I don’t think there is time to fill Ginsberg seat on the Court.

[SassyIrishLass]

The truth is, this is a crippling blow to the liberal long-term agenda. We all knew it was coming, and it could've been avoided if Ginsberg's ego hadn't kept her clinging to power long past her expiration date.

I never imagined Trump could possibly appoint three justices.

A fatal blow to the left

 

[Coyote]

Democrats will have the congress and white house at some point. Then they will expand the court and quickly appoint 2-4 judges. If not more. I hope they pack it with 6 or 8 more. The only way we get real changes to our system is when the white wing complains. So give them something to complain about.

Change has to occur among the people in order for change to occur in the political system.

The beginning of the end, of the McCarthy era witch hunts and persecution began when Joseph Welch, in a hearing, said "Have you no decency sir?".

Do you think those words would have any effect today?

 

[miketx]

Kavanaugh showed that vetting is essential.

If by “vetting“ you mean beating the bushes for liars then democrats better get busy

If anyone would have been ambushed it would have been Gorsich. Hé was filling a stolen seat.

Yet, he went through relatively easy.
It was Kavanaugh who had ghosts in his closet

Kavanaugh didn't have any ghosts in his closet....they lied and committed slander and libel against him...protected by their positions in the Senate and by the press.....

She passed a lie detector test
Kavanaugh refused to take one

Fake news.

 

[pknopp]

Democrats will have the congress and white house at some point. Then they will expand the court and quickly appoint 2-4 judges. If not more. I hope they pack it with 6 or 8 more. The only way we get real changes to our system is when the white wing complains. So give them something to complain about.

Change has to occur among the people in order for change to occur in the political system.

The beginning of the end, of the McCarthy era witch hunts and persecution began when Joseph Welch, in a hearing, said "Have you no decency sir?".

Do you think those words would have any effect today?

Not to very many.

 

[miketx]

Democrats will have the congress and white house at some point. Then they will expand the court and quickly appoint 2-4 judges. If not more. I hope they pack it with 6 or 8 more. The only way we get real changes to our system is when the white wing complains. So give them something to complain about.

Change has to occur among the people in order for change to occur in the political system.

The beginning of the end, of the McCarthy era witch hunts and persecution began when Joseph Welch, in a hearing, said "Have you no decency sir?".

Do you think those words would have any effect today?

Democrat vermin like you have no idea of what decency is, all you know is lie, cheat, and destroy.

 

[Orangecat]

McConnell refused. A precedent he won't honor this time.

You seem very politically naive, tbh.
McConnell is a republican and works within the rules to further the republican agenda. If the people had given the democrats control of the senate before Garland's nomination, he would be a SCOTUS justice now.
Elections have consequences.

 

[Orangecat]

Shall we bet on it? I'm counting minimally SIX Republican Senators who won't go there.

What's your bet? I'm saying the new SCOTUS justice will be appointed and confirmed by Trump and the Senate. Probably not before the election, but by the new year.

 

[Coyote]

Democrats will have the congress and white house at some point. Then they will expand the court and quickly appoint 2-4 judges. If not more. I hope they pack it with 6 or 8 more. The only way we get real changes to our system is when the white wing complains. So give them something to complain about.

Change has to occur among the people in order for change to occur in the political system.

The beginning of the end, of the McCarthy era witch hunts and persecution began when Joseph Welch, in a hearing, said "Have you no decency sir?".

Do you think those words would have any effect today?

Democrat vermin like you have no idea of what decency is, all you know is lie, cheat, and destroy.

You are a stunning example of what you spew. Honestly it's people like you on both sides that created such a partisan mess. You have weaponized (thanks Gingrich) partisan politics into the art of warfare - using political identification to pit citizens against citizens. Your chief weapons are misinformation, conspiracy theory, and the construction of every conflict into us vs them, winners/losers and a scorched earth American political landscape.

Have you no decency?

 

[Coyote]

McConnell refused. A precedent he won't honor this time.

You seem very politically naive, tbh.
McConnell is a republican and works within the rules to further the republican agenda. If the people had given the democrats control of the senate before Garland's nomination, he would be a SCOTUS justice now.
Elections have consequences.

And remember that when what comes around goes around. McConnell did something unprecedented, for partisan purposes. Just like Reid's nuclear option. There are consequences.

 

[Orangecat]

Problem is once you set a precedent, unless someone decides to be the bigger person/party - what comes around will go around.

Indeed, and the left is reaping the crop they've sown when Harry Reid abolished the fillibuster for SCOTUS nominations. What comes around will go around.

 

[Orangecat]

er that when what comes around goes around. McConnell did something unprecedented, for partisan purposes. Just like Reid's nuclear option. There are consequences.

Perhaps it will, but, while you're bitterly threatening future revenge, I'm celebrating your chickens coming home to roost in the present.
Future battles will be fought in the future.
Today is a great day to be an American.

 

[Mac-7]

A vote that may not get 10 democrats to join with the repubs
mcconnell needs at least 10 democrats

He doesn't need any democrats, thanks to Harry Reid.

He does not need 10

I was totally mistaken about that

but we are sure to lose some of the republican senators

 

[DrLove]

Shall we bet on it? I'm counting minimally SIX Republican Senators who won't go there.

What's your bet? I'm saying the new SCOTUS justice will be appointed and confirmed by Trump and the Senate. Probably not before the election, but by the new year.

There is NO WAY IN HELL Donald will get a SCOTUS pick after he loses this election. But we'll go with Win OR Lose - Before OR after the election. I say it won't happen - You say it will. Month off the board or $50 to the winners favorite charity. You choose.

 

[Coyote]

Problem is once you set a precedent, unless someone decides to be the bigger person/party - what comes around will go around.

Indeed, and the left is reaping what they've sown whe Harry Reid abolished the fillibuster for SCOTUS nominations. What comes around will go around.

Things don't happen in a vacuum. Prior to Reid's move there was a blocking of filling judicial vacancies - long a bipartisan process that recognized a president's right to fill vacancies. That blocking was not due to extreme ideological leanings of nominees, but partisan politics alone. Harry Reid's option was the only option to get some of those through. The numbers are damning for the Republicans hand in this. Question is...will the Dems do it when they are in power? Probably. That's the problem with precedents.

Senate obstructionism handed a raft of judicial vacancies to Trump—what has he done with them? | Brookings

Trump has described himself as taking the initiative to fill judicial posts, but obstructionism in the Senate during the Obama era created a much larger number of vacancies than presidents typically inherit.

www.brookings.edu

 

[miketx]

The truth is, this is a crippling blow to the liberal long-term agenda. We all knew it was coming, and it could've been avoided if Ginsberg's ego hadn't kept her clinging to power long past her expiration date.

I never imagined Trump could possibly appoint three justices.

A fatal blow to the left

Can't wait until the shit stains start trying to burn things down here.

 

[Orangecat]

He does not need 10

I was totally mistaken about that

but we are sure to lose of of the republican senators

If the short term loss of the Senate is the price of a lifetime appointee to the SCOTUS that keeps the left from legislating from the bench, I'll take that trade.
As it stands, we do not know where the senate will be next year, so I'll fight one battle at a time. Take this SCOTUS victory and deal with the senate later.

 

[Coyote]

He does not need 10

I was totally mistaken about that

but we are sure to lose of of the republican senators

If the short term loss of the Senate is the price of a lifetime appointee to the SCOTUS that keeps the left from legislating from the bench, I'll take that trade.
As it stands, we do not know where the senate will be next year, so I'll fight one battle at a time. Take this SCOTUS victory and deal with the senate later.

But you are ok with the right legislating from the bench?

 

[2aguy]

Problem is once you set a precedent, unless someone decides to be the bigger person/party - what comes around will go around.

Indeed, and the left is reaping what they've sown whe Harry Reid abolished the fillibuster for SCOTUS nominations. What comes around will go around.

Things don't happen in a vacuum. Prior to Reid's move there was a blocking of filling judicial vacancies - long a bipartisan process that recognized a president's right to fill vacancies. That blocking was not due to extreme ideological leanings of nominees, but partisan politics alone. Harry Reid's option was the only option to get some of those through. The numbers are damning for the Republicans hand in this. Question is...will the Dems do it when they are in power? Probably. That's the problem with precedents.

Senate obstructionism handed a raft of judicial vacancies to Trump—what has he done with them? | Brookings

Trump has described himself as taking the initiative to fill judicial posts, but obstructionism in the Senate during the Obama era created a much larger number of vacancies than presidents typically inherit.

www.brookings.edu

Bullshit.........the democrats started attacking judicial nominees with Bork.....and never looked back...you doofus.

 

[Coyote]

Problem is once you set a precedent, unless someone decides to be the bigger person/party - what comes around will go around.

Indeed, and the left is reaping what they've sown whe Harry Reid abolished the fillibuster for SCOTUS nominations. What comes around will go around.

Things don't happen in a vacuum. Prior to Reid's move there was a blocking of filling judicial vacancies - long a bipartisan process that recognized a president's right to fill vacancies. That blocking was not due to extreme ideological leanings of nominees, but partisan politics alone. Harry Reid's option was the only option to get some of those through. The numbers are damning for the Republicans hand in this. Question is...will the Dems do it when they are in power? Probably. That's the problem with precedents.

Senate obstructionism handed a raft of judicial vacancies to Trump—what has he done with them? | Brookings

Trump has described himself as taking the initiative to fill judicial posts, but obstructionism in the Senate during the Obama era created a much larger number of vacancies than presidents typically inherit.

www.brookings.edu

Bullshit.........the democrats started attacking judicial nominees with Bork.....and never looked back...you doofus.

Nothing to do with what I just pointed out. Nice deflection.

 

[Orangecat]

Things don't happen in a vacuum. Prior to Reid's move there was a blocking of filling judicial vacancies - long a bipartisan process that recognized a president's right to fill vacancies.

That's called "balance of power" and is a central component of our government. Your approval isn't required, tbh.