They don’t need to vote to confirm, they just have to be in the room to make up a quorum - and not tell the Democrats they’re meeting. The confirmation could go with a vote of 1-0, with 50 Republican senators voting PRESENT.
8pm? The polls don’t even close here before 9pm. Of course, that doesn’t matter, it’s a blue state anyway.
If you have the stomach for it, I just listened to Tom Cotton declare that the repugnican have a MANDATE from the people to replace RGB “without delay”. (lost most of my breakfast)
[emphasis added]
it is certainly uncontaminated by any aspect of what made her important, either historically or in the present moment. no sign of what she stood for nor mention of either important cases from her pre-court career nor opinions from the bench.
it doesn’t mention where or even whether she will lie in state, it doesn’t mention survivors. it doesn’t rise to the standard of my local hometown (pop. ca. 28,000) newspaper’s death notices. if the only other article is from one of her clerks, i take that as evidence that the first article to which you linked was intended to damn her with faint praise. and, again, given the source (reason magazine) that is totally predictable.
bias is not just a matter of what is included. it is also a matter of what is excluded. in this case the bias is in the lack of contextualizing information.
edited for spelling–bias for bia
Well, varies by state, but most close at 8pm local time or earlier.*
*noting that in many states, people who are “in line” by closing time (sometime waiting in line for hours) still are allowed to vote. (Trump of course will fight to prevent those people who waited in line for hours from casting their ballots)
You’ve got a point: New York has late poll closing (9pm ties with North Dakota and Iowa for the latest local time at which polls close). It obviously it can’t report a count before the polls close. If somehow that eliminates New York’s results, that’s 29 electoral votes he can knock out.
I imagine that one key part of the game plan will be to call California’s results into question, probably because of California’s high population of both immigrants and Hispanic people (not citizens by Trump’s definition). If California and its 55 electors can somehow be eliminated, Trump will be very hard to beat. There’s precedent going back through the whole history of the US that a majority of the electors means a majority of the electors who are seated, not of the total number of seats. If a state doesn’t appoint electors or its electors fail to qualify, the election is decided by a majority of the electors that remain.
hell, I’m pretty sure it can go 0-0 with all present republican senators voting present. Pence breaks the tie.
I used to enjoy doom scrolling til dawn. But this hurts, and I can’t even look at the news anymore.
It was more than one man. He was just the face of it. Lots of Republicans said they wouldn’t approve of a nomination.
Lindsey Graham literally said if a Republican president had a vacancy the last year of his term, they should delay appointing a replacement until the next term. And we could use his words against him - he said that.
I don’t have an issue with using it as a tradition to wait in an election year. BUT, if you insist on it one year, and ignore it another, then you are a feckless hypocrite.
What? Butters is a hypocrite!?!?
But seriously, we all knew they were going to do this… not because they are politicians, but because the modern GOP is only out to win power for themselves, not to work for the improvement of all our lives. They have been telling us for years who they are. Maybe it’s time we listen to them.
Why have a Constitution at all if it’s going to be ignored? Sorry, but your rationale is fundamentally flawed. The Senate could make a rule that every Senator is absolute ruler of the world for a day, alternating every 24 hours, alphabetically. That doesn’t make it so. As soon as it runs into an interaction with another federal power, that interaction is dictated by the Constitution. And the Constitution clearly states the the President nominates SCOTUS justices and the Senate shall provide advice and consent. They do not have an option to NOT advise and consent. That is fundamentally unconstitutional.
It was not a question of whether Graham would go back on his word, but a question of what kind of mealy-mouthed chickenshit excuse the hypocritical bastard would offer as a rationalization for doing so.
Turns out the answer is “I know I pinkie-promised that I would never do this but I just changed my mind because the Democrats were mean to Kavanaugh. So really this is all their fault.”
they used to claim to be worried about the deficit and balanced budgets. they used to claim to believe in states rights over federal rights. they used to claim they hated executive orders. they used to claim they hated activist judges.
they don’t even want to put forward a sensible coronavirus relief package - but a supreme court justice they can do.
there doesn’t seem to be any principle they hold to other than grabbing dollars for them and their friends.
step one: grow a spine.
“We’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas.”
It’s so frustratingly obvious. We have a President, and his whole army of unhinged cronies, trying determinedly to undermine any response that affects a positive outcome for the society as a whole. To call this socialist would be like equating socialism to a game of ‘stop hitting yourself’.
And now this is an actual quote about nominating a new SCOTUS justice right away:
Trump dismissed those arguments, telling “Fox & Friends,” "I think that would be good for the Republican Party
