Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-17-2019, 09:52 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,368

The effect a Ginsburg vacancy would have on the 2020 election


The Republicans were mostly listless and a dead ship in the water last year until the Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation battle, which revved up much of the base and sent Republicans to the polls at a rate 25% higher than normal GOP turnout for a midterm (if I recall right.)

With the recent anti-abortion laws (which likely still won't have their moment in the Supreme Court until after 2020,) a Ginsburg departure from the Supreme Court prior to Election Day would be immensely consequential. It could give pro-lifers the majority they need to overturn Roe (assuming Roberts won't overturn) - along with, of course, all the other consequences that arise as a result of replacing the Court's most liberal justice with a Gorsuch type.

I think such a Ginsburg departure would be more likely to revv up Democratic voters, though, because the Alabama and Georgia laws are so severe that they aren't popular with even many Republicans. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court was perhaps the biggest issue dear to Trump voters in 2016 and an opportunity to fill in another vacancy would remind many Trumpers of why they want(ed) Trump.
  #2  
Old 05-17-2019, 10:19 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,418
I would bet she is not going to quit before 2020 unless she is very ill. And even then she may not quit. If a Dem wins in 2020 and the Senate stays in GOP control, they probably won't confirm anyone leaving the seat empty. .
  #3  
Old 05-17-2019, 10:41 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,493
I suspect the Republicans would push hard to nominate & confirm a conservative justice, either prior to the election or during the lame duck session, at least if they thought there was a risk of them losing the White House or the Senate (and there is a risk).
  #4  
Old 05-17-2019, 10:43 AM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW.
Posts: 12,404
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I suspect the Republicans would push hard to nominate & confirm a conservative justice, either prior to the election or during the lame duck session, at least if they thought there was a risk of them losing the White House or the Senate (and there is a risk).
Yeah, I'd say there is a risk.
  #5  
Old 05-17-2019, 11:30 AM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I suspect the Republicans would push hard to nominate & confirm a conservative justice, either prior to the election or during the lame duck session, at least if they thought there was a risk of them losing the White House or the Senate (and there is a risk).
Of course it will happen, but it also would happen if Clarence Thomas died.

The only difference it would make is how many more anti-Trump voters would be fired up enough to vote. And I can't believe there is anyone on either side who cares about the Supreme Court who isn't already fired up.
  #6  
Old 05-17-2019, 11:49 AM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,171
Well if she dies or steps down in 2020, we'll just have to wait until January 2021 since we simply don't confirm justices in election years. Mitch McConnell said so himself. And he wouldn't lie, would he? WOULD HE?!

Last edited by Happy Lendervedder; 05-17-2019 at 11:51 AM.
  #7  
Old 05-17-2019, 02:44 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,368
There's a saying that people are more motivated to avoid what they fear than gain what they desire; wonder if this means anti-Trumpers would be more fired up to prevent SCOTUS from going further right than Trumpers are to push the court right.
  #8  
Old 05-17-2019, 02:48 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
There's a saying that people are more motivated to avoid what they fear than gain what they desire; wonder if this means anti-Trumpers would be more fired up to prevent SCOTUS from going further right than Trumpers are to push the court right.
In 2020, with a hypothetical Ginsburg vacancy looming over the country, it's hard to guess, but in 2016 most of those that said SCOTUS was important to their vote, voted for President Trump:

  #9  
Old 05-18-2019, 04:00 PM
PoppaSan's Avatar
PoppaSan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West shore Lake Michigan
Posts: 2,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
Well if she dies or steps down in 2020, we'll just have to wait until January 2021 since we simply don't confirm justices in election years. Mitch McConnell said so himself. And he wouldn't lie, would he? WOULD HE?!
Is it a lie if you learned your lesson and change your mind?
__________________
This place is beginning to feel like a tin foil hat convention.
  #10  
Old 05-18-2019, 06:18 PM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,930

The effect a Ginsburg vacancy would have on the 2020 election


It would guarantee even higher turnout on the GOP side and give Trump a much larger electoral victory than he got in 2016. The principal reason being the right would see it as a chance to pack the court with enough votes to definitely overturn Roe and Obergefell, Lawrence v Hardwick and possibly even Loving and Brown v Board of Education, and establish the white, Christian autocracy many of them think they want.

There is a hateful, vengeful and racist mindset rising on the right and I don't see any reason to think it is even close to cresting.
  #11  
Old 05-19-2019, 09:23 PM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo View Post
It would guarantee even higher turnout on the GOP side and give Trump a much larger electoral victory than he got in 2016. The principal reason being the right would see it as a chance to pack the court with enough votes to definitely overturn Roe and Obergefell, Lawrence v Hardwick and possibly even Loving and Brown v Board of Education, and establish the white, Christian autocracy many of them think they want.

There is a hateful, vengeful and racist mindset rising on the right and I don't see any reason to think it is even close to cresting.
I think Trump has a high floor but a low ceiling. My guess is that even with an empty SCOTUS seat hanging over the election that Trump's ceiling is the 2016 map plus Minnesota and New Hampshire. OTOH I guess his floor is 2016 minus PA, MI, and WI.

Last edited by FlikTheBlue; 05-19-2019 at 09:26 PM.
  #12  
Old 05-19-2019, 09:59 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
In 2020, with a hypothetical Ginsburg vacancy looming over the country, it's hard to guess, but in 2016 most of those that said SCOTUS was important to their vote, voted for President Trump:
I'm probably in the liberal minority, but SCOTUS was tops in my mind when I favored Hillary as the pragmatic candidate in 2016. After Gorsuch and Kavanaugh I expect a lot of liberals will become similarly focused, but the Senate map being what it is, I'm not optimistic.
  #13  
Old 05-22-2019, 03:17 PM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,733
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
I'm probably in the liberal minority, but SCOTUS was tops in my mind when I favored Hillary as the pragmatic candidate in 2016. After Gorsuch and Kavanaugh I expect a lot of liberals will become similarly focused, but the Senate map being what it is, I'm not optimistic.


So we will have the very real possibility of having a Democratic President and a Republican Senate unwilling to confirm any nominees as the Supreme Court dwindles down to a single person in some sort of twisted tontine of partisanship. Just as the framers intended, conservatives.
  #14  
Old 05-22-2019, 05:26 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
So we will have the very real possibility of having a Democratic President and a Republican Senate unwilling to confirm any nominees as the Supreme Court dwindles down to a single person in some sort of twisted tontine of partisanship. Just as the framers intended, conservatives.
Yeah. It will be some dark fun watching Mitch McConnell make a rule that that Democrat presidents shouldn't get to nominate SCOTUS justices within the last 3 years of their term, and half the country goes "sure, rules are rules I guess."
  #15  
Old 05-22-2019, 05:31 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo View Post
It would guarantee even higher turnout on the GOP side and give Trump a much larger electoral victory than he got in 2016. The principal reason being the right would see it as a chance to pack the court with enough votes to definitely overturn Roe and Obergefell, Lawrence v Hardwick and possibly even Loving and Brown v Board of Education, and establish the white, Christian autocracy many of them think they want.

There is a hateful, vengeful and racist mindset rising on the right and I don't see any reason to think it is even close to cresting.
Come on. Let's be real. Overturn Brown v. Board of Education? Please. With all respect, this is insanity. Where do you get the idea that is what your opponents want?

You think Thomas and Gorsuch would vote to overturn Brown? Loving? Lawrence? Obergefell? Well, maybe Thomas would overturn Lawrence and Obergefell because he generally does not respect stare decisis, but fucking Brown?!?
  #16  
Old 05-22-2019, 06:19 PM
DigitalC is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Obamatopia
Posts: 11,153
A Ginsburg vacancy would be filled as fast as humanly possible.
  #17  
Old 05-23-2019, 01:08 AM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Come on. Let's be real. Overturn Brown v. Board of Education? Please. With all respect, this is insanity. Where do you get the idea that is what your opponents want?

You think Thomas and Gorsuch would vote to overturn Brown? Loving? Lawrence? Obergefell? Well, maybe Thomas would overturn Lawrence and Obergefell because he generally does not respect stare decisis, but fucking Brown?!?
As I said, I believe continued appointments to the Court by this President will definitely result in Lawrence, Obergefell and Roe being overturned. Their is already a 5 justice majority that has shown they have no respect for stare decisis.

Read Breyer's dissent from the last week in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt. He certainly believes the Roberts 5 will willingly throw precedent out the window when it suits their political beliefs.

And I said the overturning of Loving and Brown would be possibilities. I still stand by that. I agree doing it would indeed be insanity. Doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
  #18  
Old 05-23-2019, 03:52 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
Well if she dies or steps down in 2020, we'll just have to wait until January 2021 since we simply don't confirm justices in election years. Mitch McConnell said so himself. And he wouldn't lie, would he? WOULD HE?!

This is what would make it so epically nuclear, if McConnell just flat out admits that was bullshit.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #19  
Old 05-23-2019, 11:22 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,418
He meant to say you cannot confirm in the last year of a Democratic president.
  #20  
Old 05-23-2019, 12:11 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
You think Thomas and Gorsuch would vote to overturn Brown? Loving? Lawrence? Obergefell? Well, maybe Thomas would overturn Lawrence and Obergefell because he generally does not respect stare decisis, but fucking Brown?!?
Conservatives have been trying to pack and politicize the court for years in an attempt to overturn various culture-war decisions, the biggest of which is Roe v. Wade.

The necessary first step is chucking out stare decisis , which the conservative majority just did with Nevada vs Hall .

Now that all 5 conservative majority have signalled they don't give a shit about stare decisis, what would stop them from overturning Brown? That they're totally nice trustworthy guys?
  #21  
Old 05-23-2019, 12:17 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
Conservatives have been trying to pack and politicize the court for years in an attempt to overturn various culture-war decisions, the biggest of which is Roe v. Wade.

The necessary first step is chucking out stare decisis , which the conservative majority just did with Nevada vs Hall .

Now that all 5 conservative majority have signalled they don't give a shit about stare decisis, what would stop them from overturning Brown? That they're totally nice trustworthy guys?
How much respect do you think the liberal justices have for the Heller precedent?
  #22  
Old 05-23-2019, 12:19 PM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
Now that all 5 conservative majority have signalled they don't give a shit about stare decisis, what would stop them from overturning Brown? That they're totally nice trustworthy guys?
Well, the assumption there is that they are a bunch of political hacks, is it not? Even political hacks would not want to commit political suicide. Which would happen if they overturned Brown. If you think otherwise, I'm sorry, you're delusional. The average Republican does not want that. That's absurd.
  #23  
Old 05-23-2019, 02:17 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
How much respect do you think the liberal justices have for the Heller precedent?
I don't know. What do you think, and why?
  #24  
Old 05-23-2019, 02:21 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo View Post
As I said, I believe continued appointments to the Court by this President will definitely result in Lawrence, Obergefell and Roe being overturned. Their is already a 5 justice majority that has shown they have no respect for stare decisis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
The necessary first step is chucking out stare decisis , which the conservative majority just did with Nevada vs Hall .
Do you really believe that the 5 who voted together in Nevada don't have respect for stare decisis? Can you recite what the standard is for overturning past precedent? These conclusions seem pretty hyperbolic to me. I'll grant that Thomas has never been a fan of stare decisis, but overturning one previous holding in no way indicates a lack of respect for or a chucking of stare decisis. Overturning past precedent is not frequent, but it has happened regularly in the history of the court.

Last edited by Bone; 05-23-2019 at 02:22 PM.
  #25  
Old 05-23-2019, 02:22 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
Well, the assumption there is that they are a bunch of political hacks, is it not? Even political hacks would not want to commit political suicide. Which would happen if they overturned Brown. If you think otherwise, I'm sorry, you're delusional.
You don't seem to understand that nothing is political suicide to a body that has lifetime appointments. They are effectively untouchable.

Quote:
The average Republican does not want that. That's absurd.
It's been my observation that average Republicans may not actively want extreme things. But as soon a Republican politician presents them with an extreme choice that benefits them, they cheerfully vote "yes" and move on with their lives.
  #26  
Old 05-23-2019, 02:32 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Do you really believe that the 5 who voted together in Nevada don't have respect for stare decisis? Can you recite what the standard is for overturning past precedent?
As you likely know this is based on a large volume of legal opinion that won't fit here. Summarized, the bar is when doing so would cause the ruling to violate the constitution, or when there are extraordinary circumstances. I don't see anything in the majority opinion explaining that they saw constitutional issues at stake, or that they believed extraordinary circumstances justified the overturn.
Quote:
These conclusions seem pretty hyperbolic to me. I'll grant that Thomas has never been a fan of stare decisis, but overturning one previous holding in no way indicates a lack of respect for or a chucking of stare decisis.
It's hyperbolic in that legal principles are not simply "chucked", but rather eroded by being casually ignored. Thomas stated in effect "we think the earlier ruling was in error, so we're not bound by it". The majority went with it. This will be their precedent when conservatives go for bigger game like Roe v. Wade and I don't think it's an accident.
  #27  
Old 05-23-2019, 02:53 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
As you likely know this is based on a large volume of legal opinion that won't fit here. Summarized, the bar is when doing so would cause the ruling to violate the constitution, or when there are extraordinary circumstances. I don't see anything in the majority opinion explaining that they saw constitutional issues at stake, or that they believed extraordinary circumstances justified the overturn.
I don't think that captures the actual calculus. This is a decent article on the precedent about precedent aspect:
Quote:
Consequently,when deciding whether to overrule a precedent interpreting the Constitution, the Court has historically considered several“prudential and pragmatic” factors that seek to foster the rule of law while balancing the costs and benefits to society of
reaffirming or overruling a prior holding:

Quality of Reasoning. When determining whether to reaffirm or overrule a prior decision, the Supreme Court may consider
the quality of the decision’s reasoning.
Workability. Another factor that the Supreme Court may consider when determining whether to overrule a precedent is
whether the precedent’s rules or standards are too difficult for lower federal courts or other interpreters to apply and are thus
“unworkable.”
Inconsistency with Related Decisions. A third factor the Supreme Court may consider is whether the precedent departs from
the Court’s other decisions on similar constitutional questions, either because the precedent’s reasoning has been eroded by
later decisions or because the precedent is a recent outlier when compared to other decisions.
Changed Understanding of Relevant Facts. The Supreme Court has also indicated that changes in how the Justices and
society understand a decision’s underlying facts may undermine a precedent’s authoritativeness, leading the Court to overrule
it.
Reliance. Finally, the Supreme Court may consider whether it should retain a precedent, even if flawed, because overruling
the decision would injure individuals, companies, or organizations; society as a whole; or legislative, executive, or judicial
branch officers, who had relied on the decision.
There's a lot more than, we think that was wrong so nyah nyah. The opinion did explain the basis for overruling Hall:
Quote:
With the historical record and precedent against him, Hyatt defends Hall on the basis of stare decisis. But stare decisis is "'not an inexorable command,'" Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U. S. 223, 233 (2009), and we have held that it is "at its weakest when we interpret the Constitution because our interpretation can be altered only by constitutional amendment," Agostini v. Felton, 521 U. S. 203, 235 (1997). The Court's precedents identify a number of factors to consider, four of which warrant mention here: the quality of the decision's reasoning; its consistency with related decisions; legal developments since the decision; and reliance on the decision. See Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees, 585 U. S. ___, ___-___ (2018) (slip op., at 34-35); United States v. Gaudin, 515 U. S. 506, 521 (1995).

The first three factors support our decision to overrule Hall. We have already explained that Hall failed to account for the historical understanding of state sovereign immunity and that it failed to consider how the deprivation of traditional diplomatic tools reordered the States' relationships with one another. We have also demonstrated that Hall stands as an outlier in our sovereign-immunity jurisprudence, particularly when compared to more recent decisions.
Anyways, I think a Ginsburg vacancy would energize voters and increase overall turnout.

Last edited by Bone; 05-23-2019 at 02:53 PM.
  #28  
Old 05-23-2019, 03:06 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,495
They listed 4 factors for their decision. It seems like their first 2 rationales don't really speak to the first 2 factors. The third factor might weakly be true and they didn't address the 4th factor at all.

So their overall reasoning seems very dodgy and not meeting the bar of extraordinary circumstances. I am not a judge so my legal doesn't matter much. However, I think this indisputably tips the scale toward, not away, from more aggressive challenges to stare decisis.

Quote:
Anyways, I think a Ginsburg vacancy would energize voters and increase overall turnout.
Agreed on that, but I think it would selectively energize Trump-weary Republicans who would otherwise stay home.
  #29  
Old 05-23-2019, 03:20 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
Agreed on that, but I think it would selectively energize Trump-weary Republicans who would otherwise stay home.
This. A Supreme Court vacancy is one of the few - perhaps only - things that gets Never-Trump conservatives to temporarily support Trump.
  #30  
Old 05-23-2019, 04:36 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
He meant to say you cannot confirm in the last year of a Democratic president.

LOL, right.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
Well, the assumption there is that they are a bunch of political hacks, is it not? Even political hacks would not want to commit political suicide. Which would happen if they overturned Brown. If you think otherwise, I'm sorry, you're delusional. The average Republican does not want that. That's absurd.

Agreed. As Mr. Dooley said, "the Supreme Court follows the election returns". And if they don't? If they are really so stubborn and ideological as to ignore that? Let them overturn Brown and Roe. I would dance a happy dance, because that would serve up a massive blue wave on a silver platter.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #31  
Old 05-24-2019, 10:44 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Let them overturn Brown and Roe. I would dance a happy dance, because that would serve up a massive blue wave on a silver platter.
Is it really worth the trade-off?
  #32  
Old 05-24-2019, 11:02 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,781
Simply reversing Roe v Wade might not necessarily serve up a blue wave. If Red states were to have more reasonable anti-abortionlaws except rape, incest, or potential danger to the mother's health, I doubt it would change that much. But the extremes to which conservatives have gone the last several weeks ought to be a red flag, not only for women but to anyone who doesn't want to live in a Taliban-style state.

Unfortunately, though, I don't think most people are paying attention. People write it off as hyperbole or news that doesn't really apply to them. That's one reason why I believe we're ripe for an authoritarian takeover. It's not Trump that worries me; it's the millions of people who every day, every year have said that they're okay with authoritarianism, or that they don't care enough to stop it.
  #33  
Old 05-24-2019, 12:42 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
This. A Supreme Court vacancy is one of the few - perhaps only - things that gets Never-Trump conservatives to temporarily support Trump.
not all of the never Trump people are going to back his Supreme court picks. That's not to say they want a liberal on the court but they may not favor his picks.
  #34  
Old 05-25-2019, 01:03 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Is it really worth the trade-off?

Sure. It's not like overturning those decisions would instantly put us back in the status we had in 1950 or 1970, as the case may be. Nothing would change in most states, and TBH in the states where it would change, maybe decent people need a wakeup call that those places are hellholes they should move out of.
  #35  
Old 05-28-2019, 07:54 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,418
In a very shocking move, McConnell says that he will fill a SC vacancy in the 2020 election year.

I cannot believe this would happen!!

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/28/polit...020/index.html
  #36  
Old 05-29-2019, 12:57 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,618
Shocker.
  #37  
Old 05-29-2019, 07:05 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
In a very shocking move, McConnell says that he will fill a SC vacancy in the 2020 election year.

I cannot believe this would happen!!

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/28/polit...020/index.html
What a surprise. The hypocritical little dick acts like a hypocritical little dick. When the great American experiment in democracy dies, McConnell's fingerprints will be on the knife.
  #38  
Old 05-29-2019, 07:25 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
In a very shocking move, McConnell says that he will fill a SC vacancy in the 2020 election year.

I cannot believe this would happen!!

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/28/polit...020/index.html
How typically Republican: He doesn't actually believe the things he claimed to believe.
To say that Republicans have no shame is an understatement.
  #39  
Old 05-29-2019, 07:31 AM
not what you'd expect is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,898
McConnell, he's so fucking smug and I can't stand him. The laughing crowd is no better.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017