Mac-7
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 2019
- 69,894
- 50,550
- 3,565
Uh, no.I've heard that many times before and it never comes to fruition.
one-party states do not allow challenges to their rule
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Uh, no.I've heard that many times before and it never comes to fruition.
If dems have the chance thats what they will doMan I certainly hope so. 8 will do. 17 on the court.and if the dems hold the house, senate and presidency they can expand the SC to whatever number they want and pack it with liberals
I support Trump and McConnell pushing this nomination through by the end of the year. Do you?Uh, no.
one-party states do not allow challenges to their rule
I would like to have a conservative republican fill gingsbergs seatI support Trump and McConnell pushing this nomination through by the end of the year. Do you?Uh, no.
one-party states do not allow challenges to their rule
I don't think it will.I would like to have a conservative republican fill gingsbergs seat
but not if it costs trump the election
I am not so sureI don't think it will.
I think the dems lost this election long ago by embracing lawlessness and silly conspiracy theory witch hunts.I am not so sure
at this point I dont think anyone knows for sure
/—-/ Translation: You got nothing besides Orange Man Bad.You need proof that the Trump administration is notoriously bad at vetting? Welcome back from your 4 year coma. I am not an RN, so i can't help you.And what proof do you have other than your deranged TDS?
/——/ democRATs’ plan B: Leftists Vow More Violence, Rioting If Trump Appoints Replacement For GinsburgNope. Thanks for asking.But you are ok with the right legislating from the bench?
We hope soI think the dems lost this election long ago by embracing lawlessness and silly conspiracy theory witch hunts.I am not so sure
at this point I dont think anyone knows for sure
True, which is why I advocate keeping our foot on the accelerator and getting this SCOTUS seat filled while we are guaranteed to be successful. If there's fallout from the victory, so be it. We can deal with that when/if it happens.but it could go either way
This won't get filled until after the election.
This won't get filled until after the election.
Nothing says they can’t confirm during the lame duck session
They can vote to confirm after the election and before January, no matter who wins.I know everyone is emotional. The Republicans excited to take a seat from the left. The Democrats upset to lose the seat. But realistically. There isn’t time to fill the seat before the election.
First you have to find a candidate. That takes time. Then you have to Vet the candidate. That takes more time. Then the candidate has to be presented to the Senate. Hearings and all that have to be scheduled. The average time for that is about 65 days. Or more than two weeks past the election. All while a third of the Senators are focused on the election and saving their seats.
Again realistically. It would have to take place a week or two before. So cutting a month out of the process is just not likely.
It gets worse. Even if Trump wins the election holding the Senate is not certain. So action during the Lame Duck period is less likely unless Republicans manage to hold the Senate. If the Republicans lose the senate running the nomination through will make Trumps ability to work with the new Congress that much more difficult.
McConnell says he will have a vote. But there are hundreds of hurdles to cross before that can happen. And the willingness of the Senators to vote comes into play.
Alaska Senator Murkowski said Friday she would not vote for a justice ahead of Inauguration Day - Alaska Public Media
Shortly before the announcement that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had died Friday, Sen. Lisa Murkowski said in an interview that if she was presented with a vacancy on the court, she would not vote to confirm a nominee before the election. Ginsburg died in her home in Washington...www.alaskapublic.org
A handful of Republicans could just refuse and the Nominee is dead on arrival. No Confirmation and no way to resubmit the candidate to the Court later.
If Trump loses there is not going to be any popular outcry to get his nominee on the Bench. Biden gets to pick the next Justice in that case.
I just do not see where there is enough time to do this before the election. 45 days remain and even without the election that would be a nearly record time. With the election, just no real way to do it.
What McConnell said is irrelevant. The powers to nominate and confirm are specified in the Constitution.
But the time to get it all done isn't. If worse comes to worst, the Dems walk out and the Senate won't have a quorum. Think McConnell and Trump are the only ones that know how the political games work? It's laughable to think a new justice could be in place in a couple of months.What McConnell said is irrelevant. The powers to nominate and confirm are specified in the Constitution.
First you have to find a candidate. That takes time. Then you have to Vet the candidate. That takes more time. Then the candidate has to be presented to the Senate. Hearings and all that have to be scheduled. The average time for that is about 65 days. Or more than two weeks past the election. All while a third of the Senators are focused on the election and saving their seats.
True, which is why I advocate keeping our foot on the accelerator and getting this SCOTUS seat filled while we are guaranteed to be successful. If there's fallout from the victory, so be it. We can deal with that when/if it happens.but it could go either way
I'm of the opinion that Trump will not lose. I've seen Biden try to speak. Not much left there. Regardless, I'd take a lifetime SCOTUS over a POTUS with a divided or opposition congress. The long game is more important than the immediate victory.And what if that fallout is losing the White House as well as the Senate? Have you considered what that would mean?
Except the SCOTUS declaring it unconstitutional.Nothing stopping the Democrats from pushing any legislation they want through.