Any objections to merging the two threads?
no, you’re just spouting off irrelevant dnc talking points
1 Like
Im listening to this between jobs, I’ve noticed this as well, kind of refreshing in my opinion.
For some reason many are under the assumption that the Confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barret is wrong or immoral or even unconstitutional. However they are all incorrect, they are referring to the Lame Duck scenario. This is simply not the case, though we are close to an election the official election does not start until Nov 3rd in which by then Justice Amy Coney Barret will, unless she is denied the position after the hearings, be voted for the replacement of the Late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. This is the process of our constitution, and would only be a Lame Duck election if it was initiated or the proceedings surpassed Nov 3 2020 general election. Therefore the questions of if Justice Amy Coney Barret’s confirmation is legitimate should not even be a topic. The questions that should be asked or challenged is Justice Amy Coney Barret qualifications and is her prestige sufficient for the Supreme Court of the United Stated of America. The Lame Duck definition thanks to Wiki:
In politics, a lame duck or outgoing politician is an elected official whose successor has already been elected or will be soon. The official is often seen as having less influence with other politicians due to the limited time left in office. Conversely, a lame duck is free to make decisions that exercise the standard powers with little fear of consequence, such as issuing executive orders, pardons, or other controversial edicts. Lame duck politicians result from term limits, planned retirement, or electoral losses. Even at the local level, politicians who do not seek re-election lose their credibility and influence to fellow councilors. Projects uncompleted may fall to the wayside as their influence is greatly diminished.
3 Likes
Of course there was.
Libs had that sense of urgency.
There is “no justification” only when looking at this issue through the liberal prism. 
What an absurd reply.
Why is it an absurd reply?
He’s the one who stated it was “urgent” this seat get filled now because of the possibility of a 4-4 split on important issues…like a contested election.
This was the exact same situation in 2016…including the potential for a contested election…so why wasn’t it urgent then?
I second that.
And the nominee behavior is so far quite poised and attentive.
Also saw how one of the Senators about to question her asked for the good judge to hold up for the camera the note pad on her table. To at least my surprise, nothing at all to see was handwritten of hers on at least the cover page of the pad. She went on to comment just a printed US Senate label is all that currently appeared on it.
1 Like
Great answer on felon’s rights.
Durbin is showing his slip. He wants to classify all felons the same?
Blanket loss of rights?
1 out of 3 re-commit, so the other 2 should lose their rights
1 Like
Collective rights and loss of same.
Voting is different 'cause George Floyd.
Durbin obviously wants to grab guns any way he can.
1 Like
Chicago.
“Law is hard!” 
Illinois having some of the strictest gun laws in the country.
1 Like
It’s ok for sure enough criminals to have them of course. 
Not so much for regular folks.
1 Like
Yeah Durbin, you did say that.
