Their own rules??? Democrats didn’t have the senate! What’s so hard to understand?
I am not in agreement with packing the Court. The Republican are hypocrites and their word means absolutely nothing. However, if the Dems start the movement to pack the court then the Dems are no better than the Republicans. One party has to stand faithful to what this country means even if it means that Republicans win this battle. Let the Dems be the party that stands for principles and for the institutions of this country. Otherwise, we just devolve into a never ending series of politics and the country will quickly will become worse and worse.
its comical that Dems may lose a seat on bench fair and square and their response is add more seats that we’ll fill with lefties. not surprised as it’s consistent with illegal immigration for more votes. You know, since we couldn’t beat creighton last year we should have ran them 6 v 5. babies.
Don’t like the result, change the rules. Rather than look in the mirror and do a little self reflection.
that last game vs them it did seem like they had 6 guys on the floor
it is exactly that lol. Dems (including me!!!!) didn’t have the senate. President nominates (you get that obviously) and SENATE confirms (you obviously don’t get that). Or you don’t realize that senate was R in 16ish ? Would like to know what you knew
I agree with this. But tough politics have played a part in this stuff for a while and that’s what happened in 16, it’s what will happen now and it will happen in the future. Bork, Garland, Kavanaugh and to quote Bill Maher the “(f word) catholic” Barret
Agree with this. It also shows in Obama's second term he was not a strong President at all and miscalculated badly on Garland and his ability to get a vote. There should have been a vote IMO. Politics were just as divided then as they are now. It is a sad state of affairs really and it is not getting any better and we are not doing a good job of holding our elected officials responsible.
I think it is preferable that a SC justice have bench experience. However, it isn’t necessary as long as they have an abundance of practice experience. Practicing law is very different than being in academia.
Her religion will be brought up by the opposition in almost every instance. Keep me posted on all articles and opposition that do not include her religion. Can you imagine if the opposition brought up Kamala Harris' race time?
I actually like Maher. His opinions are not really far left. He and I aré probably very close on the political spectrum. He however is an atheist. And he is anti religion. It’s his opinion. I think the Dems will actually tread very lightly on whether her religious views a d legal precedent conflicts, what will she do. It’s a losing argument. The Dems need to realize that this is a lost battle. But don’t go swinging at windmills when the war is right here.
I agree that going after Barret would be a dumb strategy. There is no way they are going to stop the confirmation and can only do damage with the suburban female vote if they go after her. Cut your losses and focus on winning the election.
A while back Maher wanted to film a hit piece on the Catholic church. So he lied to a former Bishop about his true intent and they allowed him to film the piece in a church. He did an interview with one of the Bishops that was a fluff piece to get the gig and then went on and basically hit the church very hard with his opinions while in the church. Agree or disagree with what he says but the guy is a scumbag first and foremost and always will be one IMO. The bishop was certainly naive but Maher knew exactly what he was doing.
There is also the other side of the coin where they can't just roll over and look weak. That could hurt morale.
