A Ginsburg replacement is 'worth the White House and Senate'

[Canon Shooter]

I dont' think anyone, least of all me, said McConnell done anything unconst with either Garland or Justice Ginsberg's vacant seat.

In the case of Garland, I don't really understand why they didn't vote. It's not like the votes were there to confirm him...

I think it was revenge for all the times Obama rode roughshod over the republicans during his eight years as president.

I don't believe that's the case, simply because the revenge would've been much sweeter had they voted down his nominee...

 

[Norman]

Hmmm ...

Whaddaya think?

A Ginsburg replacement is 'worth the White House and Senate': Why, and how, Republicans will push through Trump’s Supreme Court nominee

Yes, replace Ginsburg, gain senate and even bigger super Trumpslide for the WH.

 

[Canon Shooter]

I can't wait to see the shock on the collective face of the democrat party when they realize they're not in control of the White House, the Senate, or the House...

 

[Cecilie1200]

Hmmm ...

Whaddaya think?

A Ginsburg replacement is 'worth the White House and Senate': Why, and how, Republicans will push through Trump’s Supreme Court nominee

Assuming that a replacement for Ginsburg has not been confirmed by November 3, and further assuming that Trump loses the election, should a defeated President be allowed to appoint a judge to the Supreme Court?

It should be pointed out, both assumptions are extremely likely. Trump is the least popular President in modern American history.

There is a corollary to the question. Should the defeated party in the Senate be allowed to confirm a Supreme Court judge?

Based on limited researched, I have been unable to find those questions addressed. However, allow me to answer my own questions.

There is absolutely nothing in the past four years to suggest that Trump and Trump Republicans in the Senate will put the will of the American people first.

If Trump is defeated, if the GOP loses control of the Senate -- both likely, why else are Republicans in such a hurry -- and Trump Republicans confirm Ginsburg's replacement, the GOP is likely to lose power for at least a generation.

Your assumption of his popularity is based upon evidence that is tenuous at best.

Should he lose (unlikely in my book), he is still president until noon on January 20, 2021. He will replace Ginsberg in any event.

Should the Democrats gain the Senate (also unlikely), the current majority serves until the Christmas recess. They will replace Ginsberg in any event.

With said replacement, it is far more likely that it is you people who will lose power for at least a generation.

Not quite in regards to the Senate.

The Senate race in Arizona between Martha McSally and Mark Kelly is technically a special election, due to the fact that McSally was appointed to fill John McCain's seat, rather than being elected. So if Kelly wins, he'll be sworn in on November 30. Which would mean that the Republicans will have lost a seat they can't afford to lose in the vote over replacing Ginsburg.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Um, I hope people are not fooled into believing if TRUMP replaces RBG and then goes on to lose the election that liberals won't find a way to undo the appointment.

Legally impossible.

Not that "legally" has ever meant a damned thing to leftists.

They've already told us what they plan to do. They plan to try to pack the court, which would certainly have the effect of invalidating the appointment by making it irrelevant.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The bottom line here is that a President is elected for a term of four years. Not 3 years and ten months, but four years. And, as such, it's the President's Constitutional duty to nominate a Supreme Court Justice when a vacancy occurs. Period.

Those who believe that the American people should have a "voice" in who's nominated are ignorant and stupid. The American people have already spoken with that voice when they elected Donald Trump four years ago.

Let the chips fall where they may with regards to how it'll impact the election, but the President needs to do his job, and the Senate needs to do theirs...

But not when he was Obama.

Oh, the Senate did their job when Obama was President. They just didn't do it with the result YOU wanted.

 

[bendog]

The bottom line here is that a President is elected for a term of four years. Not 3 years and ten months, but four years. And, as such, it's the President's Constitutional duty to nominate a Supreme Court Justice when a vacancy occurs. Period.

Those who believe that the American people should have a "voice" in who's nominated are ignorant and stupid. The American people have already spoken with that voice when they elected Donald Trump four years ago.

Let the chips fall where they may with regards to how it'll impact the election, but the President needs to do his job, and the Senate needs to do theirs...

But not when he was Obama.

Oh, the Senate did their job when Obama was President. They just didn't do it with the result YOU wanted.

My opinion was both Garland and Kegs were qualified and should have been confirmed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The bottom line here is that a President is elected for a term of four years. Not 3 years and ten months, but four years. And, as such, it's the President's Constitutional duty to nominate a Supreme Court Justice when a vacancy occurs. Period.

Those who believe that the American people should have a "voice" in who's nominated are ignorant and stupid. The American people have already spoken with that voice when they elected Donald Trump four years ago.

Let the chips fall where they may with regards to how it'll impact the election, but the President needs to do his job, and the Senate needs to do theirs...

But not when he was Obama.

This "butwhataboutism" tactic is stupid, only because it exposes you as someone who is in favor of standing in the way of someone carrying out their Constitutional responsibilities, and that make you un-American by any measure.

For the record, in 2016 I believe it was wrong to block the nomination of Merrick Garland. Garland should've had the benefit of confirmation hearings by the Senate, where there wouldn't have been enough votes to confirm him, anyway.

It was wrong then and it would be wrong now. But the fact that it was done back then in no way justifies doing it now.

The nomination should happen (and every indication is that it will) and then confirmation hearings need to be started...

McConnell wouldn't give Obama's nominee a vote, and you accuwse me of horsehit. go fuk yourself. and watch with the name calling.

I think Canon's wrong on this. Obama was empowered by the Constitution to make a nomination, and he did so. The Senate was empowered by the Constitution to take a pass on his nominee, and they did so. Nothing in the Constitution entitles the nominee to hearings before the Senate takes a pass.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Of course. But if only either or was possible, which?

The SCOTUS is already pretty much 5-3. 6-3 pretty much slams it, but the slight added advantage is not worth losing the White House and Senate over.

With the Senate, you can at least KEEP it 5-3 for a long time.

Giving up the White House and Senate with already having lost the House too, makes the republicans pretty much lame and irrelevant allowing the Left to go ahead FULL BORE on their agenda. Is that really worth it just to get a 6-3 SCOTUS?

The REAL plan ought to be to get a 6-3 SCOTUS and KEEP the WH, Senate and maybe get the House back too.

I believe that is the idea.

It is interesting that Trump's lying about covid is now page 2. And we're back to a social issue.

Don't worry. Your lying about Trump "lying" will get a chance to be the center of your attention again soon, I have no doubt.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The bottom line here is that a President is elected for a term of four years. Not 3 years and ten months, but four years. And, as such, it's the President's Constitutional duty to nominate a Supreme Court Justice when a vacancy occurs. Period.

Those who believe that the American people should have a "voice" in who's nominated are ignorant and stupid. The American people have already spoken with that voice when they elected Donald Trump four years ago.

Let the chips fall where they may with regards to how it'll impact the election, but the President needs to do his job, and the Senate needs to do theirs...

But not when he was Obama.

Oh, the Senate did their job when Obama was President. They just didn't do it with the result YOU wanted.

My opinion was both Garland and Kegs were qualified and should have been confirmed.

Yes, but unless you're a Senator, your opinion on their qualifications and confirmations is basically irrelevant.

The Senators sitting at that time were not interested in confirming Merrick Garland as a Justice. So there was no point in wasting time that could be better spent on having hearings on a nominee the Senate didn't want.

That's life.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Of course. But if only either or was possible, which?

The SCOTUS is already pretty much 5-3. 6-3 pretty much slams it, but the slight added advantage is not worth losing the White House and Senate over.

With the Senate, you can at least KEEP it 5-3 for a long time.

Giving up the White House and Senate with already having lost the House too, makes the republicans pretty much lame and irrelevant allowing the Left to go ahead FULL BORE on their agenda. Is that really worth it just to get a 6-3 SCOTUS?

The REAL plan ought to be to get a 6-3 SCOTUS and KEEP the WH, Senate and maybe get the House back too.

I believe that is the idea.

It is interesting that Trump's lying about covid is now page 2. And we're back to a social issue.

When did Trump ever lie about Covid?

The latest story is that he "lied" about Covid by not yelling, "Panic! The end is nigh!" back in February. Same way FDR "lied" about the Great Depression by saying, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself", one assumes.

 

[Cecilie1200]

With the election looking every close and the shifting demographics in the country, establishing a solid Conservative SCOTUS is an absolute MUST! We have 40 days, get that process going now!

Thomas is 72. Scalia is 70. Do you honestly think that this Conservative SCOTUS you are willing to sacrifice everything for will last more than a year or two? Honestly both will be gone in the next administration. Now you have five four Liberal.

Um, you know Scalia died in 2016, right?

The current Justices of the Supreme Court are:

Stephen Breyer, 82
Clarence Thomas, 72
Samuel Alito, 70
Sonia Sotomayor, 66
John Roberts, 65
Elena Kagan, 60
Brett Kavanaugh, 55
Neil Gorsuch, 53

So yeah, it's possible that we might lose Thomas and Alito soon. But by sheer age, it's a lot more likely that Breyer is going to pass first.

Whether or not a new Trump nominee will last "more than a year or two" would depend on who he nominates, but Gorsuch and Kavanaugh seem to indicate he's looking for relative youth and longevity.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I dont' think anyone, least of all me, said McConnell done anything unconst with either Garland or Justice Ginsberg's vacant seat.

In the case of Garland, I don't really understand why they didn't vote. It's not like the votes were there to confirm him...

Because they weren't interested in wasting time on it.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Thomas is 72. Scalia is 70.

Thank you for demonstrating the unwavering stupidity of liberals.

Antonin Scalia died in 2016 at the age of 80.

So, no, he's not 70. He's not even alive...

 

[Cecilie1200]

Hmmm ...

Whaddaya think?

A Ginsburg replacement is 'worth the White House and Senate': Why, and how, Republicans will push through Trump’s Supreme Court nominee

I don't think it'll cost Trump the election, but even if it does, the right lifetime appointee on the SCOTUS can be far more effective than a 4 year POTUS with a divided or fully opposition congress.

Why are judges partisan?

Yes, why? They shouldn't be. They should be interpreting laws and and defending the Constitution. But the leftist judges have systematically legislated from the bench and reinterpreted the Constitution to say what they wanted it to say.

Judges should not be partisan

Everything is on civil rights, that is what WE The PEOPLE means and a women has the right to privacy. Never mind that rich white men wrote the constitution and we had years of slavery and women were not allowed to vote, never mind that white men owned the US and still do.

We don't want a women or anyone on the bench that votes on the bible.

Well Kaz is no less partisan than you, yet he accuses you of partisanship. I'm afraid that is a price one pays for being on the board.

Abortion is a tough issue for me, both personally and as a legal/const issue. I just don't want a say in what another person does with their body, and it is simply a religious issue that life begins at conception and not birth. Under the const, it's at birth. In 1780, the abortion issue was just not an issue. Beginning in the 19th century, moves to outlaw abortion came into being. (-:

But with Roe a new constitutional right came about, I'm against "new rights" unless there's an amendment. But I'm honest enough to admit that if we males were the gender that bore children, there'd never have been an anti-abortion movement.

So personally, I'm ardently pro-choice. But I don't see the constitutional right. But then I have a daughter. But she's educated an lives in a progressive state. But not all women are so lucky.

When Roe came down, abortion restrictions were losing issues politically. Roe gave the social conservatives an issue to rally around. Even now, they have a difficulty getting a slim maj in any state outside the bible belt. Imo the antiabortion people are at best fools because it will hurt them in places like Ohio and Iowa. But women without the ability to care for children will have children who are not cared for.

You have the problem most people do with abortion. You conflate right and wrong with government.

I am pro-choice. It is not a legitimate use of government power to point a gun at a woman and force her to carry a baby to term in her body. That said, it is immoral and it's taking a human life. If both sides would agree to work together to reduce the need for abortions, they'd both be a lot more effective.

I'm not sure how this became an abortion discussion.

I just don't see you disagreeing with Democrats ever. You can call that partisan, I do

?????

I just posted I don't see the legal rationale for Roe. But whatever.

I am a republican, but not a trump sucker. Trump was pro life until he decided to run against Obama's legacy.

Penelope doesn't want govt telling women they can't have abortions. That's not really any more or less partisan than anyone else's opinion on whether Roe should be upheld.

All that the defeat of Roe would do would be to move abortion law back to the state governments where it should have remained in the first place. Roe is bad law and a clear violation of the Tenth Amendment.

I don't agree about the 10th, but imo all the reasoning behind there being an "unenumerated" right to privacy in the const is really a stretch.

Still, without Roe women incapable of caring for kids will have kids who won't be cared for. But as Kaz pointed out, no matter where you come down on the issue of abortion, it's more or less partisan.

But the Court's dealt with partisan issues since the constitution was ratified. The difference it seems to me is that Roe brought "God" into it. But no doubt both the slave holders and abolitionists claimed to have God on their side.

Without Roe, most women incapable of caring for kids will do what they did before Roe, and put more effort into not getting pregnant. Even stupid humans aren't as stupid as people leaning left seem to think they are. For those who do still get pregnant, they will also do what they did before Roe, which is 1) go to a state which still has liberal abortion laws and get an abortion, or 2) put the kid up for adoption.

And Roe didn't "bring God into" anything except perhaps your perceptions. If you didn't notice other people's beliefs and how important they held them to be prior to Roe v. Wade, that reflects nothing but your own oblivion.

 

[basquebromance]

i predict Trump will hit a home run with his pick, someone who makes swing voters go: "WOW, i'm voting for Trump again"

he will pick someone fair and balanced, like FOX News, except for real!

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Of course. But if only either or was possible, which?

The SCOTUS is already pretty much 5-3. 6-3 pretty much slams it, but the slight added advantage is not worth losing the White House and Senate over.

With the Senate, you can at least KEEP it 5-3 for a long time.

Giving up the White House and Senate with already having lost the House too, makes the republicans pretty much lame and irrelevant allowing the Left to go ahead FULL BORE on their agenda. Is that really worth it just to get a 6-3 SCOTUS?

The REAL plan ought to be to get a 6-3 SCOTUS and KEEP the WH, Senate and maybe get the House back too.

I believe that is the idea.

It is interesting that Trump's lying about covid is now page 2. And we're back to a social issue.

What lie?

 

[basquebromance]

 

[SavannahMann]

With the election looking every close and the shifting demographics in the country, establishing a solid Conservative SCOTUS is an absolute MUST! We have 40 days, get that process going now!

Thomas is 72. Scalia is 70. Do you honestly think that this Conservative SCOTUS you are willing to sacrifice everything for will last more than a year or two? Honestly both will be gone in the next administration. Now you have five four Liberal.

Um, Scalia is dead.

You are right. I meant Alito. My mistake.

 

[SavannahMann]

With the election looking every close and the shifting demographics in the country, establishing a solid Conservative SCOTUS is an absolute MUST! We have 40 days, get that process going now!

Thomas is 72. Scalia is 70. Do you honestly think that this Conservative SCOTUS you are willing to sacrifice everything for will last more than a year or two? Honestly both will be gone in the next administration. Now you have five four Liberal.

Um, you know Scalia died in 2016, right?

The current Justices of the Supreme Court are:

Stephen Breyer, 82
Clarence Thomas, 72
Samuel Alito, 70
Sonia Sotomayor, 66
John Roberts, 65
Elena Kagan, 60
Brett Kavanaugh, 55
Neil Gorsuch, 53

So yeah, it's possible that we might lose Thomas and Alito soon. But by sheer age, it's a lot more likely that Breyer is going to pass first.

Whether or not a new Trump nominee will last "more than a year or two" would depend on who he nominates, but Gorsuch and Kavanaugh seem to indicate he's looking for relative youth and longevity.

I meant Alito. I screwed up the name. But the point remains. Two of the Conservatives are very old. Retirement or death are imminent.