OldLady
Diamond Member
- Nov 16, 2015
- 69,568
- 19,611
- 2,220
I thought the Dems were going to boycott?She is running for office, shouldnt she recuse herself like Democrats want Barrett to do?
Doesnt that seem right?
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.
I thought the Dems were going to boycott?She is running for office, shouldnt she recuse herself like Democrats want Barrett to do?
Doesnt that seem right?
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 conflict was much more easily seen during the impeachment process. Those running for president against the TRUMP! should have recused themselves. They did not.Doubling down on stupid? Running for office is no conflict at all! But hey, amuse us..delineate the areas of conflict.Nope..she still has a responsibility to her constituency--BTW...1/3 Of the Senate is running for office..they should recuse themselves?She is running for office, shouldnt she recuse herself like Democrats want Barrett to do?
Doesnt that seem right?
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?
The house is moot..the impeachment would have been voted out no matter.
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.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 conflict was much more easily seen during the impeachment process. Those running for president against the TRUMP! should have recused themselves. They did not.Doubling down on stupid? Running for office is no conflict at all! But hey, amuse us..delineate the areas of conflict.Nope..she still has a responsibility to her constituency--BTW...1/3 Of the Senate is running for office..they should recuse themselves?She is running for office, shouldnt she recuse herself like Democrats want Barrett to do?
Doesnt that seem right?
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?
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.
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.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.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 conflict was much more easily seen during the impeachment process. Those running for president against the TRUMP! should have recused themselves. They did not.Doubling down on stupid? Running for office is no conflict at all! But hey, amuse us..delineate the areas of conflict.Nope..she still has a responsibility to her constituency--BTW...1/3 Of the Senate is running for office..they should recuse themselves?She is running for office, shouldnt she recuse herself like Democrats want Barrett to do?
Doesnt that seem right?
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?
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.
That's all I ask of justices.Nope..she still has a responsibility to her constituency--BTW...1/3 Of the Senate is running for office..they should recuse themselves?She is running for office, shouldnt she recuse herself like Democrats want Barrett to do?
Doesnt that seem right?
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.
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.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.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.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 conflict was much more easily seen during the impeachment process. Those running for president against the TRUMP! should have recused themselves. They did not.Doubling down on stupid? Running for office is no conflict at all! But hey, amuse us..delineate the areas of conflict.Nope..she still has a responsibility to her constituency--BTW...1/3 Of the Senate is running for office..they should recuse themselves?She is running for office, shouldnt she recuse herself like Democrats want Barrett to do?
Doesnt that seem right?
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?
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.
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.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.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.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.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 conflict was much more easily seen during the impeachment process. Those running for president against the TRUMP! should have recused themselves. They did not.Doubling down on stupid? Running for office is no conflict at all! But hey, amuse us..delineate the areas of conflict.Nope..she still has a responsibility to her constituency--BTW...1/3 Of the Senate is running for office..they should recuse themselves?She is running for office, shouldnt she recuse herself like Democrats want Barrett to do?
Doesnt that seem right?
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?
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.
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.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.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.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.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 conflict was much more easily seen during the impeachment process. Those running for president against the TRUMP! should have recused themselves. They did not.Doubling down on stupid? Running for office is no conflict at all! But hey, amuse us..delineate the areas of conflict.Nope..she still has a responsibility to her constituency--BTW...1/3 Of the Senate is running for office..they should recuse themselves?She is running for office, shouldnt she recuse herself like Democrats want Barrett to do?
Doesnt that seem right?
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?
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.
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?
No. Don’t be silly.She is running for office, shouldnt she recuse herself like Democrats want Barrett to do?
Doesnt that seem right?
Yeah but they aren't expecting to be the one who gets to chose if Barrett doesnt' make it in.Nope..she still has a responsibility to her constituency--BTW...1/3 Of the Senate is running for office..they should recuse themselves?She is running for office, shouldnt she recuse herself like Democrats want Barrett to do?
Doesnt that seem right?
You really should think a bit before posting..you might avoid looking like an idiot.
She is running for office, shouldnt she recuse herself like Democrats want Barrett to do?