A Mark Kelly win in Ariz. Senate race could spoil McConnell's plans to replace Ginsburg

kyzr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
7,019
Points
390
Location
The AL part of PA

Voters need to vote so they cannot pet this current non-conservative, far right GOP mess up the country.
“A Mark Kelly win in Ariz. Senate race could spoil McConnell's plans to replace Ginsburg”

Actually not.

The confirmation vote will take place in the Republican majority lame duck Senate, before the new session of Congress starts.

Such is the reprehensible right.
If Kelly wins he will be seated November 30th filling McCain's seat.
So Mitch would need to have the vote before 11/30.
No he won't. The "new" senate doesn't take over until it convenes on the third of January. Up to and including close of business on the second of January, the "old" Senate controls things. It doesn't matter what date state law says the new senator takes office, state law can't overrule federal law.
OK, the NYT is wrong??
 

SavannahMann

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
5,399
Reaction score
1,464
Points
255
Too little too late. EnjoyTrumps 3rd S C pick.

Its not too late, he's not going to succeed
Why not?

According to Section 2, Article 2, Constitution of the United States, the President is granted the power to appoint judges. Nowhere does it mention when the appointment should be made, only that it requires approval by a majority of the Senate. It doesn't mention "after the election," Chuck Schumer's or Nancy Pelosi's permission or even Ruth Bader Ginsburg's "fervent wishes." Here's the gist of the Article.

......... The Appointments Clause grants the president the power to appoint judges and public officials subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, which in practice has meant that presidential appointees must be confirmed by a majority vote in the Senate........
I seem to remember a time four years ago when the Constitutional quoting folks were traitors for saying that.
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
78,700
Reaction score
9,636
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
Too little too late. EnjoyTrumps 3rd S C pick.

Its not too late, he's not going to succeed
Why not?

According to Section 2, Article 2, Constitution of the United States, the President is granted the power to appoint judges. Nowhere does it mention when the appointment should be made, only that it requires approval by a majority of the Senate. It doesn't mention "after the election," Chuck Schumer's or Nancy Pelosi's permission or even Ruth Bader Ginsburg's "fervent wishes." Here's the gist of the Article.

......... The Appointments Clause grants the president the power to appoint judges and public officials subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, which in practice has meant that presidential appointees must be confirmed by a majority vote in the Senate........
I seem to remember a time four years ago when the Constitutional quoting folks were traitors for saying that.
the people have spoken once in 2016 and once in 2018. They elected president Trump and the Senate to do what they are doing
 

SavannahMann

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
5,399
Reaction score
1,464
Points
255
Too little too late. EnjoyTrumps 3rd S C pick.

Its not too late, he's not going to succeed
Why not?

According to Section 2, Article 2, Constitution of the United States, the President is granted the power to appoint judges. Nowhere does it mention when the appointment should be made, only that it requires approval by a majority of the Senate. It doesn't mention "after the election," Chuck Schumer's or Nancy Pelosi's permission or even Ruth Bader Ginsburg's "fervent wishes." Here's the gist of the Article.

......... The Appointments Clause grants the president the power to appoint judges and public officials subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, which in practice has meant that presidential appointees must be confirmed by a majority vote in the Senate........
I seem to remember a time four years ago when the Constitutional quoting folks were traitors for saying that.
the people have spoken once in 2016 and once in 2018. They elected president Trump and the Senate to do what they are doing
The people also elected a Democrat House. Let me ask you this. Are you willing to lose the Senate and White House over it?
 

Billiejeens

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
10,977
Reaction score
5,363
Points
290
For those that are "so uninformed".


In 2013, Reid invoked the “nuclear option,” a historic move that changed a long-standing Senate rule, dropping the number of votes needed to overcome a filibuster from 60 to a simple majority for executive appointments and most judicial nominations — a decision he justified because of trouble getting through court confirmations in the latter half of the Obama Administration.

At the time, then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and many other Republicans warned Reid that he would regret implementing the nuclear option.

“What goes around comes around. And someday they’re going to be in the minority,” Republican Sen. John Thune warned.
 

SavannahMann

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
5,399
Reaction score
1,464
Points
255
For those that are "so uninformed".


In 2013, Reid invoked the “nuclear option,” a historic move that changed a long-standing Senate rule, dropping the number of votes needed to overcome a filibuster from 60 to a simple majority for executive appointments and most judicial nominations — a decision he justified because of trouble getting through court confirmations in the latter half of the Obama Administration.

At the time, then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and many other Republicans warned Reid that he would regret implementing the nuclear option.

“What goes around comes around. And someday they’re going to be in the minority,” Republican Sen. John Thune warned.
Oh I remember that. I also remember the Republicans saying the people should elect a new president four years ago.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
212,819
Reaction score
38,707
Points
2,190
Too little too late. EnjoyTrumps 3rd S C pick.
If he gets approval, it will be by a razor thin margin.

Murkowski, Collins, Romney and eventually Kelly will defeat it
Romney will approve of his pick because Utah Mormons will demand it. They are a bunch of pro-lifer nazis. All Trump has to do is nominate one, and Romney will be bound.
Lol..... For him it will be like eating a plate of rotten dog meat.

Jo
rightwinger is already wrong Kelly can't stop it
Republicans know it will come down to a race to get the vote in before the election.

They have the votes now with Pence deciding. Once Kelly wins, they don’t
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
212,819
Reaction score
38,707
Points
2,190
a decision he justified because of trouble getting through court confirmations in the latter half of the Obama Administration.
Reid did not invoke the nuclear option on a whim.

Tradition was that court appointments would be approved unless there were specific objections to the candidate. Being appointed by an opposition President was not grounds for filibuster.

McConnell changed that by filibustering every Obama appointment. Reid threatened that if McConnell continued, he would have no choice but to invoke the nuclear option on lower court appointments.

McConnell continued to block Obama appointments and left Reid no option
 

kyzr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
7,019
Points
390
Location
The AL part of PA
Too little too late. EnjoyTrumps 3rd S C pick.
If he gets approval, it will be by a razor thin margin.

Murkowski, Collins, Romney and eventually Kelly will defeat it
Romney will approve of his pick because Utah Mormons will demand it. They are a bunch of pro-lifer nazis. All Trump has to do is nominate one, and Romney will be bound.
Lol..... For him it will be like eating a plate of rotten dog meat.

Jo
rightwinger is already wrong Kelly can't stop it
Republicans know it will come down to a race to get the vote in before the election.

They have the votes now with Pence deciding. Once Kelly wins, they don’t
I see you're not a math major
Now the GOP has a 53-47 advantage in the Senate
When Kelly gets seated, even as early as November 30th, even assuming Murkowski still votes with the democrats, Romney, Collins, and Grassley would not. so even after Kelly is seated the senate is still 51-49 GOP until January.
 

Billiejeens

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
10,977
Reaction score
5,363
Points
290
For those that are "so uninformed".


In 2013, Reid invoked the “nuclear option,” a historic move that changed a long-standing Senate rule, dropping the number of votes needed to overcome a filibuster from 60 to a simple majority for executive appointments and most judicial nominations — a decision he justified because of trouble getting through court confirmations in the latter half of the Obama Administration.

At the time, then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and many other Republicans warned Reid that he would regret implementing the nuclear option.

“What goes around comes around. And someday they’re going to be in the minority,” Republican Sen. John Thune warned.
Oh I remember that. I also remember the Republicans saying the people should elect a new president four years ago.
Do you understand that the circumstances are different?
 

SavannahMann

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
5,399
Reaction score
1,464
Points
255
For those that are "so uninformed".


In 2013, Reid invoked the “nuclear option,” a historic move that changed a long-standing Senate rule, dropping the number of votes needed to overcome a filibuster from 60 to a simple majority for executive appointments and most judicial nominations — a decision he justified because of trouble getting through court confirmations in the latter half of the Obama Administration.

At the time, then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and many other Republicans warned Reid that he would regret implementing the nuclear option.

“What goes around comes around. And someday they’re going to be in the minority,” Republican Sen. John Thune warned.
Oh I remember that. I also remember the Republicans saying the people should elect a new president four years ago.
Do you understand that the circumstances are different?
Oh yes Totally. What was totally wrong if their guy did it, is totally right if our guy does it. You see, it is completely hypocritical, and demonstrates what I have been saying for years now. Neither party has any core beliefs other than winning.
 

Billiejeens

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
10,977
Reaction score
5,363
Points
290
For those that are "so uninformed".


In 2013, Reid invoked the “nuclear option,” a historic move that changed a long-standing Senate rule, dropping the number of votes needed to overcome a filibuster from 60 to a simple majority for executive appointments and most judicial nominations — a decision he justified because of trouble getting through court confirmations in the latter half of the Obama Administration.

At the time, then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and many other Republicans warned Reid that he would regret implementing the nuclear option.

“What goes around comes around. And someday they’re going to be in the minority,” Republican Sen. John Thune warned.
Oh I remember that. I also remember the Republicans saying the people should elect a new president four years ago.
Do you understand that the circumstances are different?
Oh yes Totally. What was totally wrong if their guy did it, is totally right if our guy does it. You see, it is completely hypocritical, and demonstrates what I have been saying for years now. Neither party has any core beliefs other than winning.
I think that you don't understand.

I will just mention that to put one's core beliefs into action. one must be in a position to lead, yes?
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
78,700
Reaction score
9,636
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
Too little too late. EnjoyTrumps 3rd S C pick.
If he gets approval, it will be by a razor thin margin.

Murkowski, Collins, Romney and eventually Kelly will defeat it
Romney will approve of his pick because Utah Mormons will demand it. They are a bunch of pro-lifer nazis. All Trump has to do is nominate one, and Romney will be bound.
Lol..... For him it will be like eating a plate of rotten dog meat.

Jo
rightwinger is already wrong Kelly can't stop it
Republicans know it will come down to a race to get the vote in before the election.

They have the votes now with Pence deciding. Once Kelly wins, they don’t
I get it this is one of those Hillary is going to win moments
 

SavannahMann

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
5,399
Reaction score
1,464
Points
255
For those that are "so uninformed".


In 2013, Reid invoked the “nuclear option,” a historic move that changed a long-standing Senate rule, dropping the number of votes needed to overcome a filibuster from 60 to a simple majority for executive appointments and most judicial nominations — a decision he justified because of trouble getting through court confirmations in the latter half of the Obama Administration.

At the time, then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and many other Republicans warned Reid that he would regret implementing the nuclear option.

“What goes around comes around. And someday they’re going to be in the minority,” Republican Sen. John Thune warned.
Oh I remember that. I also remember the Republicans saying the people should elect a new president four years ago.
Do you understand that the circumstances are different?
Oh yes Totally. What was totally wrong if their guy did it, is totally right if our guy does it. You see, it is completely hypocritical, and demonstrates what I have been saying for years now. Neither party has any core beliefs other than winning.
I think that you don't understand.

I will just mention that to put one's core beliefs into action. one must be in a position to lead, yes?
Ok. Then answer this. With three Justices of the court over the age of 70 what are the chances that they will be replaced by the next President? Alito is 70. Thomas is 72. And Breyer is 82. So what happens if Trump forces his choice through and loses the election and the Senate? Biden or Harris when Biden is replaced gets the real probability of three Justices in their first term. Conservative Justices would be in the real minority wouldn’t they? From five to three.

Strategic means winning the war. Appointing a Justice before the election probably loses the war. No way to lead then is there? By the second term they would have four appointments.

Appointing a Justice now would be hypocritical and would probably lead to a Pyrrhic Victory. Yes you would get a conservative. But if doing so loses the White House and or Senate forget controlling the Court. Conservatives would be in the minority for a decade or more even if Biden/Harris is a one term President.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
212,819
Reaction score
38,707
Points
2,190
Too little too late. EnjoyTrumps 3rd S C pick.

Its not too late, he's not going to succeed
Why not?

According to Section 2, Article 2, Constitution of the United States, the President is granted the power to appoint judges. Nowhere does it mention when the appointment should be made, only that it requires approval by a majority of the Senate. It doesn't mention "after the election," Chuck Schumer's or Nancy Pelosi's permission or even Ruth Bader Ginsburg's "fervent wishes." Here's the gist of the Article.

......... The Appointments Clause grants the president the power to appoint judges and public officials subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, which in practice has meant that presidential appointees must be confirmed by a majority vote in the Senate........
I seem to remember a time four years ago when the Constitutional quoting folks were traitors for saying that.
the people have spoken once in 2016 and once in 2018. They elected president Trump and the Senate to do what they are doing
The people also elected a Democrat House. Let me ask you this. Are you willing to lose the Senate and White House over it?
Much like Democrats were willing to lose the House and Senate over Obamacare, Republicans are willing to lose the White House and Senate to lock in the Supreme Court
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
212,819
Reaction score
38,707
Points
2,190
Too little too late. EnjoyTrumps 3rd S C pick.
If he gets approval, it will be by a razor thin margin.

Murkowski, Collins, Romney and eventually Kelly will defeat it
Romney will approve of his pick because Utah Mormons will demand it. They are a bunch of pro-lifer nazis. All Trump has to do is nominate one, and Romney will be bound.
Lol..... For him it will be like eating a plate of rotten dog meat.

Jo
rightwinger is already wrong Kelly can't stop it
Republicans know it will come down to a race to get the vote in before the election.

They have the votes now with Pence deciding. Once Kelly wins, they don’t
I get it this is one of those Hillary is going to win moments
McSally is more like Hillary
Unlikeable.

Kelly s a hero
 

SavannahMann

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
5,399
Reaction score
1,464
Points
255
Too little too late. EnjoyTrumps 3rd S C pick.

Its not too late, he's not going to succeed
Why not?

According to Section 2, Article 2, Constitution of the United States, the President is granted the power to appoint judges. Nowhere does it mention when the appointment should be made, only that it requires approval by a majority of the Senate. It doesn't mention "after the election," Chuck Schumer's or Nancy Pelosi's permission or even Ruth Bader Ginsburg's "fervent wishes." Here's the gist of the Article.

......... The Appointments Clause grants the president the power to appoint judges and public officials subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, which in practice has meant that presidential appointees must be confirmed by a majority vote in the Senate........
I seem to remember a time four years ago when the Constitutional quoting folks were traitors for saying that.
the people have spoken once in 2016 and once in 2018. They elected president Trump and the Senate to do what they are doing
The people also elected a Democrat House. Let me ask you this. Are you willing to lose the Senate and White House over it?
Much like Democrats were willing to lose the House and Senate over Obamacare, Republicans are willing to lose the White House and Senate to lock in the Supreme Court
That is the point. It isn’t a lock. Yes you would have a Conservative majority for a couple years. Then you would watch the majority evaporate. Thomas and Alito are both in their Seventies. How much longer can you honestly expect them to go on? Breyer is 82. He could go any day now.

Three probable seats appointed by Democrats locks the court in. For Liberals. How about a decision that says The Second Amendment applies to the National Guard not the citizens? Impossible? Not with five or more Liberals on the court.

If you all are really convinced that Trump and the Republicans are going to win. Why shoot it in the ass before your victory?
 

Billiejeens

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
10,977
Reaction score
5,363
Points
290
For those that are "so uninformed".


In 2013, Reid invoked the “nuclear option,” a historic move that changed a long-standing Senate rule, dropping the number of votes needed to overcome a filibuster from 60 to a simple majority for executive appointments and most judicial nominations — a decision he justified because of trouble getting through court confirmations in the latter half of the Obama Administration.

At the time, then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and many other Republicans warned Reid that he would regret implementing the nuclear option.

“What goes around comes around. And someday they’re going to be in the minority,” Republican Sen. John Thune warned.
Oh I remember that. I also remember the Republicans saying the people should elect a new president four years ago.
Do you understand that the circumstances are different?
Oh yes Totally. What was totally wrong if their guy did it, is totally right if our guy does it. You see, it is completely hypocritical, and demonstrates what I have been saying for years now. Neither party has any core beliefs other than winning.
I think that you don't understand.

I will just mention that to put one's core beliefs into action. one must be in a position to lead, yes?
Ok. Then answer this. With three Justices of the court over the age of 70 what are the chances that they will be replaced by the next President? Alito is 70. Thomas is 72. And Breyer is 82. So what happens if Trump forces his choice through and loses the election and the Senate? Biden or Harris when Biden is replaced gets the real probability of three Justices in their first term. Conservative Justices would be in the real minority wouldn’t they? From five to three.

Strategic means winning the war. Appointing a Justice before the election probably loses the war. No way to lead then is there? By the second term they would have four appointments.

Appointing a Justice now would be hypocritical and would probably lead to a Pyrrhic Victory. Yes you would get a conservative. But if doing so loses the White House and or Senate forget controlling the Court. Conservatives would be in the minority for a decade or more even if Biden/Harris is a one term President.
You think that the odds are greater that the Republicans lose the WH and Senate if they fulfil their Constitutional duty than if they don't?
President Trump was elected to nominate Judges and the Senate was kept in Republican hands in 2018 to insure that they were confirmed.
It was President Trump voters who helped keep the Senate in 2016 when they probably should have lost it.
 

Billiejeens

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
10,977
Reaction score
5,363
Points
290
Too little too late. EnjoyTrumps 3rd S C pick.

Its not too late, he's not going to succeed
Why not?

According to Section 2, Article 2, Constitution of the United States, the President is granted the power to appoint judges. Nowhere does it mention when the appointment should be made, only that it requires approval by a majority of the Senate. It doesn't mention "after the election," Chuck Schumer's or Nancy Pelosi's permission or even Ruth Bader Ginsburg's "fervent wishes." Here's the gist of the Article.

......... The Appointments Clause grants the president the power to appoint judges and public officials subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, which in practice has meant that presidential appointees must be confirmed by a majority vote in the Senate........
I seem to remember a time four years ago when the Constitutional quoting folks were traitors for saying that.
the people have spoken once in 2016 and once in 2018. They elected president Trump and the Senate to do what they are doing
The people also elected a Democrat House. Let me ask you this. Are you willing to lose the Senate and White House over it?
Much like Democrats were willing to lose the House and Senate over Obamacare, Republicans are willing to lose the White House and Senate to lock in the Supreme Court
That is the point. It isn’t a lock. Yes you would have a Conservative majority for a couple years. Then you would watch the majority evaporate. Thomas and Alito are both in their Seventies. How much longer can you honestly expect them to go on? Breyer is 82. He could go any day now.

Three probable seats appointed by Democrats locks the court in. For Liberals. How about a decision that says The Second Amendment applies to the National Guard not the citizens? Impossible? Not with five or more Liberals on the court.

If you all are really convinced that Trump and the Republicans are going to win. Why shoot it in the ass before your victory?
Stop counting Breyer - Breyer is a left leaning activist Justice.
 

22lcidw

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2018
Messages
14,030
Reaction score
3,836
Points
275
Too little too late. EnjoyTrumps 3rd S C pick.

Its not too late, he's not going to succeed
Why not?

According to Section 2, Article 2, Constitution of the United States, the President is granted the power to appoint judges. Nowhere does it mention when the appointment should be made, only that it requires approval by a majority of the Senate. It doesn't mention "after the election," Chuck Schumer's or Nancy Pelosi's permission or even Ruth Bader Ginsburg's "fervent wishes." Here's the gist of the Article.

......... The Appointments Clause grants the president the power to appoint judges and public officials subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, which in practice has meant that presidential appointees must be confirmed by a majority vote in the Senate........
I seem to remember a time four years ago when the Constitutional quoting folks were traitors for saying that.
the people have spoken once in 2016 and once in 2018. They elected president Trump and the Senate to do what they are doing
The people also elected a Democrat House. Let me ask you this. Are you willing to lose the Senate and White House over it?
This is not about two parties. You guys are at war.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top