Murkowski announces she will vote yes to confirm Amy Coney Barrett

Spare me your indignation, my friend. When Democrats are in majority, they always do what they want, and in a hurry.

 

Well. Til then...

 

Evidently, the "progressive" barbarians at the gates had a previously scheduled BLM riot to attend.

I'm sure I'm not the only person who is astonished to see Lisa Murkowski siding with her own party for a change. She must have caught some serious heat from the folks back home in Alaska...

 

No indignation. More just a silent cross between hilarity and sadness.

The Dems don't, because if they did, then Reid would have made SC nominations a simple majority rather then restricting his change to lower courts only.

If they did, Medicare4all would have been pushed through during Obama's 4 month super majority rather then having to use sequestration due to Rep intransigence after negotiations and alterations that ultimately formed the ACA.

If they did, RGB would have been out when Obama could have replaced her with someone aligned with her ideology rather then the RW theologian disgusted as a Judge that your getting today.

Recent history has shown the Dems actually Not doing what it's base has wanted when they had the opportunity on numerous occasions.

 

Interesting...

1. Harry Reid showed the way and Republicans merely improved upon it.
2. Obamacare was discussed and decided upon by the Democrats; Republicans were invited but to one or two meaningless token sessions.
3. Ruth Ginzburg had a voice of her own and Obama could not have replaced her if he did a voodoo dance around her until she decided to go in her own good time.

 

She was without a doubt threaten with DEATH from the right regime. Vote or Die ! The CIA will get you...

 

What a childish statement... As if a SCA could do anything to Alaska... Just goes to show the education level on the right

 

Just being legal doesn't make it right. Like I say, we got rid of a crew that thought that way some years ago.

 

No process fell apart. Trump 304 to Clinton 227......she lost.

 

Why would the Democrats win the Senate? Democrat Senators from states where riots and looting went unchecked will likely lose giving the Republicans more seats not less. The major cities where the bulk of the rioting and looting took place have Democrat Reps in the House, who's going to vote for them? I doubt any business owners, people who live there or work there will vote for the folks that allowed it to happen while holding the cops back from doing their jobs.

Here's my prediction for the election: Trump tops "Big Guy gets 10%" Biden, Republicans take the House with 20+ new seats and 6+ new Senators, depending on what they try to pull to eliminate Barrett.

 

NO! Being legal makes it RIGHT! Always have.

 

How many hours til Justice ACB is officially confirmed? 3? 4?

 

You clearly don't understand the history here. In 2013, when Reid nuked the judicial filibuster, there were no SCOTUS vacancies. He did it for lower court nominees because that was his goal at the time: jam through some partisan nominees to the DC Circuit Court. His base didn't want him to nuke the SCOTUS filibuster because it wasn't an issue at the time, only lower courts were.

 

1. So the Reps are as bad as Reid? I'm cool with that.

2. Lol I guess you don't remember the crap that went down over the ACA and the changes Obama made to try and woo Murchowski and Collins, who ultimately told him to go spit after the changes were made?
3. Fair point, though I think she would have if pushed. Not as easy as potentially blackmail like I personally believe Trump did with Kennedy.

There really is no place for potential futures thag don't fit with the idea that the Reps may lose, in your head, is there? You realize your setting yourself up the same way Hillary did right?

Lol oh I remember clearly. I remember the Reps settin records for cloture motions, I remember the historic backlog of judicial appointments and the Reps earning their nickname as the party of No.

I also remember Reid specifically not including Scotus because of how it would turn the SC into a partisan Institution. How right he was.

 

It's just a prediction, besides I'm never afraid to admit it when I'm wrong. Done it here many times.

 

You don't happen to have a source for that do you? A transcript of a speech, media interview, something along those lines? As soon as Harry Reid went nuclear, it was inevitable that a filibuster on a SCOTUS nomination would get nuked too. Harry Reid put that in motion.

 

~1 hour to go now.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?47722...udge-amy-coney-barrett-nomination-730-pm&live

 

I was just about to ask, I'ts time for my nap, but I didnt wanna miss the big giant gavel.

 

Schumer's still salty about Garland. LOL.

 

Now that it's JUSTICE Barrett, I think we all owe former Democrat big-wig, Harry Reid, our deep and profound thanks for getting rid of the filibuster!

How 'bout it, Trump? Give ol' Harry Reid the Presidential Medal of Freedom! He's indirectly made the Supreme Court a Branch of Government we can have faith and confidence in again, after so many years that it wobbled around in the vagueness of unconstitutionality thanks to having a liberal 'twist'.

.

 

This Post didn't age well.

NOW, that the Democrats took the Senate

You were Oh-For-THREE.

Nothing personal, just saying...

 

Cheat to win is no great accomplishment.

 

Biden 306 to Trump 232........your boy lost too. LOL

 

Neither is whining when you lose.

 

That's is in the cons playbook. LOL