|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Mar 27, 2022 18:09:16 GMT
So he has said it out loud. If GOP take the Senate they will not entertain a SC Justice appointment in election year 2024, also maybe none in 2023 Using the "Garland Rule".. According to a report from the Washington Post, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) definitively said a Republican-majority Senate would not hold hearings for a President Joe Biden Supreme Court nominee in the 2024 election year and held out the possibility that no nominee would be considered at all if the GOP takes control of the Senate in November. *** As the Post's Paul Kane is reporting, Graham has said a GOP-controlled Senate would invoke the so-called "Garland rule," a non-existent rule that Republicans used to keep current Attorney General Merrick Garland off the court after former President Barrack Obama's nominated him. *** According to Graham, that same scenario might not only play out in 2024, but also in 2023, meaning the court could be down to eight members for almost two years. *** The columnist continued, "The tricky situation, Graham said, is if [Clarence] Thomas or another justice were to die in 2023, before the actual primaries and caucuses start in the presidential campaign," adding that Graham replied, "This is sort of uncharted territory.” www.rawstory.com/lindsey-graham-2657046890/ |
|
|
|
Post by Gem Girl on Mar 27, 2022 18:15:48 GMT
Is there no limit to the impediments to our country's functioning that they are willing to sanctify for the sake of partisanship?  I wish them intimate rectal relations with chainsaws. |
|
michellegb
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,915
Location: New England and loving it!
Jun 26, 2014 0:04:59 GMT
|
Post by michellegb on Mar 27, 2022 18:22:10 GMT
This nonsense makes me irate! Yet the sped ACB through the process within A MONTH of the presidential election. F*** them and their double standard and jackassery!
|
|
casii
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,466 
|
Post by casii on Mar 27, 2022 18:22:34 GMT
You'd think the evil in their souls would suck the life force out of them so the GOP leadership might die out, but noooo, it seems to act as a preservative on their bodies and pickles their brains.
|
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Mar 27, 2022 18:32:08 GMT
You'd think the evil in their souls would suck the life force out of them so the GOP leadership might die out, but noooo, it seems to act as a preservative on their bodies and pickles their brains. You can’t die if your not actually alive - you just get up out of your coffin when you need to obstruct |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Mar 27, 2022 18:34:37 GMT
And again, Graham voted/confirmed her for her last position!!
Talk hypocrite....!!
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 27, 2022 19:35:48 GMT
The Garland rule might as well be - if the Republicans hold the Senate and Democrats the White House, refuse to bring a nomination to the floor any time during a Democratic presidency. And the ACB rule, if Republicans hold both the senate and the White House, it's OK to bring a nomination any time during the presidency.
|
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Mar 27, 2022 19:42:52 GMT
He has no ethics whatsoever.
|
|
peabay
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,618
Jun 25, 2014 19:50:41 GMT
|
Post by peabay on Mar 27, 2022 19:46:36 GMT
And again, Graham voted/confirmed her for her last position!! Talk hypocrite....!! He's pissed because Biden didn't pick a South Carolina judge that he wanted - she was also a black woman. And because Joe wouldn't do what he wanted, he's now having a hissy fit. |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Mar 27, 2022 19:51:51 GMT
And again, Graham voted/confirmed her for her last position!! Talk hypocrite....!! He's pissed because Biden didn't pick a South Carolina judge that he wanted - she was also a black woman. And because Joe wouldn't do what he wanted, he's now having a hissy fit. Childs is up for a position right now, the nomination was held until the SC was done.. yes, Childs was also qualified.. |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Mar 27, 2022 20:14:29 GMT
Ketanji Brown Jackson proved she has the nerves of steel and can handle anything!!
Not even one little itty bitty eye roll was to be seen!
|
|
|
|
Post by bc2ca on Mar 27, 2022 20:22:51 GMT
Wait, isn't the most recent precedent for nominating SC Justices in an election year the Barrett Rule?
|
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Mar 27, 2022 21:29:05 GMT
Republicans being republicans…dishonest, liars, cheaters, just fucking America any way they can.
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Mar 27, 2022 21:35:39 GMT
Wait, isn't the most recent precedent for nominating SC Justices in an election year the Barrett Rule? Right you are!! |
|
|
|
Post by lisae on Mar 28, 2022 11:58:56 GMT
"This is sort of uncharted territory.” The Republicans charted a course right through when Ginsberg died and they ran Barretts appointment in the month before the 2020 election. There was nothing in the Constitution that prevented them then and there isn't now. There was nothing to stop them from having hearings on Garland 11 months before Obama's term ended. In fact, if Graham would consult the constitution he would find that it is the Senate's duty to confirm or officially deny a presidential appointment to the court. |
|
I wish them intimate rectal relations with chainsaws. 
