Well, Ginsberg isn’t working out well for me at all, LOL. However, a president has the right to nominate people who share his ideology. The senate has advice and consent, but what would happen if someone like Ginsberg was not approved. A leftist president would simply appoint another just like her. I would personally vote to toss a few nominations out if I was a senator—hoping for someone better—but Republicans have generally played nice. That’s pretty foolish given the modern Democrat party. Sadly, I see little evidence the GOPe is ready to treat Democrats like they’ve treated us.
Oh, one thing I know for sure. Had a Democrat been in Mitch’s seat for the Ginsberg vote, it wouldn’t have changed anything. That’s why I question the strategy of voting Democrat to remove RINOs. That’s like jumping from the frying pan into the fire, my FRiend.
So looking at the long term, and thinking strategically, removing a 'leader' that is liberal is moving America in the right direction.
Keeping around a liberal republican who will vote to grow the government and reduce freedoms won't ever get you where you want to go.
History proves it. Voting for the 'lesser evil' doesn't make for more conservative governance. It makes for more liberal governance.
/johnny
Whom you also oppose. You just keep fighting until they get confirmation fatigue.
Depends on whether you're playing the short game or the long game. In the short run, obviously, the chances of a Republican Senate are better with Mitchie Poo than Grimes. But if you're playing the long game, knocking off RINOs, even at the cost of temporary gains for Dhimmicraps, is an essential part of the strategy. They will undermine us from within whenever they get the chance.
So write in Bevin.
Orin, is that youoo?