LogFAQs > #946370486

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, Database 7 ( 07.18.2020-02.18.2021 ), DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Amy Coney Barrett got confirmed
Revelation34 10/27/20 2:28:11 PM #108:	EvilMegas posted... Was this a surprise after Brett Cavanaugh was pushed though despite his poor showing and sexual assault allegation? The one where they found nothing happened? streamofthesky posted... Republicans left a court seat open an entire year so that "voters could decide", then rushed to fill a seat literally a week before the election. They're the ones that keep changing the "rules" to suit their needs and plunder all that they can. You seem to have it backwards. Perhaps if Republicans hadn't pulled that shit w/ Garland, and even went to cartoon villainy levels of evil such as stating their intent to steal the seat literally hours after Scalia had died, Dems wouldn't call them out on their FUCKING HYPOCRISY right now. Yes it's hypocritical. They clearly lied back then. They're politicians, it's in their blood. They never had any intention of ever following the same standard. Blame Obama for not just appointing Garland without a hearing. wolfy42 posted... Probably not alot of unborn babies. That's an oxymoron. CyborgSage00x0 posted... One of the ideas is if the Dems don't expand/contract the SC, they may also put term limits on appointments (like 18 years). Or they could do that in tandem with any court seat adjustments. Something has to be done either way. No this is stupid. Nobody cared before about there being no term limit so it would be hypocrisy to care now. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:946370486] in Amy Coney ... [t:79065665]...</cite> <quote>EvilMegas posted...</cite> <quote>Was this a surprise after Brett Cavanaugh was pushed though despite his poor showing and sexual assault allegation? </quote> The one where they found nothing happened? streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote> Republicans left a court seat open an entire year so that "voters could decide", then rushed to fill a seat literally a week before the election. They're the ones that keep changing the "rules" to suit their needs and plunder all that they can. You seem to have it backwards. Perhaps if Republicans hadn't pulled that shit w/ Garland, and even went to cartoon villainy levels of evil such as stating their intent to steal the seat literally hours after Scalia had died, Dems wouldn't call them out on their FUCKING HYPOCRISY right now. </quote> Yes it's hypocritical. They clearly lied back then. They're politicians, it's in their blood. They never had any intention of ever following the same standard. Blame Obama for not just appointing Garland without a hearing. wolfy42 posted...</cite> <quote> Probably not alot of unborn babies. </quote> That's an oxymoron. CyborgSage00x0 posted...</cite> <quote> One of the ideas is if the Dems don't expand/contract the SC, they may also put term limits on appointments (like 18 years). Or they could do that in tandem with any court seat adjustments. Something has to be done either way. </quote> No this is stupid. Nobody cared before about there being no term limit so it would be hypocrisy to care now. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1