Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND
So, if these claims came forward they should not have investigated them?
If RGB is off the court early in 2020, should we expect the GOP and Trump to not put forth a nominee because if is an election year following the Garland precedent?
|
if the victim isn’t asking for an investigation, and won’t even concede that the event took place, then i’m not sure there’s anything to investigate.
ahhh, ginsberg and the scotus. that’s what this is all about, obviously. let me start by saying i think garland should
have been given a hearing, and then he should have been rejected. but he wasn’t.
if ginsburg retires, i don’t think the senate should wait. the american people, in free elections, have chosen to give senate control
to the republicans. for 8 years, from 2009 - 2016, obama liked to say that elections have consequences. i agree with him. unlike democrats, i agree with that even when it’s not good for
my personal agenda.
when passing on garland, the gop
senate should not have said its best to wait for the next election. they should have said “ the american people gave senate control to the gop, and that includes responsibility for confirming judges, and no logic would lead anyone to conclude that he people did that, because they wanted Scalia replaced with Garland.”. that’s what they should have said. they didn’t, which means they will look very hypocritical if they try to sneak one in, in 2020. but i hope that’s what happens.
the party that controls the senate, confirms judges. today, that’s the gop.
ginsberg blew it by not retiring when the democrats had the white house and the senate. if trump gets re elected ( unlikely imo but i said that in 2016 too), and the gop keeps the senate, it’s very likely she gets replaced with Amy Barrett. a conservative catholic, and during those conformation hearings, you’ll see just how much democrats like women.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Hybrid Mode
