• GBU_28@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I do not. Why would I?

    Trump has made judicial appointments a key goal of his first term, so it stands to reason he’d do the same now. Avoiding that is progress, even if Harris gets zero.

    Edit: to avoid playing nickel and dime debate club:

    The democratic party is wildly imperfect and often ineffectual. I’m not satisfied, and I’m not cheerleading for them.

    Harris may also be wildly imperfect and often ineffectual. That’s still better than the massive equality, stability and integrity sink trump represents and that’s what I’m arguing for.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Trump has made judicial appointments a key goal of his first term

      McConnell made it a key goal. That’s why he blocked Garland for 10 months under Obama.

      Schumer has not. That’s why he let a SCOTUS nomination fall into Trump’s hands a mere 10 weeks before Biden took office.

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Please note I had a late edit that should head off this back and forth on specifics.