Hillary Clinton: Dems Must Employ Every Possible ‘Obstacle’ to Stop McConnell from Replacing Ginsbur

[mystery-ak]

Pam Key 18 Sep 2020

Former Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton called on Senate Democrats to use every possible “procedural obstacle” to stop Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) from replacing Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show.”

Clinton said, “The Democrats who are in the Senate will have to use every single possible maneuver that is available to them to make it clear that they are not going to permit Mitch McConnell to enact the greatest travesty, a monument to hypocrisy that would arise from him attempting to fill this position. So, in many ways, it is a terrible loss for us all. It is a reminder that she stood on the side of moving us towards a perfect union and underscoring equality and not just for women but for every American and I don’t want to see that legacy ripped up by political hypocrisy coming from Mitch McConnell.”

She continued, “Mitch McConnell cares about nothing else but power, of course, he’s going to do everything he can to fill that seat. I think there are three possible approaches that should be considered. I think there will be at least one or may be more Republican senators who either from principles or conscious or political calculation find the hypocrisy to be more than they can bear. It is reported, and I don’t know if it is actually accurate yet, but it has been reported that at least one senator has said just that, fair is fair. I think to me if we have any hope of overcoming the divisiveness and atmosphere that currently infect our politics and, unfortunately, has riddle our institutions like the Senate with this kind of, you know, power over everything else, mentality. I hope that there will be several Republican senators who say we are going to wait to see what happens with the election. It will be up to whoever is president on January 20th. The second thing is there are senators running for officer right now who are in, who are Republicans and who are closed or contested seats, and their Democratic opponents, as well as the people and the press in their state, needs to make this a major issue. Are they going to totally demonstrate themselves as being without a shred of principle because they went along with McConnell in refusing to move forward, President Obama’s nomination? Are they going to apply a totally double standard? Make it a political issue.”

more
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/09/18/hillary-clinton-dems-must-employ-every-possible-obstacle-to-stop-mcconnell-from-replacing-ginsburg/

[Idiot]

Pam Key 18 Sep 2020

Former Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton called on Senate Democrats to use every possible “procedural obstacle” to stop Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) from replacing Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show.”

Clinton said, “The Democrats who are in the Senate will have to use every single possible maneuver that is available to them to make it clear that they are not going to permit Mitch McConnell to enact the greatest travesty, a monument to hypocrisy that would arise from him attempting to fill this position. So, in many ways, it is a terrible loss for us all. It is a reminder that she stood on the side of moving us towards a perfect union and underscoring equality and not just for women but for every American and I don’t want to see that legacy ripped up by political hypocrisy coming from Mitch McConnell.”

She continued, “Mitch McConnell cares about nothing else but power, of course, he’s going to do everything he can to fill that seat. I think there are three possible approaches that should be considered. I think there will be at least one or may be more Republican senators who either from principles or conscious or political calculation find the hypocrisy to be more than they can bear. It is reported, and I don’t know if it is actually accurate yet, but it has been reported that at least one senator has said just that, fair is fair. I think to me if we have any hope of overcoming the divisiveness and atmosphere that currently infect our politics and, unfortunately, has riddle our institutions like the Senate with this kind of, you know, power over everything else, mentality. I hope that there will be several Republican senators who say we are going to wait to see what happens with the election. It will be up to whoever is president on January 20th. The second thing is there are senators running for officer right now who are in, who are Republicans and who are closed or contested seats, and their Democratic opponents, as well as the people and the press in their state, needs to make this a major issue. Are they going to totally demonstrate themselves as being without a shred of principle because they went along with McConnell in refusing to move forward, President Obama’s nomination? Are they going to apply a totally double standard? Make it a political issue.”

more
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/09/18/hillary-clinton-dems-must-employ-every-possible-obstacle-to-stop-mcconnell-from-replacing-ginsburg/

[massadvj]

I don't think the senate has the votes to confirm anyone before the election.  I think there will be a vote to table, and then let people go to the polls.  This will energize the right more than it will the left.  If the GOP loses the senate and/or Trump loses, I would look for a quick confirmation before the new POTUS is installed in January.

[Jazzhead]

I don't think the senate has the votes to confirm anyone before the election.  I think there will be a vote to table, and then let people go to the polls.  This will energize the right more than it will the left.  If the GOP loses the senate and/or Trump loses, I would look for a quick confirmation before the new POTUS is installed in January.

The success to this strategy is the quality of the nominee.   I think Amy Barrett will be too polarizing.   This is, after all, the Ginsburg seat - just like it was in 2015 when the Dems sought to replace the Scalia seat.    A moderate conservative of impeccable reputation would be the best choice.   

[skeeter]

The success to this strategy is the quality of the nominee.   I think Amy Barrett will be too polarizing.   This is, after all, the Ginsburg seat - just like it was in 2015 when the Dems sought to replace the Scalia seat.    A moderate conservative of impeccable reputation would be the best choice.

There is no such thing as a 'moderate conservative' where the left is concerned - all will be painted as 'too extreme'.

Might as well go with a strict Constitutionalist, we cannot afford any more judicial activism.

[dfwgator]

I think Amy Barrett will be too polarizing.   

How so?  Other than to the people who oppose anything Trump does, just because it's Trump.

[massadvj]

The success to this strategy is the quality of the nominee.   I think Amy Barrett will be too polarizing.   This is, after all, the Ginsburg seat - just like it was in 2015 when the Dems sought to replace the Scalia seat.    A moderate conservative of impeccable reputation would be the best choice.

Whoever it is must be seen as a pro-life vote on the court.  Trump needs to solidify the religious right more than any other group right now.

[Free Vulcan]

Hillary seems like she's calling for war, terrorism, and a violent overthrow of the govt.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The success to this strategy is the quality of the nominee.   I think Amy Barrett will be too polarizing.   This is, after all, the Ginsburg seat - just like it was in 2015 when the Dems sought to replace the Scalia seat.    A moderate conservative of impeccable reputation would be the best choice.

What was your attitude on Ginsburg then?

As the counsel for the ACLU, seems that was as polarizing as any could be.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The success to this strategy is the quality of the nominee.   I think Amy Barrett will be too polarizing.   This is, after all, the Ginsburg seat - just like it was in 2015 when the Dems sought to replace the Scalia seat.    A moderate conservative of impeccable reputation would be the best choice.

And BTW to call it 'The Ginsburg seat' is hogwash.

She replaced White, a male.

There is no reservations for a seat on the Supreme Court, no matter how fervently one dreams there are.

[sneakypete]

Well,if a completely honest and moral politician like Bubbette! says it,it must be true!

[sneakypete]

The success to this strategy is the quality of the nominee.   I think Amy Barrett will be too polarizing.   This is, after all, the Ginsburg seat - just like it was in 2015 when the Dems sought to replace the Scalia seat.    A moderate conservative of impeccable reputation would be the best choice.

@Jazzhead

I agree,but the reality is we don't  have,and will NEVER have a perfect candidate because the instant the candidate is named,REGARDLESS of who it is,the Dim propoganda machine will start working 24/7 to convince people they eat new born black babies,start wars,make prayer mandatory,ban abortions even to save the live of the mother,give machine guns and ammo to the children of KKK loons,give their daddies backpack nukes,etc,etc,etc.

Since that is all we are going to hear 24/7 regardless of who we nominate,we might as well nominate who WE went and be done with it.

After all,the purpose of nominating someone is to put someone you like in that position.

[sneakypete]

Whoever it is must be seen as a pro-life vote on the court.  Trump needs to solidify the religious right more than any other group right now.

@massadvj

Uhhhh,some of us who are pro-live ain't really all that religious.

Which makes your point even stronger. Just wanting to put that out there.

Feeling soooo neglected!

WHY does no one love me?

WAHHHHHHHH!

[sneakypete]

Hillary seems like she's calling for war, terrorism, and a violent overthrow of the govt.

@Free Vulcan

That's because she is.

I don't recall ever seeing her look happier.

[massadvj]

@massadvj

Uhhhh,some of us who are pro-live ain't really all that religious.

Which makes your point even stronger. Just wanting to put that out there.

Feeling soooo neglected!

WHY does no one love me?

WAHHHHHHHH!

I am definitely not pro life nor am I religious right.  But I am anti Roe v Wade.

[jafo2010]

Both Clintons should have received the Rosenberg treatment long ago for treason.  The Uranium One deal should have had both fry.

[Jazzhead]

After all,the purpose of nominating someone is to put someone you like in that position.

No, that's a luxury.   The purpose of nominating someone is to get that person on the court.  You don't nominate someone you cannot confirm.

Even if Trump loses,  there will be a lame duck session of the Senate that could confirm a solid, centrist pick - not an Amy Barrett. 

I

[corbe]

[Hoodat]

The success to this strategy is the quality of the nominee.   I think Amy Barrett will be too polarizing.

Ginsberg was too polarizing.  So was Sotomayor.  Yet both ended up on the court.

I am sick and tired of the other side pushing standards on me that they themselves do not follow.

[Hoodat]

And BTW to call it 'The Ginsburg seat' is hogwash.

I much prefer the 'Byron White seat'.

[skeeter]

No, that's a luxury.   The purpose of nominating someone is to get that person on the court.  You don't nominate someone you cannot confirm.

Even if Trump loses,  there will be a lame duck session of the Senate that could confirm a solid, centrist pick - not an Amy Barrett. 

I

The objective is to get a Constitutionalist on the court.

And any Constitutionalist will be deemed too extreme by the rat media. A 'centrist' is someone who is only occasionally a Constitutionalist.

We need to stop allowing the rat media to dictate our actions.

BTW I wonder what the rat media is gonna do with all those "October Surprises" now?

[corbe]

I much prefer the 'Byron White seat'.

   There's no doubt BJ proclaimed it a 'Women's SEAT', for which it will probably be for the next 20~30 years.
   Is Kagan holding the dumb lesbian seat?