Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died of metastatic pancreatic cancer at age 87.

Mmkay, just wanted to confirm you are not calling Mitt Romney a fascist since there was no mention of Trump initially and only Romney.

@Stevo_the_gamer: No, not Romney. Just Trump as from my view point he ticks all the boxes. Feel free to counter if you don’t agree.

Romney has become a little chicken afraid to break with his own party in an election year.

Ah, but US Senators have a constitutional duty to advise a President on a Supreme Court nomination, there is nothing in the US Constitution that would obviate a Senator from casting a vote for a nominee because of an election. But sure, it's cowardice to follow the US Constitution.

@Stevo_the_gamer: This is the same party that 4 years ago said you shouldn’t nominate one during an election year only to backpedal this year. Romney is too much of a chicken to call them on it. No double standards.

@thegreatchomp: You mean career politicians changed a position to suit their party and/or idealogy? I'm shocked! This never happens.

@thegreatchomp: Exactly. And he and everyone else knows it. They're just twisting themselves into logical pretzels trying to justify their swampiness.

@Stevo_the_gamer: Are you defending this or not? Because I’m not.

It's OK, they knowingly support a serial accused pedophile and sexual assailant. It's fun to see the law and order party harbor someone with dozens of indictments in their own administration too.

@thegreatchomp: Defending what? Mitt Romney saying he'll consider whatever nominee President Trump puts forth? I would hope every Senator does their constitutional duty, advise on the qualifications/merit of the candidate - whomever that may be.

@Stevo_the_gamer: Seriously? Are you defending have one set of standards for one party and another for the other. How can you defend them ramming their own thru while blocking the Democrats. That’s why term limits need to happen in every branch of government.

@thegreatchomp: One set of standards? First of all, do politicians have standards? None of this should be surprising to anyone - politicians love to pander to whatever narrative fits the cannon. I'm not surprised by Republican hypocrisy no less than Democrat hypocrisy. But if you support term limits, then I am all ears! Here, here!

@Stevo_the_gamer: I didn’t say it surprised me, just that I don’t support it. Term limits might help, but better legal protections are a must.

Bill Clinton isn't president anymore.

Leave right wing sites behind and research trump.

So you're telling me I should go to a site that deals in far left conspiracy theories if I want the truth? Okay then.

No that isn't what I said.

That's what it sounds like to me, as you have absolutely no fucking idea where I get information. So you assume if it's different than what you know that I must have gotten it from some "right wing" site. Nobody cares about the lefts childish smear campaigns anymore. They've cried wolf so many times it's disgusting.

Then the fault is yours. And I can tell by your statements. As for childish smear campaigns......that comes from the right/trump supporters.

But the accused pedophile and sexual assailant Donald Trump is. He's currently wishing Ghislaine Maxwell well.

I don't know about the president, but I would wish her well too. I would wish her well because I want her to live long enough to start naming names and not go the way of her pal Epstein.

If she names names, then most of them will probably be from Hollywood, but if she names some Republicans then so be it, all the confirmed child molesters can go to jail.

You seem to have no issue supporting the democrats with their change in stance. Why is that? On the surface both parties switched positions. If the democrats were the model of integrity they would let the process run its course like they advocated for in 2016.

Stupid crap like this is part of the reason why I am an independent.

@headtriphippie: Hmmmm. 88 posts and goes inactive for months on end. Also your last post months ago was attacking me. Interesting. Very interesting....

The Democrats argued for election year appointments previously while the GOP argued against. The Democrats lost, the GOP won, and precedence was set.

Now that precedence is being broken by the very party who advocated for it in the first place. You can see the difference there, yes?

Trump is getting booed after being seen at RBG's grave. Today is a good day.

Lol, what point are you trying to make here? I am a lurker, so what. I did not attacked you. I questioned your source when you made a claim but that is hardly attacking.

Are you going to answer the question or continue to deflect about my forum participation level?

I see an attempt to make it different. I don't see a difference between the parties. Both change to whatever position suited them for the situation. Both parties are hypocrits on this issue. I am just questioning how someone could state they can't support one party doing it but are die hard supporters of a party that did the same thing.

@headtriphippie: Die hard? LMAO! Stop assuming things to suit your bias buddy. I’m to the left of the Democrats and voted Green in 2016. But you seem to like to judge a persons whole life based off a few internet posts. Biden isn’t even who I wanted, I wanted Sanders. Screw Biden.

Oh come on. Are you telling me that if you were playing Monopoly the board game with someone and and the following occurred:

1) There was a disagreement about whether Free Parking merits acquisition of the bank fines. He says you don't, while you (who just landed on the spot) says you do. You acquiesce to get the game going again, so you don't claim the money.

2) The next time he lands on the spot he takes all the bank fees.

3) He claims that you said that was the rule before.

4) You claim that he'd argued otherwise and the table had previously agreed to operate without taking that money under his insistence.

5) He grabs the money anyway and insists on continuing.

that you'd insist that both sides are the same and equally at fault?

Calm down buddy, I'm not judging anything. Your post history of a "few"(times a day) posts are the only thing anyone has to go by and they clearly show you support democrats. The nuances are irrelevant.

Back on topic, if I understand your outburst, it sounds like you are OK with the democrats hypocracy because they are the lesser of the evils? I can understand stand that in a way. I view it as both take the hit; nothing gained nothing lost.

@mattbbpl:

Thats a very polite analogy and nothing like what I witnessed.

There never was any agreement around the table. The democrats threw a fit talking about constitution this, death of democracy that. While the republicans chortled to themselves in their committee chairs saying "elections have consequences".

So who is blameless again? The most irritating part is it could have all been avoided had they just had the hearing and voted against confirmation. Precious precedent remains and the next POTUS fills the spot.

@headtriphippie: lol. Ok buddy. Whatever helps you sleep at night. Are you here to stir the pot?

@headtriphippie: They stated their preferred rules and principles, got them, and then immediately discarded them as soon as they'd benefit someone else. Seems pretty apt to me.

You having difficulty explaining your position? Can't respond on topic? Realizing you are no better then what you hate? What is it?? I sleep just fine, pal.

Can you respond on topic? I think I made a fair assement of your answer. If you don't agree, feel free to take this opertunity to clairfy.

@headtriphippie: My position has been clearly stated above you.

Since your sole purpose is to stir the pot, good day sir.

@mattbbpl:

The key difference, for me anyway, was the analogy hinged on the agreement of the table to the new rules. The republicans got their way through political force. The democrats never consented. They never agreed to the new rules. They stood by their principles. Until it was not to their political advantage anymore.

Did they ever sit down and and agree to anything?

If you're stuck on the agreement, perhaps this analogy works better for you:

Are you telling me that if you were playing Monopoly the board game with someone and and the following occurred:

1) There was a disagreement about whether Free Parking merits acquisition of the bank fines. He says you don't, while you (who just landed on the spot) says you do. You acquiesce to get the game going again, so you don't claim the money.

2) The next time he lands on the spot he takes all the bank fees.

3) He claims that you said that was the rule before.

4) You claim that he'd argued otherwise and the table had previously agreedto operate operated without taking that money under his insistence.

5) He grabs the money anyway and insists on continuing.

that you'd insist that both sides are the same and equally at fault?

Why should republicans ask for the consent of democrats? If the people wanted it, they'd have elected democrats to the senate but they didn't. Democrats only scream out for bipartisanship only when they don't have the power, but once they do it's "back of the bus" as one of them put it. Republicans are just playing by democrat rules now, and the left hates it.

Your going to have quote it, cause all I saw was a fit. Perhaps it is best for you to bow out now since this discussion is clearly over your head.

Good day to you as well. Don't worry though I have a tendency to lurk around these forums so we may well have the opportunity to engage again. Maybe you will be better prepared to have a discussion then. Sleep well.

I hate Monopoly the board game.

1) Democrats never "acquiesced"

They called the appointment "illegitimate". They did the same thing in my opinion. Traded positions when it suited them politically. They weren't tricked into changing the rules. No rules were changed. They didn't go along for the greater good, they had no choice. They fervently protested, they made statements, they pounded podiums. Then, "a few moments later", its the same lines but the speakers have swapped.

Anyway, its just my opinion. Thank you for the discussion.

I did pull up a video on Youtube of one of McConnels speeches on the matter back in 2016. He did say then what he said now, that a nomination shoulnd't be confirmed this late into a term when the senate is of a different party. If dems controlled the senate right now, they'd have an argument. Of course if they controlled the senate, you'd be damn sure their arguments from 2016 would be different.

Most of the country, not just the left.

Poll: 59 percent think president elected in November should name next Supreme Court justice

Oh look, another cherry picked poll telling him what to think.

Deflection via ad-homs. It wasn't telling me what to think, it directly contradicted your statement. You said the left hates it, but this poll shows it is not just the left. It showed me your sentence was incorrect or mis-leading.

It also wasn't cherry picked, because you won't be able to find one showing the opposite....instead you simply won't respond to this request. Whether it be studies (I post far more peer reviewed studies than polls mind you) or polls, most of which go uncontested. A common trend.

You've gotta' get better at this.

He picked whatersface. The Democrats shouldn’t add more justice, just get the seats needed and impeach her.

Impeached for doing what, exactly?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/25/politics/house-democrats-bill-supreme-court-term-limits/index.html

Term limits on justices, I am in full support but Republicans will never back this.

Think it should be up for a vote. I vote aye.

Neither would you if your side got all the activists it wanted to reinterpret the constitution.

And what should the SCOTUS nominee be impeached for?