Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide"

[BlackSand]

You are the idiot. McConnell wants a vote in October which is less than a month before the midterms. How do you know hw didn't have the votes. There were several Republicans in blue states that were up for re-election. Then you had some Republican moderates. Garland was not a far left extremist.

A Supreme Court Justice is either an Originalist or not.

Right, left, red, blue, green, conservative, progressive ... Just don't matter.
There are none of those labels in the Constitution ... And Justices are not seated to amend it.
If you desire the Supreme Court to pursue politics ... You deserve the nefarious garbage you are asking for.

.​

 

[Thinker101]

and when biden was saying a lame duck president should not make these decisions - little did he know the ramifications of his words at the time, huh?

if the left would stop doing stupid shit for the right to copy maybe we could get somewhere.

Biden never said that.

Do you ever bother to research anything? True, that's 10 seconds of your life you won't ever get back. But it may help you not look like such a dumbass.
Joe Biden’s 1992 opposition to lame-duck Supreme Court pick could doom Obama nomination

Moron, try quoting Biden saying Bush would not get to appoint a Supreme Court Justice....

Really?! You obviously didn't read the link. Let me help.

Mr. Biden, who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time, was laying down a marker against President George H.W. Bush, saying once the “political season” had started, the president should back down and wait until after the election.

And you obviously don’t know the difference between postponing confirmation hearings until after the November election — and eliminating them entirely until a new president is seated.

Thanks for proving Biden never said a lame duck president shouldn’t make these decisions.

Sigh...idiot.

 

[Faun]

Biden never said that.

you funny, faun.

biden did say that. sorry it disrupts the balance of your universe but that was his intent. now if you think it's stupid then say so when the left starts this shit and then the right won't have precedence to go off of.

No he didn’t. Biden suggested postponing confirmation hearings until after the election, just a few months away. McConnell shut down confirmation hearings for the remainder of Obama’s presidency.

i'm not going to micro-slice this your way.

biden played a political game and it's backfired.

end of story.

Kennedy got an up or down vote, so your attempt to microslice biden is factually bullshit, as usual.

heh - maybe you need to realize what micro-slicing is. it's taking a situation and cutting things away until you get YOUR point which happens in overall reality to be a sub-sub-sub point of the original. it means you're taking something done wrong and slicing it up until you find how to slant it JUST SO and it becomes ok all of a sudden.

biden was stupid. said something stupid. and it's backfired on him. i'm not saying it's right or wrong - misuse of our system like this needs to be spelled out for policy and actions that are ok - not twisted until suddenly you make YOUR situation somehow new and ergo, ok.

The two situations are not the same no matter how hard you try to make them the same. Biden suggested confirmation hearings be postponed for a few months before an election and until the election was over. Not to mention, there weren’t any USSC seats open anyway.

Compared to McConnell, who said Obama, with 11 months remaining in his presidency and nearly 9 months before an election, would not be allowed to fill an actual open seat.

I understand your desperation to make two unequal maneuvers the same, but they still remain different. And that now leaves us with the McConnell Rule; which is that the Senate from one party can deny an elected president their Constitutional authority to appoint USSC replacements for as long as they control the Senate. Could last up to 8 years. Maybe longer.

 

[Faun]

Biden never said that.

Do you ever bother to research anything? True, that's 10 seconds of your life you won't ever get back. But it may help you not look like such a dumbass.
Joe Biden’s 1992 opposition to lame-duck Supreme Court pick could doom Obama nomination

Moron, try quoting Biden saying Bush would not get to appoint a Supreme Court Justice....

Really?! You obviously didn't read the link. Let me help.

Mr. Biden, who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time, was laying down a marker against President George H.W. Bush, saying once the “political season” had started, the president should back down and wait until after the election.

And you obviously don’t know the difference between postponing confirmation hearings until after the November election — and eliminating them entirely until a new president is seated.

Thanks for proving Biden never said a lame duck president shouldn’t make these decisions.

Sigh...idiot.

Your surrender is accepted.

 

[Thinker101]

Do you ever bother to research anything? True, that's 10 seconds of your life you won't ever get back. But it may help you not look like such a dumbass.
Joe Biden’s 1992 opposition to lame-duck Supreme Court pick could doom Obama nomination

Moron, try quoting Biden saying Bush would not get to appoint a Supreme Court Justice....

Really?! You obviously didn't read the link. Let me help.

Mr. Biden, who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time, was laying down a marker against President George H.W. Bush, saying once the “political season” had started, the president should back down and wait until after the election.

And you obviously don’t know the difference between postponing confirmation hearings until after the November election — and eliminating them entirely until a new president is seated.

Thanks for proving Biden never said a lame duck president shouldn’t make these decisions.

Sigh...idiot.

Your surrender is accepted.

So is your stupidity.

 

[bendog]

you funny, faun.

biden did say that. sorry it disrupts the balance of your universe but that was his intent. now if you think it's stupid then say so when the left starts this shit and then the right won't have precedence to go off of.

No he didn’t. Biden suggested postponing confirmation hearings until after the election, just a few months away. McConnell shut down confirmation hearings for the remainder of Obama’s presidency.

i'm not going to micro-slice this your way.

biden played a political game and it's backfired.

end of story.

Kennedy got an up or down vote, so your attempt to microslice biden is factually bullshit, as usual.

heh - maybe you need to realize what micro-slicing is. it's taking a situation and cutting things away until you get YOUR point which happens in overall reality to be a sub-sub-sub point of the original. it means you're taking something done wrong and slicing it up until you find how to slant it JUST SO and it becomes ok all of a sudden.

biden was stupid. said something stupid. and it's backfired on him. i'm not saying it's right or wrong - misuse of our system like this needs to be spelled out for policy and actions that are ok - not twisted until suddenly you make YOUR situation somehow new and ergo, ok.

The two situations are not the same no matter how hard you try to make them the same. Biden suggested confirmation hearings be postponed for a few months before an election and until the election was over. Not to mention, there weren’t any USSC seats open anyway.

Compared to McConnell, who said Obama, with 11 months remaining in his presidency and nearly 9 months before an election, would not be allowed to fill an actual open seat.

I understand your desperation to make two unequal maneuvers the same, but they still remain different. And that now leaves us with the McConnell Rule; which is that the Senate from one party can deny an elected president their Constitutional authority to appoint USSC replacements for as long as they control the Senate. Could last up to 8 years. Maybe longer.

Yes we now have the McConnell rule, which is the direct result of McConnell being willing to rewrite Senate procedure to protect citizens united. Iceberg does no one any good by lying about what took place. Someday the dems may be very greatful for the McConnell rule.

And in fact, Gary Hart was going to win the presidential election in 1988 until he imploded, and had he won this rule would have given the dems a 5-4 maj, with White considered a gop justice

 

[Polishprince]

Republicans set the precedent. Does not matter whether it is Presidential or Congressional elections.

It doesn't matter to you simply because your party is not in the White House or in control of the Senate. The precedent of which you speak referred to an upcoming presidential election and that the voters should be able to choose the president who will make the next appointment. We already know which president is making the nomination.

I don't have a party. Ronald Reagan would not be a part of the Trump Republican Party. I am going to be fighting to get rid of the Trump Republican Party including something I never have nor ever thought I would need to do. Vote for a Democrat.

You're "outraged" that the Republicans aren't conservative enough for Ronald Reagan, and your response is to vote for a Democrat? Yeah, we're all totally buying that.

Don't ever wonder why the world laughs at you in derision, hon.

The Republican Party has been taken over by far right extremists like white supremacists and neo-nazis. Charlottesville was a example of the new Republican Party. I know you don't get it because Trump supporters are so stupid. You are a example of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Fascist pig.

No doubt, but Kavenaugh is not part of that.

McCain just came out for Kavanaugh, let's get this thing over and voted on. Romney, the Pro Hillary Bush Family, support him as well.

 

[Faun]

Moron, try quoting Biden saying Bush would not get to appoint a Supreme Court Justice....

Really?! You obviously didn't read the link. Let me help.

Mr. Biden, who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time, was laying down a marker against President George H.W. Bush, saying once the “political season” had started, the president should back down and wait until after the election.

And you obviously don’t know the difference between postponing confirmation hearings until after the November election — and eliminating them entirely until a new president is seated.

Thanks for proving Biden never said a lame duck president shouldn’t make these decisions.

Sigh...idiot.

Your surrender is accepted.

So is your stupidity.

 

[bendog]

It doesn't matter to you simply because your party is not in the White House or in control of the Senate. The precedent of which you speak referred to an upcoming presidential election and that the voters should be able to choose the president who will make the next appointment. We already know which president is making the nomination.

I don't have a party. Ronald Reagan would not be a part of the Trump Republican Party. I am going to be fighting to get rid of the Trump Republican Party including something I never have nor ever thought I would need to do. Vote for a Democrat.

You're "outraged" that the Republicans aren't conservative enough for Ronald Reagan, and your response is to vote for a Democrat? Yeah, we're all totally buying that.

Don't ever wonder why the world laughs at you in derision, hon.

The Republican Party has been taken over by far right extremists like white supremacists and neo-nazis. Charlottesville was a example of the new Republican Party. I know you don't get it because Trump supporters are so stupid. You are a example of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Fascist pig.

No doubt, but Kavenaugh is not part of that.

McCain just came out for Kavanaugh, let's get this thing over and voted on. Romney, the Pro Hillary Bush Family, support him as well.

I've never said one way or another whether he should be confirmed. But let's not lie about the Turtle, Garland, Biden and Kennedy.

 

[iceberg]

you funny, faun.

biden did say that. sorry it disrupts the balance of your universe but that was his intent. now if you think it's stupid then say so when the left starts this shit and then the right won't have precedence to go off of.

No he didn’t. Biden suggested postponing confirmation hearings until after the election, just a few months away. McConnell shut down confirmation hearings for the remainder of Obama’s presidency.

i'm not going to micro-slice this your way.

biden played a political game and it's backfired.

end of story.

Kennedy got an up or down vote, so your attempt to microslice biden is factually bullshit, as usual.

heh - maybe you need to realize what micro-slicing is. it's taking a situation and cutting things away until you get YOUR point which happens in overall reality to be a sub-sub-sub point of the original. it means you're taking something done wrong and slicing it up until you find how to slant it JUST SO and it becomes ok all of a sudden.

biden was stupid. said something stupid. and it's backfired on him. i'm not saying it's right or wrong - misuse of our system like this needs to be spelled out for policy and actions that are ok - not twisted until suddenly you make YOUR situation somehow new and ergo, ok.

The two situations are not the same no matter how hard you try to make them the same. Biden suggested confirmation hearings be postponed for a few months before an election and until the election was over. Not to mention, there weren’t any USSC seats open anyway.

Compared to McConnell, who said Obama, with 11 months remaining in his presidency and nearly 9 months before an election, would not be allowed to fill an actual open seat.

I understand your desperation to make two unequal maneuvers the same, but they still remain different. And that now leaves us with the McConnell Rule; which is that the Senate from one party can deny an elected president their Constitutional authority to appoint USSC replacements for as long as they control the Senate. Could last up to 8 years. Maybe longer.

great. i can say they're not fundamentally different, no matter how you micro-slice your way there.

i do believe this is crap for one side to pull on another but until they fix it with actual laws it's subject to abuse. to pretend only 1 side is engaging in it?

pure unadulterated bullshit, son. that's all.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Thing is the people already decided when the GOP hijacked the process under Obama. Like that act or not it put the direction of the court FIRMLY in the hands of the voter.
Voters chose and the left lost so why hold up more nominees when the people have already spoken?

And spare me the popular vote or Russia Russia Russia bullshit.

Turn about is fair play. Democrats have every right to block this nominee until after the midterm election cycle. Republicans blocked Merrick Garland, Obama's last pick 6 months before the election, so they could campaign on the SCOTUS, and I would expect that Democrats will do the same.

After campaigning on the SCOTUS--Trump picked a nominee in Niel Gorsuch that Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama voted for in 2006. Niel Gorsuch, a G.W. Bush nominee to the Federal 10th district court of appeals. In fact Democrats confirmed Niel Gorsuch, at a time when they could have easily rejected him, as they were the majority in the Senate at that time.

Here are the Democrats that voted for Niel Gorsuch in 2006.

Niel Gorsuch is the only nominee to my memory that stated during confirmation hearings that Roe v Wade is precedent in the Constitution, meaning set it stone.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

The ONLY reason Democrats tried to block Niel Gorsuch this time around is because they were pissed that Republicans blocked Obama's last nominee, Merrick Garland. But even at that, they didn't put up a huge fight because they obviously liked Niel Gorsuch. This new pick Brett Kavanaugh--look for a yuuuuuge fight.

Democrats have a very good chance of taking back the house, and possibly the senate this coming November, and they are just thinking ahead. If they win back the Senate, it will be they that make the confirmations and decide who the SCOTUS will be. So of course they're going to try and block Brett Kavanaugh, whether they like him or not.
Blue wave coming this November 2018

It's just politics 101

Fair play?


Nanananabooboo?

I know you don't like to get your nose rubbed into anything--but post 511 is exactly what happened, and now Democrats are going to play the same card. There is only a 1 vote Republican majority in the Senate so I imagine they will succeed in getting it done. I don't think the Nuclear option will work this time around.

Democrats have no cards to play ya moron. They have no power unless a Republican flips and then it will be the Republican that stops the nominee not the democrats.

Fuck all you are ignorant.

Stick with nanananabooboo because that's all you have

FRAUD

 

[iceberg]

No he didn’t. Biden suggested postponing confirmation hearings until after the election, just a few months away. McConnell shut down confirmation hearings for the remainder of Obama’s presidency.

i'm not going to micro-slice this your way.

biden played a political game and it's backfired.

end of story.

Kennedy got an up or down vote, so your attempt to microslice biden is factually bullshit, as usual.

heh - maybe you need to realize what micro-slicing is. it's taking a situation and cutting things away until you get YOUR point which happens in overall reality to be a sub-sub-sub point of the original. it means you're taking something done wrong and slicing it up until you find how to slant it JUST SO and it becomes ok all of a sudden.

biden was stupid. said something stupid. and it's backfired on him. i'm not saying it's right or wrong - misuse of our system like this needs to be spelled out for policy and actions that are ok - not twisted until suddenly you make YOUR situation somehow new and ergo, ok.

The two situations are not the same no matter how hard you try to make them the same. Biden suggested confirmation hearings be postponed for a few months before an election and until the election was over. Not to mention, there weren’t any USSC seats open anyway.

Compared to McConnell, who said Obama, with 11 months remaining in his presidency and nearly 9 months before an election, would not be allowed to fill an actual open seat.

I understand your desperation to make two unequal maneuvers the same, but they still remain different. And that now leaves us with the McConnell Rule; which is that the Senate from one party can deny an elected president their Constitutional authority to appoint USSC replacements for as long as they control the Senate. Could last up to 8 years. Maybe longer.

Yes we now have the McConnell rule, which is the direct result of McConnell being willing to rewrite Senate procedure to protect citizens united. Iceberg does no one any good by lying about what took place. Someday the dems may be very greatful for the McConnell rule.

And in fact, Gary Hart was going to win the presidential election in 1988 until he imploded, and had he did this rule would have given the dems a 5-4 maj, with White considered a gop justice

you can go fuck yourself dude. all this calling someone a liar cause you don't like what they say is bullshit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You bet. The Dem majority leader can refuse to bring the nomination to the Senate floor.
Who is the Dem majority leader?

That's the whole point, the Democrat Party doesn't have the votes to stop the nomination of this fabulous choice.

The first step if they are interested is to win the Senate.

The Republican Senate majority isn't that big, it's only 1 vote, and they wiould like to have a bi-partisan confirmation. They used the nuclear option on Niel Gorsuch, but John McCain complained about that, because what it did was insure that when Democrats are the majority in the Senate they will now use the nuclear option on SCOTUS nominees--with an excuse that Republicans did it..

So Republicans may decide NOT to use the nuclear option in this instance--because they know it eventually will get shoved up a dark spot someday in the future. So they may insist on the 61 vote threshold--which they don't have.

Go back to post # 511 on this thread for a better explanation. It's just politics 101

i don't think it matters what the repubs do here. if the liberals have a chance to get their way by going nuke, they'll do it. to expect the other side not to do it is ludicrous.

Republicans have their own fears going into the midterm election cycle. This link will explain it. The general public is pissed off, and if people show up to vote this coming November it's looking very ugly for Republicans. IOW the last thing they want to do is shove another Trump nominee down the public's throats by using the nuclear option. I think they will insist on the 61 vote threshold, in order to keep the peace. They don't have 61 votes.
Blue wave coming this November 2018

Now the interesting thing about Kavanaugh is this, and it makes perfect sense why Trump wants him to be the next SCOTUS.

A decade later, after Kavanaugh had worked closely with President George W. Bush, he wrote in a law review that he had new appreciation for the demands of the presidency and the toll any legal proceeding could take on the White House. He recommended presidents be shielded from civil and criminal litigation until they leave office."Having seen first-hand how complex and difficult that job is," he wrote, "I believe it vital that the President be able to focus on his never-ending tasks with as few distractions as possible." He acknowledged that blocking litigation would suggest the President was "above the law," but he added that "the point is not to put the President above the law or to eliminate checks on the President, but simply to defer litigation and investigations until the President is out of office."Kavanaugh noted in the 2009 Minnesota Law Review piece that a check against a "bad-behaving or law-breaking President" would still exist. "If the President does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available."

Who is Brett Kavanaugh? Washington insider has said presidents should be shielded from litigation while in office - CNNPolitics

There is not a snowballs chance in hell, that Democrats will vote for a SCOTUS nominee that is on record for stating that President's shouldn't be investigated or litigated until after "they're out of office."

I think they will insist on the 61 vote threshold, in order to keep the peace.

60 votes ends a filibuster.
He'll be confirmed with a lot fewer than 60.

 

[g5000]

Democrats thought the GOP didn't have the balls to nuclear option their ass on SCOTUS confirmations, they thought wrong.

It isn't that anyone thought they didn't have the balls. They thought the GOP wasn't that hypocritical, retarded, or insane.

They thought wrong.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate (3), shall appoint

And without consent, sorry...…..

you read what I wrote, didn’t you?

I included that as one of the first 3 steps in the process, all of which are required for the 4th and final step of appointing a justice to the Supreme Court.

you read what I wrote, didn’t you?

I did.

I included that as one of the first 3 steps in the process, all of which are required for the 4th and final step

So you already realize that without the Consent, there is no appointment. Excellent.

Had you understood what I wrote, you would have known I was aware of that when you first read it.

The Constitution grants the president the authority to appoint USSC replacements and the people elected Obama to do that. So yes, he was robbed.

He has authority to nominate, but the Senate gets the final say. And they said no. It was very sad.

They said no to Obama, not to his nominee. Payback’s a bitch. Remember that in the next year or so if Democrats take control of the Senate and a Liberal seat on that bench opens up.

They said no to Obama, not to his nominee. Payback’s a bitch.

I agree. It's about time the Republicans started fighting back.

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans set the precedent. Does not matter whether it is Presidential or Congressional elections. The Senate does play a role in judicial nominations.

They set a precedent for congressional elections when they didnt do it in an off year election. Got it. Wow, thats inane

You are inane. A election is a election.

Inane is word parsing, which is what you are doing. No one has ever advocated not having a supreme court pick in a non-election year. McConnell didn't either.

What you're arguing is oh, McConnell didn't have supreme court hearings in an election year. Well, an off year election is still an election year. Therefore he advocated that too.

No, you're an idiot.

And frankly, it was more narrow than that. Obama didn't have the votes. Trump did. Both parties would have confirmed the pick in an election year if they had the votes

You are the idiot. McConnell wants a vote in October which is less than a month before the midterms. How do you know hw didn't have the votes. There were several Republicans in blue states that were up for re-election. Then you had some Republican moderates. Garland was not a far left extremist.

Garland was rabidly pro-abort and anti-gun, there is no reason to think he wouldn't have joined the Far Left Wall of 4 on the court , predetermining all of the court's decisions for a generation.

In any event, you also underestimate Sen. McConnell's ability to bring pressure for a "no" vote. No one wants shunned out of the party.

There wasn't really time to thoroughly bork Garland's nomination. And they didn't want to either. Had Mrs. Clinton been elected on 8 November, the Senate would have confirmed Garland and he'd be on the court today. Why ruin a candidate for the Supreme Court if the chances are you will approve him anyhow. You forget that everyone was looking for a Dawg landslide

Garlands judicial record was rated moderate left

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

GOP did it during a Presidential election year. It is not a Presidential election year. Not the same thing.

Doesn't have to be an election year. The new McConnell rule allows the Senate to refuse confirmation hearings to an elected president at any time for as long as desired by the Senate.

MSM doesn't control dissemination of information any longer. block, resist, and lose the next election.

Nope, the McConnell rule proved to be acceptable to the people. There's nothing in the Constitution about a president's final year.

There's nothing in the Constitution about a president's final year.

Or about unelected Presidents.

McConnell made it about elected presidents when he said the people should decide the next president to pick Scalia’s replacement; while taking that honor away from an elected president with 21% of his term remaining. Until then, that had never happened before.

McConnell made it about elected presidents

You did when you said previous Senate inaction on Supreme Court nominations was okay if the President hadn't been elected.

 

[bendog]

i'm not going to micro-slice this your way.

biden played a political game and it's backfired.

end of story.

Kennedy got an up or down vote, so your attempt to microslice biden is factually bullshit, as usual.

heh - maybe you need to realize what micro-slicing is. it's taking a situation and cutting things away until you get YOUR point which happens in overall reality to be a sub-sub-sub point of the original. it means you're taking something done wrong and slicing it up until you find how to slant it JUST SO and it becomes ok all of a sudden.

biden was stupid. said something stupid. and it's backfired on him. i'm not saying it's right or wrong - misuse of our system like this needs to be spelled out for policy and actions that are ok - not twisted until suddenly you make YOUR situation somehow new and ergo, ok.

The two situations are not the same no matter how hard you try to make them the same. Biden suggested confirmation hearings be postponed for a few months before an election and until the election was over. Not to mention, there weren’t any USSC seats open anyway.

Compared to McConnell, who said Obama, with 11 months remaining in his presidency and nearly 9 months before an election, would not be allowed to fill an actual open seat.

I understand your desperation to make two unequal maneuvers the same, but they still remain different. And that now leaves us with the McConnell Rule; which is that the Senate from one party can deny an elected president their Constitutional authority to appoint USSC replacements for as long as they control the Senate. Could last up to 8 years. Maybe longer.

Yes we now have the McConnell rule, which is the direct result of McConnell being willing to rewrite Senate procedure to protect citizens united. Iceberg does no one any good by lying about what took place. Someday the dems may be very greatful for the McConnell rule.

And in fact, Gary Hart was going to win the presidential election in 1988 until he imploded, and had he did this rule would have given the dems a 5-4 maj, with White considered a gop justice

you can go fuck yourself dude. all this calling someone a liar cause you don't like what they say is bullshit.

Ok I apologize for calling you a liar because it is possible you are such a fucking dumbshit you really cannot follow the differences in what happened in the Bork/Kennedy nominations and Garland's.

 

[bendog]

They set a precedent for congressional elections when they didnt do it in an off year election. Got it. Wow, thats inane

You are inane. A election is a election.

Inane is word parsing, which is what you are doing. No one has ever advocated not having a supreme court pick in a non-election year. McConnell didn't either.

What you're arguing is oh, McConnell didn't have supreme court hearings in an election year. Well, an off year election is still an election year. Therefore he advocated that too.

No, you're an idiot.

And frankly, it was more narrow than that. Obama didn't have the votes. Trump did. Both parties would have confirmed the pick in an election year if they had the votes

You are the idiot. McConnell wants a vote in October which is less than a month before the midterms. How do you know hw didn't have the votes. There were several Republicans in blue states that were up for re-election. Then you had some Republican moderates. Garland was not a far left extremist.

Garland was rabidly pro-abort and anti-gun, there is no reason to think he wouldn't have joined the Far Left Wall of 4 on the court , predetermining all of the court's decisions for a generation.

In any event, you also underestimate Sen. McConnell's ability to bring pressure for a "no" vote. No one wants shunned out of the party.

There wasn't really time to thoroughly bork Garland's nomination. And they didn't want to either. Had Mrs. Clinton been elected on 8 November, the Senate would have confirmed Garland and he'd be on the court today. Why ruin a candidate for the Supreme Court if the chances are you will approve him anyhow. You forget that everyone was looking for a Dawg landslide

Garlands judicial record was rated moderate left

He was good with Roe/Casey and not terribly hostile to Heller. His position on Citizens United was not totally clear, but possibly hostile to the point of reversing.

Edit, ps if Collins is a yea vote, then the dems should just let all their senators vote in their own self interests. It's just a practical matter. If she's good with throwing Roe and Casey on Kavenaugh's shoulders, it's a done deal anyway. So don't commit suicide over the thing. Live for another day.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Still haven't gotten tired of playing this... lol



Though I definitely would like the confirmation to occur before Oct. 1, I do see a massive conservative turnout if Kavanauch's nomination became a midterm issue. Sure, the left (DEM) would also have a massive referendum turnout but I'd be very comfortable with the conservative's (GOP) odds in that scenario...

The problem is that the seats where Republicans are in trouble have strong suburban components. The Supreme Court nomination brings Roe vs Wade into the forefront which is a loser for Republicans at this time. It ends up helping Republicans. Worth noting that Democrat Connor Lamb was for Roe vs Wade and FOR restrictions.

The problem is that the seats where Republicans are in trouble have strong suburban components. The Supreme Court nomination brings Roe vs Wade into the forefront which is a loser for Republicans at this time.

Which "suburban Senate Seats" are at risk?