Your kidding right. Are you referring to that sham of a hearing that Moscow Mitch held? A witness came forward and who was given the opportunity to ne heard and cross-examined. That is the way hearings work.ROFLMAO!!!! Integrity??! Like the Democrats presenting a "witness" who accused judge Kavanaugh of organizing rape parties just to block his nomination? No, sweethearts, the gloves are off; all the way off. The Republicans are now fighting like the Democrats. Get used to it.
LOL. The biggest complaint among the Republican voters in the old, pre Trump era was the failure of the Republican elites and the "conservative leaders" to fight back. That goes 30 years back and it has always been on the front burner among the Republican rank and file. All noise and no action. Well, it's over.Your kidding right. Are you referring to that sham of a hearing that Moscow Mitch held? A witness came forward and who was given the opportunity to ne heard and cross-examined. That is the way hearings work.
Please explain what the difference is between now and prior to the 2016 election when mist Republicans lined up and said that the Senate should not conform a nominee in the year before the election.
He meant a Democratic nominee, of course....Your kidding right. Are you referring to that sham of a hearing that Moscow Mitch held? A witness came forward and who was given the opportunity to ne heard and cross-examined. That is the way hearings work.
Please explain what the difference is between now and prior to the 2016 election when mist Republicans lined up and said that the Senate should not conform a nominee in the year before the election.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, never shy to weigh in on the controversies of the day, said she thinks "it's really dumb" for San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick and others to refuse to stand for the national anthem.
You mean the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Good luck with that. Grasping at straws.Washington and Puerto Rico can both be turned into states, adding in 4 more likely dem senators.
The bill is already sitting in Mule Piss' graveyard.You mean the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Good luck with that. Grasping at straws.
What was the vote in the house?That bill won't pass. It would take 2/3 majority of the Senate. Ain't gonna happen. Pipe dream.
What's with Dakota anyway? They don't need two states and four senators. They barely have a population for one stated combined.Washington and Puerto Rico can both be turned into states, adding in 4 more likely dem senators.
Dems got 18 million more votes in the last senate election.What's with Dakota anyway? They don't need two states and four senators. They barely have a population for one stated combined.
Wyoming - 1 Wyoming voter has 70 times more political power than a California voter regarding US Senate representation.Dems got 18 million more votes in the last senate election.
Two more senate races the dems could now win.Wyoming - 1 Wyoming voter has 70 times more political power than a California voter regarding US Senate representation.
- 2 Wyoming votes in the US Senate for just 567,000 residents of that state whereas 2 California votes in the US Senate for 40,000,000 residents of their state
The difference is obvious. In 2016 the sitting President could not be re-elected. It's the President, not his party, who nominates SCOTUS judges. In 2020, it's pure speculation whether Trump will be re-elected, but he is at least running for the office. The two circumstances are not comparable. Obama was a lame duck president in 2016 regardless of who won that election. Also, in 2016 the GOP controlled the Senate, and were not going to vote for Obama's nominee in those circumstances no matter what, so why put Garland through a sham hearing?Please explain what the difference is between now and prior to the 2016 election when mist Republicans lined up and said that the Senate should not conform a nominee in the year before the election.
I think both expanding the court and giving representation to disenfranchised territories is likely. Spliting California or New York into smaller states is also on the table.This is the first step in a constitutional crisis for the USA. If TX goes blue in the next 8 years, the GOP cannot mathematically win the presidency, as the party is currently constituted. It's getting nuttier and more extreme all the time and the era of the RINO is over. As the electorate in the more urban states gets younger and more educated, the GOP will find it impossible to win the House. But the GOP will hold the Senate - because WY, UT, KY, WV and the other shithole states - and the USSC.
So the GOP will block any presidential initiatives and any legislation from the House. Forever. And ever. And the USSC will back them up. Forever.
How long do you think CA and the other large urban states are going to put up with this horse shit?!
If only. If Republicans fought like Democrats, it would be great. Respect for procedure and norms, a belief in representative democracy and institutions, wow.The Republicans are now fighting like the Democrats.
LOL. As I said in another post the gymnastics that you and your friends will go through to rationalize the hypocrisy is really quite predictable and amusing. Why not just own it. You have the power and you will use it. Why go through the silly exercise of trying to justify it when you only embarrass yourself.The difference is obvious. In 2016 the sitting President could not be re-elected. It's the President, not his party, who nominates SCOTUS judges. In 2020, it's pure speculation whether Trump will be re-elected, but he is at least running for the office. The two circumstances are not comparable. Obama was a lame duck president in 2016 regardless of who won that election. Also, in 2016 the GOP controlled the Senate, and were not going to vote for Obama's nominee in those circumstances no matter what, so why put Garland through a sham hearing?
Nonsense. Neither Mule Piss Mitch, Senate majority leader, nor Liesndy Graham, chair Senate Judiciary Committee gave any of those reasons why they SHUT DOWN the SCOTUS appointment confirmation process in 2016.The difference is obvious. In 2016 the sitting President could not be re-elected. It's the President, not his party, who nominates SCOTUS judges. In 2020, it's pure speculation whether Trump will be re-elected, but he is at least running for the office. The two circumstances are not comparable. Obama was a lame duck president in 2016 regardless of who won that election. Also, in 2016 the GOP controlled the Senate, and were not going to vote for Obama's nominee in those circumstances no matter what, so why put Garland through a sham hearing?
The problem w splitting CA and NY is that you're likely to make the smaller states politically competitive thereby. Upstate NY could go red. Ditto Northern CA.I think both expanding the court and giving representation to disenfranchised territories is likely. Spliting California or New York into smaller states is also on the table.
If only. If Republicans fought like Democrats, it would be great. Respect for procedure and norms, a belief in representative democracy and institutions, wow.
What a lovely dream.