NationStates

Eukaryotic Cells wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
I imagine both Murkowski and Collins are being flooded by the base to vote yes.

Likely, yeah. At this point, they're still weighing the electoral impact, I think. Their votes will not matter, unless something disqualifying comes up in the hearing (which I doubt, since they're probably not going to be so thorough).

Grinning Dragon wrote:

Fluvannia wrote:
Personally I still think following the usual procedure is the right thing to do. From a more cynical point of view, it would also bolster the GOP's position instead of making it look like they're ramming a nominee through with all haste.

I would imagine given the fact that both likely appointees have been through an SJC hearing within the past few years means the hearing itself would be brief (especially compared to Kavanaugh), but even if it is more of a formality it remains an important one.

I can see that point of it. I'm just looking at it in regards to my work here in IT, it would seem to be a waste of time and double redundancy, since the front end process has been completed.

The Black Forrest wrote:

The Emerald Legion wrote:
So long as the seat is open, there's a chance people will vote for Biden just to secure that seat. Once it's closed, that's no longer a concern.

so if the seat is filled those people will not vote for biden?

The Black Forrest wrote:

Eukaryotic Cells wrote:Likely, yeah. At this point, they're still weighing the electoral impact, I think. Their votes will not matter, unless something disqualifying comes up in the hearing (which I doubt, since they're probably not going to be so thorough).

With the other two secured; their votes don’t matter. It will not stop the trump followers from calling them and “suggesting” they vote for the candidate. It also gives them a chance to say “see I didn’t support this” if the base against Trump is larger or close to as large as the trump followers.

Tekania wrote:

Elwher wrote:That would be true if the Constitution gave the Federal government the power to regulate medical procedures within the states. As it did not, Roe was decided on the basis of a manufactured Right to Privacy, which right appears exactly nowhere within the text. As there is no basis for the Federal government to intervene, the power passes to the respective states or to the people. If the individual state decides not to exercise that power then your contention that it is a matter for the people is completely correct.

Your argument is fundamentally flawed in the Constitution does not enumerate only the rights we possessed. Effectively right now you are making the very same error that was concerning when the Bill of Rights was being drafted that made them add the Ninth Amendment. Simply because a "Right To Privacy" isn't specifically enumerated, does not mean that people do not have that right. In fact privacy makes up a large part of multiple specific enumerated rights such that it is clearly inline with the enumerated rights.

The Constitution does not grant people things, it restrains government.

Kowani wrote:Crosspoosting, because fuck Ted Cruz

Kowani wrote:Ted Cruz blocks resolution honoring RGB because it included her dying wish.

Kowani wrote:Crosspoosting, because fuck Ted Cruz

Kowani wrote:Ted Cruz blocks resolution honoring RGB because it included her dying wish.

Loben III wrote:

Kowani wrote:Crosspoosting, because fuck Ted Cruz

Dying wishes, a perfect pretext for law.

Salus Maior wrote:

Kowani wrote:Crosspoosting, because fuck Ted Cruz

She couldn't have seriously thought that they would honor that?

Not that there would be any real weight to that.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Loben III wrote:
Dying wishes, a perfect pretext for law.

A resolution honoring a deceased SC justice is not "law".
It's common decency. Something Ted Cruz lacks.

Telconi wrote:No, it isn't law, but it's still an act of the government.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Loben III wrote:
Dying wishes, a perfect pretext for law.

A resolution honoring a deceased SC justice is not "law".
It's common decency. Something Ted Cruz lacks.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
She couldn't have seriously thought that they would honor that?

Not that there would be any real weight to that.

No weight, indeed. Pure speech. Which Ted Cruz is not in favor of this time.

Republicans it seems are so traumatized by RBG's last words, they can't bear to hear them read out in Congress.

Why are you defending them? They're cowards who can't bear to hear a few words.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Loben III wrote:
Dying wishes, a perfect pretext for law.

A resolution honoring a deceased SC justice is not "law".
It's common decency. Something Ted Cruz lacks.

Tarsonis wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
No weight, indeed. Pure speech. Which Ted Cruz is not in favor of this time.

Republicans it seems are so traumatized by RBG's last words, they can't bear to hear them read out in Congress.

Why are you defending them? They're cowards who can't bear to hear a few words.

Tell me how its not partisan. Tell me how adding a footnote that she didn't want her spot filled until after the election, is not a partisan move. Tell me what's the point of it?

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:RBG's last words

Tarsonis wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
No weight, indeed. Pure speech. Which Ted Cruz is not in favor of this time.

Republicans it seems are so traumatized by RBG's last words, they can't bear to hear them read out in Congress.

Why are you defending them? They're cowards who can't bear to hear a few words.

Tell me how its not partisan. Tell me how adding a footnote that she didn't want her spot filled until after the election, is not a partisan move. Tell me what's the point of it?

Tekania wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:

Tell me how its not partisan. Tell me how adding a footnote that she didn't want her spot filled until after the election, is not a partisan move. Tell me what's the point of it?

Honoring her wishes. Nothing more. It's frankly less partisan that fubbing ones nose at even mentioning it because you want to ramrod a justice into the seat posthaste because you're so fucking scared of your potential to lose the whitehouse during the election in little over a month.

Nazeroth wrote:

Tekania wrote:
Honoring her wishes. Nothing more. It's frankly less partisan that fubbing ones nose at even mentioning it because you want to ramrod a justice into the seat posthaste because you're so fucking scared of your potential to lose the whitehouse during the election in little over a month.

It's the constitutional process, or do you not care about following the constitution?

The Alma Mater wrote:

Nazeroth wrote:
It's the constitutional process, or do you not care about following the constitution?

One cannot help notice that the Republican party and the president vehemently disagreed with that a mere 4 years ago.

Nazeroth wrote:

The Alma Mater wrote:
One cannot help notice that the Republican party and the president vehemently disagreed with that a mere 4 years ago.

what they disagree with or not is not up to them, the constitution says he can replace her, so if he feels it, he can.

Need I remind you we still at least PRETEND to follow the constitution in America(as shit on as that sacred document has become)

The Alma Mater wrote:

Nazeroth wrote:
what they disagree with or not is not up to them, the constitution says he can replace her, so if he feels it, he can.

Need I remind you we still at least PRETEND to follow the constitution in America(as shit on as that sacred document has become)

Can and have to are not the same thing. As Trump himself repeatedly pointed out.

And Trump still pretends he is certain he will win, so why rush? It would be a grand first act for his second term.

Nazeroth wrote:

The Alma Mater wrote:
Can and have to are not the same thing. As Trump himself repeatedly pointed out.

And Trump still pretends he is certain he will win, so why rush? It would be a grand first act for his second term.

"grand first act for his second term"

Literally ANYTHING he does will be seen as an absolute hiterlist act by the Left

so with that being said, might as well just confirm, they are going to riot, destroy, loot and continue their terror campaign regardless.

The Alma Mater wrote:

Nazeroth wrote:
"grand first act for his second term"

Literally ANYTHING he does will be seen as an absolute hiterlist act by the Left

so with that being said, might as well just confirm, they are going to riot, destroy, loot and continue their terror campaign regardless.

Who cares about the left ? The USA only has the right and the slightly less right. There is no left wing of note in the USA.