Group items tagged

I think President Trump should wait for the next election to vote on a new Supreme Court Nominee, so the new president has a choice on who they would like.

I do not think that Donald Trump should be able to appoint a judge right now. The election is not even 3 months away, and Obama wasn't able to appoint a judge when he was in office and the election was not as close as it is now. I think it would be really unfair if they allowed him to do so. It is very important right now who gets into office and picks a new judge so I think that htye should wait.

I think there is a massive double standard here. This same argument was made with Obama when he was in office on an election year and he was blocked from a nomination and now Trump is being allowed to nominate a judge.The senate will push it through because it is republican dominated. It makes me sad to think that this is what our country has come to

The double standard here is obvious because the Senate is Republican-controlled they are going to go back on what they said during the last election just to appease Trump. It is not right and brings into question their credibility, how can we trust them to support us and do what they say they will do if they can't even follow their own rules?

I agree with the double standard thought. It is unfair to allow one president to nominate a judge while another has to wait. I believe that they should wait to bring in a new court justice.

I do not think Trump should´ve been able to appoint a new judge, I believe it should have been the next presidents responsibility.

I agree with Shana, I don't think trump should be able to pick someone, it should be up to the next president

I think that after the election this year, that person elected should appoint a new judge.

I think we should wait until the new president is elected to appoint a new judge so it's fair because that is what Obama had to do.

The 2016 election was 9 months after the death of a judge and Republicans made Obama wait. We're days before and they're telling Trump to nominate now. I think that's wrong and that they should wait until after the election.

I think we should wait to add a new person into the spot. Thats what RBG would have wanted and thats what had happened in the past.

I think that from the physiological stand point this court case makes seance. How ever I think that our tax dollars should not be used to make this medical procedure happen.

This is a very odd case to say the least. This prison inmate is at 13x the risk of a sexual assault as the average inmate. So, the question is, is the protection of a near-insane murder worth tax payer dollars? I don't think so, but something has to be done about the inmates safety, perhaps being placed alone, or with people of the preferred gender of the inmate? In the event of tax payers paying, is it really that much? The government comes up with about $2,650 billion yearly from income tax alone. To add on, it is really not that often that this expensive of a situation arises. Is it really that big of a deal for something that almost never happens, but may help someone in the near future?

This may be what's "best" for the inmate, but he/she (no offense intended, I just don't know what to call them) murdered someone. Don't you think that a murderer should in some way "pay" for what they've done. They don't deserve the best, but they also don't deserve to be sexually assaulted. Also, tax payer dollars should not go towards things like this, that money is for the betterment of the community and/or the country. To fix the sexual harassment problem, the inmate should be put somewhere alone. Yet, another question rises, what about all the other inmates (male or female) who are sexually assaulted? We can't worry about them all, plus they're in there for a reason, they don't deserve tax money to go towards protecting them whenever they put others in danger that led them to be in prison. So, the answer is no, it's not worth it. It's not tax payer's problem.

if this person wanted to become a women then wouldn't they prefer men? which means that if they are 13 times the risk, wouldn't that be a good thing since they like guys? well if it was a rape then i understand but there are sometimes in prison when it isn't a rape or sexual assault, both want to do it. in that case that person should consider themselves lucky to be around guys all the time.

haha what if this dude was just really straight and thought that if he gets a sex change that he will be placed with da lady's so he wouldn't be around all da dudes n stuff .

I agree with Payton just place her alone if its for her safety. If its for her mental condition send her to a prison mental health facility.

I just don't understand how a PRISON INMATE is allowed that luxury of sex change surgery. Especially considering the price and how much it really is causing taxpayers

I agree, Mitt Romney was the clear winner. I watched the entire live debate at home and Mitt Romney was on fire. He was very prepared, but it didn't seem scripted. At the beginning of the show it explained how all debates are very detailed in their scripts, even with random comments to their opponent. He was very engaged in the conversation and stayed on the different topics and specifically pointed out his differences between what he and Obama were saying. It was a very interesting debate. The both had a lot to say, but over all, Romney was at the top of his game while Obama was a little out of it and didn't seem quite as interested.

People keep saying Mitt Romney won but I honestly don't think he did I am not judging them on how well they speak I am judging on who has the beliefs I do and who will do what I believe right for this country and in that case I believe Obama "won" the debate because no one can really win the debate granted one can look more prepared or more interested and I'll agree that Romney did do that but he didn't say the things I wanted to hear from the future president Obama did

In all honesty, from what the article mentioned, Obama did not say much to discredit Romney. I'm wondering if Obama is going to hold out and save the infamous 47% mark, vague political outline of his plan, and any other anti-Romney ideas until a later date within this election. Also, Rainie, as for not being able to win a debate, I disagree for the most part, but not in full. Political ideals fall into, "Who wins a political debate." The debate itself, is just getting people to realize what policies they believe would work. This is one situation that I agree, there can be no winner. But as to most debates, there are clear winners.

Exactly I agree with most of that Payton, I was specifically talking about this debate. I don't need them to say everything in that one debate because I don't just listen to the debate to get my information I listen to them on just regular speeches and articles all that good stuff and out of all of that not just the debate I think people should make their decision. Just my opinion