Graham says they have the votes

[Jim in CT]

Lindsey Graham says they have the votes to proceed.

He said in 2016 that there shouldn’t be appointments close to an election. obviously he’s flip flopping. when asked why ( a fair question), he gave an honest answer - that was before Kavanaugh.

For many years, Graham was the best friend that liberals had in the GOP. He was a RINO. Now, after watching what the democrats shamelessly did to Kavanaugh, he’s our pit bull.

The democrats turned him
into what he is. it’s his mission to spike this football in Feinstein’s face and give her the middle
finger with both hands.

Payback is a bitch.

If any liberals here are upset, register your complaints with sente democrats. they created this mess. It started with Bork, continued with Thomas, exacerbated with Kavanaugh. When you kick sand in someone’s face long enough, can you really play the victim card when the one you’re tormenting has had enough? and if they’ve secretly been taking ju jitsu lessons when you weren’t looking, that’s also tough cookies for you.

you reap what you sow.

i’m surprised they can get 50 votes if collins and murkowski have said
no. i wonder what they promised
mitt romney.

i really hope they replace ginsburg with someone equally conservative, and let the chips fall where they may in november. i was already prepared for a very bad outcome in november, this will lessen the blow big time.

Graham voted for both Kagan and Sotomayor. he wasn’t a partisan fanatic. the democrats turned him into one with their shameless tactics.

Actions, like elections, have consequences. and the republicans will have to answer in election day.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Lindsey Graham says they have the votes to proceed.

He said in 2016 that there shouldn’t be appointments close to an election. obviously he’s flip flopping. when asked why ( a fair question), he gave an honest answer - that was before Kavanaugh.

.

He said it again in 2018 after Kavanaugh to the Atlantic 'Hold the tape' was his quote.

#^&#^&#^&#^&ing hypocrite of the first order.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

He said it again in 2018 after Kavanaugh to the Atlantic 'Hold the tape' was his quote.

#^&#^&#^&#^&ing hypocrite of the first order.

yes he is. and it wouldn’t have happened if they showed any civility to kavanaugh.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

yes he is. and it wouldn’t have happened if they showed any civility to kavanaugh.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bull#^&#^&#^&#^&.
They could have treated him with kid gloves and there is NO way the GOP, under Trump would have acted ANY differently then now.

(And I am not excusing the left from this, as they would be doing the same if the roles were reversed. )

As far as your other questions, it is possible for them to debate the record of someone like Barrett without 'attacking women'.... We'll see how it plays out and who the nominee is. I strongly suspect right now the internal polling is centered around which nominee will likely rule in Trump's favor if the election is contested at SCOTUS, as that is the only issue I think Trump actually cares about....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Bull#^&#^&#^&#^&.
They could have treated him with kid gloves and there is NO way the GOP, under Trump would have acted ANY differently then now.

(And I am not excusing the left from this, as they would be doing the same if the roles were reversed. )

As far as your other questions, it is possible for them to debate the record of someone like Barrett without 'attacking women'.... We'll see how it plays out and who the nominee is. I strongly suspect right now the internal polling is centered around which nominee will likely rule in Trump's favor if the election is contested at SCOTUS, as that is the only issue I think Trump actually cares about....

you are speculating. i can rely on graham’s long track record of playing nice with democrats. i didn’t like him, because he was practically a democrat.

bryan, look at the record with scotus.

ginsburg gets 94 votes, meaning almost every republican votes for her.

then biden created the biden rule when bush was president, saying nominations were wrong in an election year. he changed his tune 180 degrees in 2016, and i didn’t see you say he was a hypocrite of the highest order? how is his hypocrisy any different than Graham’s? and you’re voting for Biden, so...

the dems, led by Biden, attacked Bork.

They lynched Clarence Thomas.

Then Kavanaugh.

Bryan, if you want to say that both sides need to grow up, i support that. but i’ve had enough of the gop wearing boxing gloves while
democrats used brass knuckles. there’s no virtue in that. none. there’s only losing.

anyway, i’m curious how you’d differentiate biden’s hypocrisy from graham’s. good luck.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Lindsey Graham is just now realizing that crawling up Trump’s colon won’t actually keep him safe and warm through November.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you are speculating. i can rely on graham’s long track record of playing nice with democrats. i didn’t like him, because he was practically a democrat.

bryan, look at the record with scotus.

ginsburg gets 94 votes, meaning almost every republican votes for her.

then biden created the biden rule when bush was president, saying nominations were wrong in an election year. he changed his tune 180 degrees in 2016, and i didn’t see you say he was a hypocrite of the highest order? how is his hypocrisy any different than Graham’s? and you’re voting for Biden, so...

the dems, led by Biden, attacked Bork.

They lynched Clarence Thomas.

Then Kavanaugh.

Bryan, if you want to say that both sides need to grow up, i support that. but i’ve had enough of the gop wearing boxing gloves while
democrats used brass knuckles. there’s no virtue in that. none. there’s only losing.

anyway, i’m curious how you’d differentiate biden’s hypocrisy from graham’s. good luck.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did I stutter and say Biden wasn't wrong on Bork?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Did I stutter and say Biden wasn't wrong on Bork?

you didn’t, and still haven’t, said anything about biden’s hypocrisy. he previously said ( when a republican was potus) that scotus appointments should not be made in an election year. he said it so famously, they called it the biden rule. he then flip flopped 180 degrees in 2016.

for the second time, how is biden’s hypocrisy different than Grahams? you’re obviously ok with biden’s hypocrisy, since you didn’t call it out and you’re voting for him to be potus.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

bryan, either both sides play nice, or both sides play dirty. but it can’t be ok for democrats to play dirty but expect republicans to play nice. life doesn’t work that way, and for good reason.

i’ve never seen you this amped up. but i get it, because i remember exactly how i felt when i learned of scalias death.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you didn’t, and still haven’t, said anything about biden’s hypocrisy. he previously said ( when a republican was potus) that scotus appointments should not be made in an election year. he said it so famously, they called it the biden rule. he then flip flopped 180 degrees in 2016.

for the second time, how is biden’s hypocrisy different than Grahams? you’re obviously ok with biden’s hypocrisy, since you didn’t call it out and you’re voting for him to be potus.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Really? Can you show me where I was in the 80's on S-B.com to comment on the Bork ruling? You are falling in the trap here that if someone doesn't call something out you think they agree with it.

Its not different, and don't blame this all on the left here, we all watched the Garland nomination process Jim.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Really? Can you show me where I was in the 80's on S-B.com to comment on the Bork ruling? You are falling in the trap here that if someone doesn't call something out you think they agree with it.

Its not different, and don't blame this all on the left here, we all watched the Garland nomination process Jim.

i’m asking you about biden flip flopping in making scotus appointments in an election year, and you keep going to Bork. i’m not sure why.

ok, we both seem to agree that biden and graham were both blatant hypocrites.

i never said it's only the democrats, you saw me explicitly state that graham was a hypocrite. but historically, it’s been the democrats who fight dirty with scotus. that happens to be true, whether you like it or not, until 2016, when the gop had the opportunity to fight back.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Lindsey Graham is just now realizing that crawling up Trump’s colon won’t actually keep him safe and warm through November.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

then why is he doing trumps bidding here, einstein?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i’m asking you about biden flip flopping in making scotus appointments in an election year, and you keep going to Bork. i’m not sure why.

ok, we both seem to agree that biden and graham were both blatant hypocrites.

i never said it's only the democrats, you saw me explicitly state that graham was a hypocrite. but historically, it’s been the democrats who fight dirty with scotus. that happens to be true, whether you like it or not, until 2016, when the gop had the opportunity to fight back.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So besides Bork, and then Garland. When else did the left 'fight dirty' before Kavanaugh (since you said until 2016 when they could fight back)

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

So besides Bork, and then Garland. When else did the left 'fight dirty' before Kavanaugh (since you said until 2016 when they could fight back)

ummmmm, clarence thomas?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Right... Anita Hill's claims were fighting dirty. Maybe we should have ignored that....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Right... Anita Hill's claims were fighting dirty. Maybe we should have ignored that....

there were claims against kavanaugh too, and against biden.

so is the rule that we agree women who accuse republicans, but ignore women who accuse democrats?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

there were claims against kavanaugh too, and against biden.

so is the rule that we agree women who accuse republicans, but ignore women who accuse democrats?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nope. I said here when Biden's accuser came out to have an investigation, same with Kavanugh, and same should be for Trump....

[Pete F.]

South Carolina Senate poll

Graham (R-inc) 46% (+1)
Harrison (D) 45%
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Lindsey Graham saying the nominee already has the votes days before the nominee is, ya know, nominated says it all.
It has nothing to do with good governance, everything to do with power.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Only a true mental midget would say “blame the democratic senators” for this situation.

The whole Congress and Senate is an overflowing toilet bowl packed with crap. Until all these corrupt politicians are flushed, this country is broken.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Lindsey Graham saying the nominee already has the votes days before the nominee is, ya know, nominated says it all.
It has nothing to do with good governance, everything to do with power.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

or, maybe it means that they know who it is, but it hasn't been made public yet. You think maybe it's possible that Graham knows some things that you don't know?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Only a true mental midget would say “blame the democratic senators” for this situation.

The whole Congress and Senate is an overflowing toilet bowl packed with crap. Until all these corrupt politicians are flushed, this country is broken.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Or a smaller mental midget who denies this, because they can't connect the dots.

Try to follow here...

For many decades, presidential nominees were routinely confirmed by senators in both parties. That happened through Ginsburg, who got 94 votes.

Then, the democrats changed those rules. Let me repeat, the democrats changed the rules. Not the republicans, but the democrats.

The democrats came up with the "Biden Rule", which they ignored when Obama was president.

The democrats torpedoed Bork, even though his judicial record was awesome (never overturned by supreme court, and his dissenting opinions were often used by the supreme court as a basis for overturning the decisions of others).

The democrats played the race card, and dealt from the bottom of the deck, with Clarence Thomas.

The democrats tried to crucify Kavanaugh.

I'm not saying the GOP is innocent by any means. The denied a vote in 2016, and are ignoring that reasoning today. But the democrats did a LOT to push the GOP to this point.

That's historical record, look it up if you don't believe me.

You can also blame Ginsburg, who should have retired when Obama was POTUS.

[Jim in CT]

It's curious to me why the liberals go berserk at the thought of a conservative court.

despite much uninformed left wing hysteria to the contrary, the appointment of another conservative to the Supreme Court does not mean that the court will be shoving a right wing agenda down the national throat. Far from it. That's not what conservative judges do.
They empower the states, and by extension the people, to govern themselves.
What a concept!

[Pete F.]

Jim is now claiming clairvoyant powers and that somehow the pick has gone threw the vetting that should occur for a lifetime appointment.
Just gonna skip the rigorous process that both parties have rightly insisted on. It includes a careful examination of just about everything a potential justice has written or said. It includes a thorough FBI background investigation with a chance for senators to review it and follow up on issues raised in it. It includes a chance for senators to have private conversations with the nominee, to ask questions publicly at a hearing, to follow up in writing. It includes public input from others who have knowledge and perspectives; it includes a review of finances and conflicts and whatever specific issues may arise in a particular nomination. It includes discussion and debate. This is a serious process. Giving the Senate the opportunity to do a genuine, thorough review of the President's nominee for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land is a key part of our system of checks and balances. It is important, and it takes time.

If there is not time to do it right, in a way that preserves democratic checks and balances, before an election recasts the wishes of the American people -- and there most certainly is not -- it should not be done. Period.

Some people forget that Bork got a vote and 6 Republicans voted against him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

If there is not time to do it right, in a way that preserves democratic checks and balances, before an election recasts the wishes of the American people -- and there most certainly is not -- it should not be done. Period.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

keep it up and we'll have to spank you...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

If there is not time to do it right, in a way that preserves democratic checks and balances, before an election recasts the wishes of the American people -- and there most certainly is not -- it should not be done. Period.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ginsburg's process took less than 50 days.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Jim is now claiming clairvoyant powers and that somehow the pick has gone threw the vetting that should occur for a lifetime appointment.
Just gonna skip the rigorous process that both parties have rightly insisted on. It includes a careful examination of just about everything a potential justice has written or said. It includes a thorough FBI background investigation with a chance for senators to review it and follow up on issues raised in it. It includes a chance for senators to have private conversations with the nominee, to ask questions publicly at a hearing, to follow up in writing. It includes public input from others who have knowledge and perspectives; it includes a review of finances and conflicts and whatever specific issues may arise in a particular nomination. It includes discussion and debate. This is a serious process. Giving the Senate the opportunity to do a genuine, thorough review of the President's nominee for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land is a key part of our system of checks and balances. It is important, and it takes time.

If there is not time to do it right, in a way that preserves democratic checks and balances, before an election recasts the wishes of the American people -- and there most certainly is not -- it should not be done. Period.

Some people forget that Bork got a vote and 6 Republicans voted against him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Amy Barrett just recently went through the vetting process for federal appeals court, she didn't drop out of the sky. We're not starting at square one.

Still plenty of time for liberals to go through her garbage, attack her for the sin of being catholic, claim she's crazy for wanting 7 kids, call her a racist despite adopting two(!) orphans from Haiti, call her a slut, make a stink if she once drank a wine cooler in high school, all the other very important and relevant things that your side does when they just got bitch slapped. Then they can burn some cars and throw some rocks and bottles like they always do.

I suspect you won't have to wait long for your revenge, as election day is coming. But you're probably, not certainly but probably, going to lose this one.

[Pete F.]

There’s 42 days left and 5 more will be gone by Saturday.

Lindsey Graham is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and it’s in charge of Supreme Court nominations, and it’d be a shame if his re-election race was lost because he wasn’t in South Carolina.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Still plenty of time for liberals to go through her garbage, attack her for the sin of being catholic, claim she's crazy for wanting 7 kids, call her a racist despite adopting two(!) orphans from Haiti, call her a slut, make a stink if she once drank a wine cooler in high school, all the other very important and relevant things that your side does when they just got bitch slapped. Then they can burn some cars and throw some rocks and bottles like they always do.

Thanks for the game plan, I'll forward this to Sen Feinstein

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

There’s 42 days left and 5 more will be gone by Saturday.

Lindsey Graham is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and it’s in charge of Supreme Court nominations, and it’d be a shame if his re-election race was lost because he wasn’t in South Carolina.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It wouldn't be a shame to me. This is bigger than him. Bigger than Trump. This is shaping things for 30 years.