|
Politics Forum
|
List All Forums | About |
message board home
Next
9/23/2020 9:42:20 AM
 
Reply
or ReplyNewSubject
Section 4: President & Congress Subject: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Msg# 1098555
|
||||||
|
The Supreme Court should not be political. But it is. And you are talking about two men in the big picture of things. Why should two men set the course of history whatever they said today or years ago? Why should one man be humiliated with such horrendous lies and attacked on national tv just because one Party is mad and vindictive and want to take it out on SOMEONE?
As I said before, Ginsburg was confirmed in less time than you are stating. Seems the ‘timetable’ arguement falls flat.It can be done. And has many times as Tom has pointed out in a previous post. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where: Wouldn’t you have held back Garland if you were a Republican? No, not with almost a year to go before the inauguration. The Republicans had the majority in the Senate and could have denied Garland if they wanted to. But McConnell/Grassley did not even give him a hearing. The Supreme Court should not be political. Garland is a moderate and would have made a fine Justice. With at less six weeks until the election and four months until the inauguration why would they not keep their word? Lindsey Graham (2016): "I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, 'Let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,' " he said in 2016 shortly after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. "And you could use my words against me and you'd be absolutely right." |
