but it doesn't change anything. Every single one of the democrats that were running were running with the ultimate goal of defeating TRUMP! in the election. Therefore, there was an extremely clear conflict of interest for them in the impeachment. There were none on the Republican side that were voting in the impeachment.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I don’t think anyone should be allowed to run for another office while serving in another. He or she should have to resign before filing for the new office,

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

That's all I ask of justices.

 

[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.

1. There were several democrats that were running against him.
2. There were no Republicans that were running against him.

In truth..as it was the primaries..no one was running against him..they were running for the chance to run against him. I don't remember if any primary challengers were left on the republican side..but if there were...they had more of a conflict than the Democrats....at that time.

If you want to hide behind technicalities, you can, but it doesn't change anything. Every single one of the democrats that were running were running with the ultimate goal of defeating TRUMP! in the election. Therefore, there was an extremely clear conflict of interest for them in the impeachment. There were none on the Republican side that were voting in the impeachment.

Technicalities..are the heart and soul of law. Had Trump been removed from office..and you filed a brief on those grounds....a first year law student would beat you.
The primary candidates had nothing to gain by removing Trump from office..they still had to beat their Democratic opponents..and would still have to run against Pence.
Removing Trump..although no doubt satisfying--would not materially benefit them.

But it really doesn't matter....now does it?

 

[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.

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.

1. There were several democrats that were running against him.
2. There were no Republicans that were running against him.

In truth..as it was the primaries..no one was running against him..they were running for the chance to run against him. I don't remember if any primary challengers were left on the republican side..but if there were...they had more of a conflict than the Democrats....at that time.

If you want to hide behind technicalities, you can, but it doesn't change anything. Every single one of the democrats that were running were running with the ultimate goal of defeating TRUMP! in the election. Therefore, there was an extremely clear conflict of interest for them in the impeachment. There were none on the Republican side that were voting in the impeachment.

Technicalities..are the heart and soul of law. Had Trump been removed from office..and you filed a brief on those grounds....a first year law student would beat you.
The primary candidates had nothing to gain by removing Trump from office..they still had to beat their Democratic opponents..and would still have to run against Pence.
Removing Trump..although no doubt satisfying--would not materially benefit them.

But it really doesn't matter....now does it?

We're talking politics here. Even that first year law student would tell you this represented the appearance of a conflict, and in politics that is enough. They should have recused themselves or had their votes disqualified.

 

[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.

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.

1. There were several democrats that were running against him.
2. There were no Republicans that were running against him.

In truth..as it was the primaries..no one was running against him..they were running for the chance to run against him. I don't remember if any primary challengers were left on the republican side..but if there were...they had more of a conflict than the Democrats....at that time.

If you want to hide behind technicalities, you can, but it doesn't change anything. Every single one of the democrats that were running were running with the ultimate goal of defeating TRUMP! in the election. Therefore, there was an extremely clear conflict of interest for them in the impeachment. There were none on the Republican side that were voting in the impeachment.

Technicalities..are the heart and soul of law. Had Trump been removed from office..and you filed a brief on those grounds....a first year law student would beat you.
The primary candidates had nothing to gain by removing Trump from office..they still had to beat their Democratic opponents..and would still have to run against Pence.
Removing Trump..although no doubt satisfying--would not materially benefit them.

But it really doesn't matter....now does it?

We're talking politics here. Even that first year law student would tell you this represented the appearance of a conflict, and in politics that is enough. They should have recused themselves or had their votes disqualified.

YEP

 

[ColonelAngus]

Clarence Thomas goving her the oath now. Potus is speaking.

 

[candycorn]

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

Doesnt that seem right?

No. Don’t be silly.

 

[Turtlesoup]

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.

Yeah but they aren't expecting to be the one who gets to chose if Barrett doesnt' make it in.

 

[Turtlesoup]

And she has been confirmed.....read it and weep socialists and communists..

Amy Coney Barrett confirmed to the Supreme Court, giving conservatives a 6-3 majority

Judge Amy Coney Barrett becomes the fifth woman to join the Supreme Court, filling the vacancy left by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

news.yahoo.com

 

[LiberalsLIE]

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

She should have, but like all Democrats she has no morals, no ethics, and is a POS