Replies

"The Dems skewered every SC nominee by the Republicans since Bork in 1987.
"It should not be a matter of letting the President have their nominees, when they are radical, unqualified, and prejudiced. Look at the radical Ginsburg, who finally admitted that eugenics was a reason for Roe v. Wade, in her view.
"Democrats are the enemy of freedom."

And Ginsburg was confirmed by the U.S. Senate with a 96 to 3 vote.

The republicans are totally off base when they “respectfully” and routinely vote for dem nominations en mass to show non partisan “qualities.”

I call wrong big time on that practice.

It needs to go down in the history books that unfit nominees are voted against by Republicans.

If someone is nominated that could be described as in the next paragraph, they should be voted against.

They should vote according to the dictates of the constitution, and vote against any agenda driven activist anti-American, anti-Constitution anti-rule-of-law radical leftist nominee

It's pretty simple.

I bolded the only "litmus test" that our elected officials should consider in voting for a future Justice of The Supreme Court:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.
-- The Judicial Oath, USC Title 28, Section 453.