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

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
212,287
Reaction score
38,269
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 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.
Collins, Murkowski, Romney, Kelly = 4
 

SavannahMann

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
5,333
Reaction score
1,438
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.
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.
President Trump was elected because his opponent. Hillary. Was horrid. Hillary liked to point out that Trump was barely more likable than Herpes. She was no better. Hillary ran a weak campaign. A bad candidate and a weak campaign means big loss.

My question remains. If everyone is convinced that Trump is going to win in November and the Republicans will hold the Senate why risk it with a hypocritical nomination now?
 

Billiejeens

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
10,480
Reaction score
4,993
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.
President Trump was elected because his opponent. Hillary. Was horrid. Hillary liked to point out that Trump was barely more likable than Herpes. She was no better. Hillary ran a weak campaign. A bad candidate and a weak campaign means big loss.

My question remains. If everyone is convinced that Trump is going to win in November and the Republicans will hold the Senate why risk it with a hypocritical nomination now?
I'm missing how it is hypocritical
 

Billiejeens

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
10,480
Reaction score
4,993
Points
290
Romney has announced that he is yes, as long as the nominee is qualified.
 

TemplarKormac

Political Atheist
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
43,996
Reaction score
8,656
Points
2,040
Location
The Land of Sanctuary
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
Whoops, Romney said he would support a "constructionist". That means Barrett. Of the seven Republican Senators who were being watched as potential roadblocks to a confirmation, 5 of them, Graham, Grassley, Gardner, Ernst, and Romney got on board.

All the Senate has to do is get a confirmation before November 3rd. A Kelly win at this point would be meaningless.

File this post under "this post didn't age well". What I suggest you do is prepare yourself for a new conservative justice on the Supreme Court.

I will laugh gleefully as the American public revolts at Democrats' attempts to pack the courts and end the filibuster in response. People don't react well to having their elected officials being silenced, all in a mad desire for political power.

If America votes for Biden, it is foolish.
 
Last edited:

Billiejeens

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
10,480
Reaction score
4,993
Points
290
Worst case

50 to 50 Pence breaks the tie

or

50 yea , 48 nay, 2 vote present.

Thanks to Harry Reid only a simple majority is needed.
 

SavannahMann

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
5,333
Reaction score
1,438
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.
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.
President Trump was elected because his opponent. Hillary. Was horrid. Hillary liked to point out that Trump was barely more likable than Herpes. She was no better. Hillary ran a weak campaign. A bad candidate and a weak campaign means big loss.

My question remains. If everyone is convinced that Trump is going to win in November and the Republicans will hold the Senate why risk it with a hypocritical nomination now?
I'm missing how it is hypocritical
Every Republican said that it was too close to an election to give Obama the right to seat a Justice. In February. They used the Biden Rule as an excuse. Now of course it is totally different. Or something.
 

Redcurtain

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2020
Messages
3,515
Reaction score
3,179
Points
1,908
Barrett and Kavanaugh will be having rape parties by time nov 30th hits.. it’s in the bag!
 

TemplarKormac

Political Atheist
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
43,996
Reaction score
8,656
Points
2,040
Location
The Land of Sanctuary
Worst case

50 to 50 Pence breaks the tie

or

50 yea , 48 nay, 2 vote present.

Thanks to Harry Reid only a simple majority is needed.
Right now, if the Senate votes like I think they will, it's 51-49 with no need for a tie-breaker. Probable it could be a 50-50 tie and they actually do need Pence to break the tie. Regardless, Democrats are powerless to stop them.

Democrats have Harry Reid and his pyrrhic 2013 victory in the Senate by abolishing the Senate judicial filibuster to thank for that.
 
Last edited:

bendog

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
34,856
Reaction score
4,095
Points
1,140
Location
Dog House in back yard
Worst case

50 to 50 Pence breaks the tie

or

50 yea , 48 nay, 2 vote present.

Thanks to Harry Reid only a simple majority is needed.
Right now, if the Senate votes like I think they will, it's 51-49 with no need for a tie-breaker. Probable it could be a 50-50 tie and they actually do need Pence to break the tie. Regardless, Democrats are powerless to stop them.

They have Harry Reid and his pyrrhic 2013 victory in the Senate by abolishing the Senate judicial filibuster to thank for that.
Well Reid should have done it earlier and filled every vacancy. Or even better, both parties would have stayed committed to filling most seats where a potus nominated someone

but yeah, nobody's stopping this bus. For better or worse. I'm still not convinced that a 6-3 maj does that much. Roe's already overruled by Casey, and Casey has shut nearly all clinics in places like Tex, La and Miss and Ala. And now planned parenthood has "telephone medicine" so women can just get the abortion pill(s) anywhere up to 11 weeks.

Obamacare? If the dems win the senate and WH that's fixable. And even so, the gop will commit suicide removing preexisting cond protections. And they don't have the votes to roll back Medicaid.

Citizens United?

But yeah, they'll have a 6-3 maj until Thomas decides to retire.
 
Last edited:

Billiejeens

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
10,480
Reaction score
4,993
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.
President Trump was elected because his opponent. Hillary. Was horrid. Hillary liked to point out that Trump was barely more likable than Herpes. She was no better. Hillary ran a weak campaign. A bad candidate and a weak campaign means big loss.

My question remains. If everyone is convinced that Trump is going to win in November and the Republicans will hold the Senate why risk it with a hypocritical nomination now?
I'm missing how it is hypocritical
Every Republican said that it was too close to an election to give Obama the right to seat a Justice. In February. They used the Biden Rule as an excuse. Now of course it is totally different. Or something.
Again it is really different circumstances.

Obama was definitely in the last year of his Presidency, Trump may or may not be.
The party opposing President Obama controlled the Senate, the President supporting President Trump controls the Senate.

The McConnel rule rightly states that the Senate should not hold a vote in the first case and should in the 2nd case.

There is plenty of precedent.
 

Billiejeens

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
10,480
Reaction score
4,993
Points
290
Worst case

50 to 50 Pence breaks the tie

or

50 yea , 48 nay, 2 vote present.

Thanks to Harry Reid only a simple majority is needed.
Right now, if the Senate votes like I think they will, it's 51-49 with no need for a tie-breaker. Probable it could be a 50-50 tie and they actually do need Pence to break the tie. Regardless, Democrats are powerless to stop them.

They have Harry Reid and his pyrrhic 2013 victory in the Senate by abolishing the Senate judicial filibuster to thank for that.
Well Reid should have done it earlier and filled every vacancy. Or even better, both parties would have stayed committed to filling most seats where a potus nominated someone

but yeah, nobody's stopping this bus. For better or worse. I'm still not convinced that a 6-3 maj does that much. Roe's already overruled by Casey, and Casey has shut nearly all clinics in places like Tex, La and Miss and Ala. And now planned parenthood has "telephone medicine" so women can just get the abortion pill(s) anywhere up to 11 weeks.

Obamacare? If the dems win the senate and WH that's fixable. And even so, the gop will commit suicide removing preexisting cond protections. And they don't have the votes to roll back Medicaid.

Citizens United?

But yeah, they'll have a 6-3 maj until Thomas decides to retire.
more like a 5-4 as Roberts will be inclined to move to the swing vote.
That is why people who wish to actually uphold The Constitution need to have a 5-4 majority that does not include Roberts.
 

bendog

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
34,856
Reaction score
4,095
Points
1,140
Location
Dog House in back yard
Worst case

50 to 50 Pence breaks the tie

or

50 yea , 48 nay, 2 vote present.

Thanks to Harry Reid only a simple majority is needed.
Right now, if the Senate votes like I think they will, it's 51-49 with no need for a tie-breaker. Probable it could be a 50-50 tie and they actually do need Pence to break the tie. Regardless, Democrats are powerless to stop them.

They have Harry Reid and his pyrrhic 2013 victory in the Senate by abolishing the Senate judicial filibuster to thank for that.
Well Reid should have done it earlier and filled every vacancy. Or even better, both parties would have stayed committed to filling most seats where a potus nominated someone

but yeah, nobody's stopping this bus. For better or worse. I'm still not convinced that a 6-3 maj does that much. Roe's already overruled by Casey, and Casey has shut nearly all clinics in places like Tex, La and Miss and Ala. And now planned parenthood has "telephone medicine" so women can just get the abortion pill(s) anywhere up to 11 weeks.

Obamacare? If the dems win the senate and WH that's fixable. And even so, the gop will commit suicide removing preexisting cond protections. And they don't have the votes to roll back Medicaid.

Citizens United?

But yeah, they'll have a 6-3 maj until Thomas decides to retire.
more like a 5-4 as Roberts will be inclined to move to the swing vote.
That is why people who wish to actually uphold The Constitution need to have a 5-4 majority that does not include Roberts.
But what 5-4 decisions have bothered you? The Texas abortion challenge? That case was decided the same way two years earlier when Kennedy was on the Court. I'm not for redoing every case with every change in Justice. And Again, Roe really doesn't have much practical value …. not with the abortion pills and telephones.

Obamacare? Congress can tax. And spend. The gop's position is that it lacks the votes to actually repeal it, and they always will because Medicaid expansion and protections for preexisting conditions are popular. So, they latch onto the individual mandate in hopes of getting rid of the entire law. Maybe they will succeed. But if Biden and the dems win …. the law can easily be fixed to "fix" the mandate.

The Court is already a pro-corporate anti-labor/consumer political body
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
78,255
Reaction score
9,237
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 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.
Collins, Murkowski, Romney, Kelly = 4
Romney said yes to a vote kelly will not win plus the vote will take place before the election
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
78,255
Reaction score
9,237
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
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
But we aren't lol
 

Admiral Rockwell Tory

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
37,178
Reaction score
5,684
Points
1,170
Location
Sitting down in front of my computer
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
Collins is beat either way...

Romney and Murkowski will cave just like Graham. If they cost us a seat on the Supreme Court they'll be history faster than you can say banana split. It's a political decision, not an ethical conundrum. They'll do the calculus and come to the politically expedient conclussion. You know it and I know it.
You forget one small item. The Republicans voted in the art of the Filibuster. And the Dems can tie it up for the next few months that way each and every time it comes to the floor. With the Senate, basically, coming to a screeching halt anyway, who would even notice that it's not doing anything. At least some noise would be coming from the Senate floor.
Doesn't Mcconnell get to set the rules like TIME LIMITS since he is senate majority leader---------
A Filibuster can go on indefinately. Remember the I like Green Fried Tomatoes?
There is no filibuster of judicial nominees thanks to Harry Reid
 

Admiral Rockwell Tory

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
37,178
Reaction score
5,684
Points
1,170
Location
Sitting down in front of my computer

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.
Where do you get that? He is replacing someone appointed to fill the rest of McCain's term which ends in January.
If you can believe the NYT...
Thank you. I could not find a reason anywhere!
 

Admiral Rockwell Tory

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
37,178
Reaction score
5,684
Points
1,170
Location
Sitting down in front of my computer
Worst case

50 to 50 Pence breaks the tie

or

50 yea , 48 nay, 2 vote present.

Thanks to Harry Reid only a simple majority is needed.
Right now, if the Senate votes like I think they will, it's 51-49 with no need for a tie-breaker. Probable it could be a 50-50 tie and they actually do need Pence to break the tie. Regardless, Democrats are powerless to stop them.

They have Harry Reid and his pyrrhic 2013 victory in the Senate by abolishing the Senate judicial filibuster to thank for that.
Well Reid should have done it earlier and filled every vacancy. Or even better, both parties would have stayed committed to filling most seats where a potus nominated someone

but yeah, nobody's stopping this bus. For better or worse. I'm still not convinced that a 6-3 maj does that much. Roe's already overruled by Casey, and Casey has shut nearly all clinics in places like Tex, La and Miss and Ala. And now planned parenthood has "telephone medicine" so women can just get the abortion pill(s) anywhere up to 11 weeks.

Obamacare? If the dems win the senate and WH that's fixable. And even so, the gop will commit suicide removing preexisting cond protections. And they don't have the votes to roll back Medicaid.

Citizens United?

But yeah, they'll have a 6-3 maj until Thomas decides to retire.
The abortion pill of the "morning after" pill does not work for 11 weeks. You need to educate yourself please.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top