Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election

DustyInfinity

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2018
Messages
2,484
Reaction score
1,161
Points
210
Location
Midwest
Rushing a Supreme Court nominee will guarantee two things, the increased incentive for electing a Democratic Senate and pressure on Republican incumbents, and the likelihood of a Democrat President and Senate increasing the size of Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court.
Yes but they’re planning on doing it anyways but they may not take back the Senate
Rushing a nominee in before the election or new President and Senate will give the Dem's a rewarding excuse and support.
It’s a common practice since Washington
They will try to expand and stack the court , anyways
F them
It's a huge gamble for Republicans and the results could be huge and overwhelming.
I was thinking about that too, but the people it would piss off are already pissed off. I'm not sure who it would encourage to the polls.
 

DGS49

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
9,513
Reaction score
3,716
Points
360
Location
Pittsburgh
For those who were politically aware in 2016, President Trump garnered MILLIONS of individual votes from people who SPECIFICALLY intended for for him to replace RBG - not someone else - with a Conservative justice. THIS IS SPECIFICALLY WHY HE WAS ELECTED. The voters have spoken and they will be heard. Fuck Mitt Romney and those two RINO bitches. We don't NEED their fucking votes.

RBG had a chance to control her legacy on the court by retiring while Soetoro was still in office, and she declined to do so.

If Schumer were in the same position, there is absolutely no doubt what he would do.

Roll on.
 

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
492
Points
130
Fuck the Schmuck...

Trump should go for it!!!!

Seems to me the communist/socialist Democrat Leadership is shaking in their boots because someone who may actually support and defend the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text will be nominated.



Of course, those shaking in their boots are among those who approve of using the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language being applied to our Constitution:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

JWK


Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
 

22lcidw

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2018
Messages
14,014
Reaction score
3,826
Points
275
Rushing a Supreme Court nominee will guarantee two things, the increased incentive for electing a Democratic Senate and pressure on Republican incumbents, and the likelihood of a Democrat President and Senate increasing the size of Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court.
Yes but they’re planning on doing it anyways but they may not take back the Senate
Rushing a nominee in before the election or new President and Senate will give the Dem's a rewarding excuse and support.
It’s a common practice since Washington
They will try to expand and stack the court , anyways
F them
It's a huge gamble for Republicans and the results could be huge and overwhelming.
I was thinking about that too, but the people it would piss off are already pissed off. I'm not sure who it would encourage to the polls.
It is not what Repubs would do. It is what Progs would have done. And they would push through a Supreme Court Judge. McConnell should never forget the threat he faced with his wife at his home by potential rioters. The Prog politicians being sheepishly silent. That in itself should give him the strength to get this done if he chooses to do so.
 

mudwhistle

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
96,639
Reaction score
24,071
Points
2,220
Location
Tested Negative For COVID-19
Rushing a Supreme Court nominee will guarantee two things, the increased incentive for electing a Democratic Senate and pressure on Republican incumbents, and the likelihood of a Democrat President and Senate increasing the size of Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court.
Bullshit.
Democrats invented the dirty-trick. COVID-19 is their latest dirty-trick.
Their rioters are another..
I don't see why we should reward these folks for being assholes since last Summer starting with their fake impeachment.
I don't see the point of working with folks like those in the Democrat Party.
They are beyond negotiating with at this point.
So I say take the gloves off and let em have it right between the friggen eyes.
 

Darkwind

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
26,652
Reaction score
7,285
Points
290
They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..



Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.

Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.

But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.

McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.

Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
That was the precedent that was set in 2016.

However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins. And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
Simply ask yourself what the Democrats would do. If they thought the possibility existed that they may lose a SCOTUS nomination, they would not count the cost nor would they give a single fuck what the minority leader had to say.

Republicans need to act exactly the way the Democrats would act. Nominate and sit a good SC candidate before November.
Wrong analysis. McConnell made the rule. This is sleaze of the highest order.
Are you aware of your surroundings at all? What rule? The Senate has always been responsible for confirming SCOTUS nominees.
 

Camp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2013
Messages
27,649
Reaction score
6,880
Points
280
Rushing a Supreme Court nominee will guarantee two things, the increased incentive for electing a Democratic Senate and pressure on Republican incumbents, and the likelihood of a Democrat President and Senate increasing the size of Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court.
Yes but they’re planning on doing it anyways but they may not take back the Senate
Rushing a nominee in before the election or new President and Senate will give the Dem's a rewarding excuse and support.
It’s a common practice since Washington
They will try to expand and stack the court , anyways
F them
It's a huge gamble for Republicans and the results could be huge and overwhelming.
I was thinking about that too, but the people it would piss off are already pissed off. I'm not sure who it would encourage to the polls.
Women and people with pre-existing medical conditions.
 

Rye Catcher

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2019
Messages
4,193
Reaction score
2,101
Points
920
Fuck the Schmuck...

Trump should go for it!!!!
He will, of course. And Moscow Mitch will support Trump's nominee and bring it to the floor ASAP. One more example (do we need any more?!) that the GOP is the party of HYPOCRISY AND DISHONESTY.

The Mission Statement left to us and in particular to our elected officials is in the Preamble. This vision is being eroded by Trump and his fellow travelers; a coterie who are self serving, dishonest and opposed to democracy.

Is it any wonder that so many real Republicans, those who support the Democratic Republic left to us over two centuries ago, have rejected Trumpism, i.e. Authoritarianism; they have come forth and will not support Trump and Pence to have four more years to destroy what has been the longest Democratic Republic in the history of the world.
 

Darkwind

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
26,652
Reaction score
7,285
Points
290
Fuck the Schmuck...

Trump should go for it!!!!
He will, of course. And Moscow Mitch will support Trump's nominee and bring it to the floor ASAP. One more example (do we need any more?!) that the GOP is the party of HYPOCRISY AND DISHONESTY.

The Mission Statement left to us and in particular to our elected officials is in the Preamble. This vision is being eroded by Trump and his fellow travelers; a coterie who are self serving, dishonest and opposed to democracy.

Is it any wonder that so many real Republicans, those who support the Democratic Republic left to us over two centuries ago, have rejected Trumpism, i.e. Authoritarianism; they have come forth and will not support Trump and Pence to have four more years to destroy what has been the longest Democratic Republic in the history of the world.
You're just mad because McConnell is going to do exactly what the Democrats would do in this situation. The Democrats would do as they please and not give a damn about the opposition.

I encourage EVERY Republican to do the same, and continue to do just that until the Democrats learn to negotiate and compromise.
 

WillHaftawaite

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
60,529
Reaction score
18,306
Points
2,250
They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..



Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.

Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.

But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.

McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.

Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
That was the precedent that was set in 2016.

However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins. And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.

NO

it was set in 1992.

 

WillHaftawaite

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
60,529
Reaction score
18,306
Points
2,250
They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..



Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.

Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.

But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.

McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.

Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
That was the precedent that was set in 2016.

However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins. And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
Simply ask yourself what the Democrats would do. If they thought the possibility existed that they may lose a SCOTUS nomination, they would not count the cost nor would they give a single fuck what the minority leader had to say.

Republicans need to act exactly the way the Democrats would act. Nominate and sit a good SC candidate before November.
Wrong analysis. McConnell made the rule. This is sleaze of the highest order.
McConnell made the rule.

NO


Biden made the rule. in 1992
 

Rye Catcher

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2019
Messages
4,193
Reaction score
2,101
Points
920
Fuck the Schmuck...

Trump should go for it!!!!
He will, of course. And Moscow Mitch will support Trump's nominee and bring it to the floor ASAP. One more example (do we need any more?!) that the GOP is the party of HYPOCRISY AND DISHONESTY.

The Mission Statement left to us and in particular to our elected officials is in the Preamble. This vision is being eroded by Trump and his fellow travelers; a coterie who are self serving, dishonest and opposed to democracy.

Is it any wonder that so many real Republicans, those who support the Democratic Republic left to us over two centuries ago, have rejected Trumpism, i.e. Authoritarianism; they have come forth and will not support Trump and Pence to have four more years to destroy what has been the longest Democratic Republic in the history of the world.
You're just mad because McConnell is going to do exactly what the Democrats would do in this situation. The Democrats would do as they please and not give a damn about the opposition.

I encourage EVERY Republican to do the same, and continue to do just that until the Democrats learn to negotiate and compromise.
Mad? Have you not read through this thread and the comments above, (mostly ad hominems)?

Maybe you need to touch base with reality, making this false allegation that Democrats won't negotiate or compromise is ludicrous.
 

Rye Catcher

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2019
Messages
4,193
Reaction score
2,101
Points
920
They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..



Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.

Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.

But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.

McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.

Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
That was the precedent that was set in 2016.

However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins. And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
Simply ask yourself what the Democrats would do. If they thought the possibility existed that they may lose a SCOTUS nomination, they would not count the cost nor would they give a single fuck what the minority leader had to say.

Republicans need to act exactly the way the Democrats would act. Nominate and sit a good SC candidate before November.
Wrong analysis. McConnell made the rule. This is sleaze of the highest order.
McConnell made the rule.

NO


Biden made the rule. in 1992
Proof is missing, please post a link to your statement what Biden did or said over 25 years ago is a rule, it was an opinion. An opinion which carried no weight in law or equity.
 
Last edited:

two_iron

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2019
Messages
9,334
Reaction score
5,907
Points
920
Location
Republic of Texas
The marxists begged that little shit-eating rodent to retire while the kenyan lawn jockey still had full control over the process. The dice were rolled... and the party of shit lost. Too bad.

Pretend for one second, Upchuck was faced with this same decision.... yeah, that's what I thought.
 

WillHaftawaite

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
60,529
Reaction score
18,306
Points
2,250
They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..



Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.

Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.

But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.

McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.

Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
That was the precedent that was set in 2016.

However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins. And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
Simply ask yourself what the Democrats would do. If they thought the possibility existed that they may lose a SCOTUS nomination, they would not count the cost nor would they give a single fuck what the minority leader had to say.

Republicans need to act exactly the way the Democrats would act. Nominate and sit a good SC candidate before November.
Wrong analysis. McConnell made the rule. This is sleaze of the highest order.
McConnell made the rule.

NO


Biden made the rule. in 1992
Proof is missing, please post a link to your statement what Biden did or said over 25 years ago is a rule, it was an opinion. An opinion which carried no weight in law or equity.


(psst, it's in the Congressional Record.)

and that's as much as rule as McConnells comments.
 

22lcidw

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2018
Messages
14,014
Reaction score
3,826
Points
275
Fuck the Schmuck...

Trump should go for it!!!!
He will, of course. And Moscow Mitch will support Trump's nominee and bring it to the floor ASAP. One more example (do we need any more?!) that the GOP is the party of HYPOCRISY AND DISHONESTY.

The Mission Statement left to us and in particular to our elected officials is in the Preamble. This vision is being eroded by Trump and his fellow travelers; a coterie who are self serving, dishonest and opposed to democracy.

Is it any wonder that so many real Republicans, those who support the Democratic Republic left to us over two centuries ago, have rejected Trumpism, i.e. Authoritarianism; they have come forth and will not support Trump and Pence to have four more years to destroy what has been the longest Democratic Republic in the history of the world.
I remember reading forums and not this one when Scalia died. He was roasted and laughed at. The media gave a grudging respect to him. Contrast that to now with Ginsberg. She could do no wrong as she is sanctified. She is a murderer. No progression of rights can be cemented without primal ways interfering with it if things become bad. It is just what the alignments are when it occurs. There are a lot of people who have scores to settle. And would if they were suddenly empowered in some way if the worse happens with an economic downturn or something similar.
 

TheParser

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
3,254
Reaction score
1,597
Points
210
From a practical point of view, the Senate should approve President Trump's nominee before the election. Then they will be sure of having the position filled by a conservative if (as is likely), President Trump loses.

If this were a perfect world and IF the Dems had acted in a gentlemanly fashion during the last four years, then the Republicans should wait for the election winner to nominate someone, as they told President Obama when he sent the name of his nominee, and the Republicans refused to even hold hearings.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top