Supreme Court Nominations

[Oddball]

Much as I hate to be a wet blanket, there's a matter of intellectual honesty to be had here.

The Bamster was prevented from adding Merrick Garland because it was an election year....The same model was followed when there was an opening as Chimpola Bush was on his way out the door.

I'd say that an election needs to be won first.

Sorry........ there was an election held...in 2016 and 2018....and the Republicans were given control of the White House and Senate......so they have the constitutional power to appoint Supreme Court Justices......if the situation was reveresed......as you just posted it was with bush....they would block the nomineee.....they also have stated they are going to pack the court anyway if they win in the future....so Trump needs to just do it...

I'm the one holding the intellectually honest position here.

I absolutely hate it when the left says it's (D)ifferent when they're intellectually dishonest, and that doesn't change here.

Win the election.

 

[2aguy]

Much as I hate to be a wet blanket, there's a matter of intellectual honesty to be had here.

The Bamster was prevented from adding Merrick Garland because it was an election year....The same model was followed when there was an opening as Chimpola Bush was on his way out the door.

I'd say that an election needs to be won first.

Bull shit. You're the one not being intellectually honest.

Clearly McConnell and Biden in 1992 were referring to when the Senate and Presidency were split between parties. The Constitution requires Senate consultation for the President's nominee. That's a really difficult trick to pull off in the middle of an election.

It's fine if you want to say you think the unwritten rule should be extended to if the same party controls the Presidency and the Senate. But to say that is what either McConnell or Biden meant that is completely disingenuous.

Obviously that is NOT what they meant

The Constitution trumps any unwritten rule, and two elections gave the power to appoint and confirm the next Supreme Court Justice to the Republican party...it is their duty, as members of the United States government, to replace that Justice....before the left wingers can put in a communist to take the seat.

 

[Oddball]

Much as I hate to be a wet blanket, there's a matter of intellectual honesty to be had here.

The Bamster was prevented from adding Merrick Garland because it was an election year....The same model was followed when there was an opening as Chimpola Bush was on his way out the door.

I'd say that an election needs to be won first.

Bull shit. You're the one not being intellectually honest.

Clearly McConnell and Biden in 1992 were referring to when the Senate and Presidency were split between parties. The Constitution requires Senate consultation for the President's nominee. That's a really difficult trick to pull off in the middle of an election.

It's fine if you want to say you think the unwritten rule should be extended to if the same party controls the Presidency and the Senate. But to say that is what either McConnell or Biden meant that is completely disingenuous.

Obviously that is NOT what they meant

Yeah....Let's act like democrats when it serves our purpose.

Think I'm now going to go barf.

 

[2aguy]

Much as I hate to be a wet blanket, there's a matter of intellectual honesty to be had here.

The Bamster was prevented from adding Merrick Garland because it was an election year....The same model was followed when there was an opening as Chimpola Bush was on his way out the door.

I'd say that an election needs to be won first.

Sorry........ there was an election held...in 2016 and 2018....and the Republicans were given control of the White House and Senate......so they have the constitutional power to appoint Supreme Court Justices......if the situation was reveresed......as you just posted it was with bush....they would block the nomineee.....they also have stated they are going to pack the court anyway if they win in the future....so Trump needs to just do it...

I'm the one holding the intellectually honest position here.

I absolutely hate it when the left says it's (D)ifferent when they're intellectually dishonest, and that doesn't change here.

Win the election.

They did, they won two different elections and the American people gave control of the Senate and the White House to the Republicans......they hold that power until January of 2021..........you are just wrong.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Much as I hate to be a wet blanket, there's a matter of intellectual honesty to be had here.

The Bamster was prevented from adding Merrick Garland because it was an election year....The same model was followed when there was an opening as Chimpola Bush was on his way out the door.

I'd say that an election needs to be won first.

Why?

The process for nominating a Supreme Court Justice is well established, and nothing within that process requires that a President wait until after an election if the nomination is to be made in an election year.

Ginsberg's death comes at a time when there is a Republican in the White House. That's unfortunate for the left, but there's nothing to preclude Trump making a nomination and, in fact, a stronger argument can probably be made for him making a nomination than not...

 

[Canon Shooter]

It is the president's obligation to name a Justice. Not the next president. The person who is president when there is an opening.

Exactly correct...

 

[2aguy]

Much as I hate to be a wet blanket, there's a matter of intellectual honesty to be had here.

The Bamster was prevented from adding Merrick Garland because it was an election year....The same model was followed when there was an opening as Chimpola Bush was on his way out the door.

I'd say that an election needs to be won first.

Bull shit. You're the one not being intellectually honest.

Clearly McConnell and Biden in 1992 were referring to when the Senate and Presidency were split between parties. The Constitution requires Senate consultation for the President's nominee. That's a really difficult trick to pull off in the middle of an election.

It's fine if you want to say you think the unwritten rule should be extended to if the same party controls the Presidency and the Senate. But to say that is what either McConnell or Biden meant that is completely disingenuous.

Obviously that is NOT what they meant

Yeah....Let's act like democrats when it serves our purpose.

Think I'm now going to go barf.

No....the democrats don't follow the Constitution....the Republicans would be following the Constitution...unwritten formalities do not supercede the Constitutional powers given by the American people.

 

[eagle1462010]

We have NO REASON TO WAIT............NONE.........

The Constitution is clear......The Senate to confirm........President to nominate...........Wasn't a clause to have to wait to appease anyone........

 

[kaz]

Much as I hate to be a wet blanket, there's a matter of intellectual honesty to be had here.

The Bamster was prevented from adding Merrick Garland because it was an election year....The same model was followed when there was an opening as Chimpola Bush was on his way out the door.

I'd say that an election needs to be won first.

Bull shit. You're the one not being intellectually honest.

Clearly McConnell and Biden in 1992 were referring to when the Senate and Presidency were split between parties. The Constitution requires Senate consultation for the President's nominee. That's a really difficult trick to pull off in the middle of an election.

It's fine if you want to say you think the unwritten rule should be extended to if the same party controls the Presidency and the Senate. But to say that is what either McConnell or Biden meant that is completely disingenuous.

Obviously that is NOT what they meant

Yeah....Let's act like democrats when it serves our purpose.

Think I'm now going to go barf.

If you can't read and respond to my post, then whatever. The logical fallacy you just committed BTW is called begging the question. Clearly neither McConnell nor Biden meant that. You can propose a new rule, but to pretend anyone ever meant when the Senate and Presidency are in the same party is just so completely dishonest. Clearly they didn't.

I explained from a Constitutional standpoint as well, and you didn't address that either why the Senate does have a say. Whatever, you just wanted to repeat your strawman.

And from a practical standpoint, if Democrats had both now they would 100% nominate and confirm a replacement. That we play by Marcus of Queensbury rules while Democrats play by barbarian rules has got to change. We're losing

 

[Oddball]

I was actually giving a scintilla of thought to voting this time, for the first time in 20 years.

You clods have just talked me out of it.

 

[Fueri]

They'll fill it. The short list is there. It's not like RGB passing is a huge shock, so the nominees are likely already established. I expect a nominee PDQ. Of course Trump will nominate someone.

But you have two republican members of the democrat party, Romney and murkowski, and at least two cowards, Graham and Collins to contend with......those 4 could end the attempt by refusing to vote for the nominee......

This would be risky for them, true.....the anger of Trump voters at Graham and collins could endanger any chance they have at re-election........even though I would vote for them regardless.....Trump needs to hold the Senate if he wins the election....democrats will not confirm any appointees for Trump if they win the Senate.....so these backstabbing, coward, quisling Republicans have to be voted back into office...the time to have removed them was during the primaries...

Theyd need all 4. Unlikely, IMO.

 

[kaz]

Much as I hate to be a wet blanket, there's a matter of intellectual honesty to be had here.

The Bamster was prevented from adding Merrick Garland because it was an election year....The same model was followed when there was an opening as Chimpola Bush was on his way out the door.

I'd say that an election needs to be won first.

Bull shit. You're the one not being intellectually honest.

Clearly McConnell and Biden in 1992 were referring to when the Senate and Presidency were split between parties. The Constitution requires Senate consultation for the President's nominee. That's a really difficult trick to pull off in the middle of an election.

It's fine if you want to say you think the unwritten rule should be extended to if the same party controls the Presidency and the Senate. But to say that is what either McConnell or Biden meant that is completely disingenuous.

Obviously that is NOT what they meant

Yeah....Let's act like democrats when it serves our purpose.

Think I'm now going to go barf.

No....the democrats don't follow the Constitution....the Republicans would be following the Constitution...unwritten formalities do not supercede the Constitutional powers given by the American people.

Yep. And Democrats 100% would have nominated and confirmed a replacement if the situation were reversed. Look at the facts:

- Democrats invented using the filibuster to stop Republican court nominees under W. Then they ended it under Obama

- Democrats invented using the filibuster to stop Republican administration nominations under W. Then they ended it under Obama

- Democrats changed the rules to get Obamacare in despite Scott Brown breaking the filibuster proof majority

Obviously neither McConnell nor Biden meant when the Senate and Presidency were in their party, only when they were split and they could stop it. We have to fight by their (lack of) rules. We're losing. The purity test Oddball wants will get us nothing. Next time Democrats will do it anyway. How many times do we have to be fooled.

Now Democrats are also projecting that they are perfectly willing to go further and nominate as many leftist judges as they need to tilt the SCOTUS left going to 11, 13, however many justices it takes. They also have already stated they will end the filibuster entirely to get their leftist agenda through.

Oddball doesn't usually advocate falling on a sword in the name of a useless ideological purity that will never be reciprocated

 

[task0778]

What if Trump nominates somebody, most likely Barrett, not this Monday but next Monday? And then the Senate Judiciary Committee begins it's confirmation hearings, but hold off the voting until after the election? That way, win or lose the senators running in a tight race have no reason not to vote to confirm once it's over. Chances are, the Dems will drag their feet on the whole process anyway, not sure how long they can stonewall the whole thing. The Senate is scheduled to adjourn on the 1st or 2nd of October could the GOP rush the confirmation through in just 2 weeks? Doubt it.

Now - the problem is as Sen. Cruz suggested: if the winner of the race for the WH is challenged in court as it assuredly will be unless it is a landslide, the issue could end up at the SCOTUS. Where having 9 justices instead of 8 would decide the issue, and that would be good for the Right if that 9th justice is Barrett. Could the GOP push the vote through the Senate before Xmas? The question might not be settled until January anyway, and by then the 9th justice could be sworn in. Whaddya think?

 

[2aguy]

Much as I hate to be a wet blanket, there's a matter of intellectual honesty to be had here.

The Bamster was prevented from adding Merrick Garland because it was an election year....The same model was followed when there was an opening as Chimpola Bush was on his way out the door.

I'd say that an election needs to be won first.

Bull shit. You're the one not being intellectually honest.

Clearly McConnell and Biden in 1992 were referring to when the Senate and Presidency were split between parties. The Constitution requires Senate consultation for the President's nominee. That's a really difficult trick to pull off in the middle of an election.

It's fine if you want to say you think the unwritten rule should be extended to if the same party controls the Presidency and the Senate. But to say that is what either McConnell or Biden meant that is completely disingenuous.

Obviously that is NOT what they meant

Yeah....Let's act like democrats when it serves our purpose.

Think I'm now going to go barf.

No....the democrats don't follow the Constitution....the Republicans would be following the Constitution...unwritten formalities do not supercede the Constitutional powers given by the American people.

Yep. And Democrats 100% would have nominated and confirmed a replacement if the situation were reversed. Look at the facts:

- Democrats invented using the filibuster to stop Republican court nominees under W. Then they ended it under Obama

- Democrats invented using the filibuster to stop Republican administration nominations under W. Then they ended it under Obama

- Democrats changed the rules to get Obamacare in despite Scott Brown breaking the filibuster proof majority

Obviously neither McConnell nor Biden meant when the Senate and Presidency were in their party, only when they were split and they could stop it. We have to fight by their (lack of) rules. We're losing. The purity test Oddball wants will get us nothing. Next time Democrats will do it anyway. How many times do we have to be fooled.

Now Democrats are also projecting that they are perfectly willing to go further and nominate as many leftist judges as they need to tilt the SCOTUS left going to 11, 13, however many justices it takes. They also have already stated they will end the filibuster entirely to get their leftist agenda through.

Oddball doesn't usually advocate falling on a sword in the name of a useless ideological purity that will never be reciprocated

It is like the weak guy on the beach as the bully kicks sand in his face.......the weak guy will not stoop to the level of the bully by responding in kind....he'll just sit there and eat sand all day...........

 

[kaz]

They'll fill it. The short list is there. It's not like RGB passing is a huge shock, so the nominees are likely already established. I expect a nominee PDQ. Of course Trump will nominate someone.

But you have two republican members of the democrat party, Romney and murkowski, and at least two cowards, Graham and Collins to contend with......those 4 could end the attempt by refusing to vote for the nominee......

This would be risky for them, true.....the anger of Trump voters at Graham and collins could endanger any chance they have at re-election........even though I would vote for them regardless.....Trump needs to hold the Senate if he wins the election....democrats will not confirm any appointees for Trump if they win the Senate.....so these backstabbing, coward, quisling Republicans have to be voted back into office...the time to have removed them was during the primaries...

Theyd need all 4. Unlikely, IMO.

And there are a couple of Democrats as well who could vote yes, like Manchin

 

[kaz]

Much as I hate to be a wet blanket, there's a matter of intellectual honesty to be had here.

The Bamster was prevented from adding Merrick Garland because it was an election year....The same model was followed when there was an opening as Chimpola Bush was on his way out the door.

I'd say that an election needs to be won first.

Bull shit. You're the one not being intellectually honest.

Clearly McConnell and Biden in 1992 were referring to when the Senate and Presidency were split between parties. The Constitution requires Senate consultation for the President's nominee. That's a really difficult trick to pull off in the middle of an election.

It's fine if you want to say you think the unwritten rule should be extended to if the same party controls the Presidency and the Senate. But to say that is what either McConnell or Biden meant that is completely disingenuous.

Obviously that is NOT what they meant

Yeah....Let's act like democrats when it serves our purpose.

Think I'm now going to go barf.

No....the democrats don't follow the Constitution....the Republicans would be following the Constitution...unwritten formalities do not supercede the Constitutional powers given by the American people.

Yep. And Democrats 100% would have nominated and confirmed a replacement if the situation were reversed. Look at the facts:

- Democrats invented using the filibuster to stop Republican court nominees under W. Then they ended it under Obama

- Democrats invented using the filibuster to stop Republican administration nominations under W. Then they ended it under Obama

- Democrats changed the rules to get Obamacare in despite Scott Brown breaking the filibuster proof majority

Obviously neither McConnell nor Biden meant when the Senate and Presidency were in their party, only when they were split and they could stop it. We have to fight by their (lack of) rules. We're losing. The purity test Oddball wants will get us nothing. Next time Democrats will do it anyway. How many times do we have to be fooled.

Now Democrats are also projecting that they are perfectly willing to go further and nominate as many leftist judges as they need to tilt the SCOTUS left going to 11, 13, however many justices it takes. They also have already stated they will end the filibuster entirely to get their leftist agenda through.

Oddball doesn't usually advocate falling on a sword in the name of a useless ideological purity that will never be reciprocated

It is like the weak guy on the beach as the bully kicks sand in his face.......the weak guy will not stoop to the level of the bully by responding in kind....he'll just sit there and eat sand all day...........

Yep. No one is looking at the guy eating sand and say he's winning anything

 

[Cassandro]

The bottom line is that both the President and the Senate have to agree on a SCOTUS nominee. Maybe Trump should wait and make it an election issue (and then pick who he wants). A majority of Americans do not like liberal judges, whom they know Biden would select.

 

[2aguy]

What if Trump nominates somebody, most likely Barrett, not this Monday but next Monday? And then the Senate Judiciary Committee begins it's confirmation hearings, but hold off the voting until after the election? That way, win or lose the senators running in a tight race have no reason not to vote to confirm once it's over. Chances are, the Dems will drag their feet on the whole process anyway, not sure how long they can stonewall the whole thing. The Senate is scheduled to adjourn on the 1st or 2nd of October could the GOP rush the confirmation through in just 2 weeks? Doubt it.

Now - the problem is as Sen. Cruz suggested: if the winner of the race for the WH is challenged in court as it assuredly will be unless it is a landslide, the issue could end up at the SCOTUS. Where having 9 justices instead of 8 would decide the issue, and that would be good for the Right if that 9th justice is Barrett. Could the GOP push the vote through the Senate before Xmas? The question might not be settled until January anyway, and by then the 9th justice could be sworn in. Whaddya think?

That is the argument that will need to be made...confirm now so the Supreme Court is ready when the democrats try to steal the election. They shouldn't wait till after the election, they should do it now....have her in by the end of the week...so she can be on the Court before it opens on the first monday in October...

 

[2aguy]

The bottom line is that both the President and the Senate have to agree on a SCOTUS nominee. Maybe Trump should wait and make it an election issue (and then pick who he wants). A majority of Americans do not like liberal judges, whom they know Biden would select.

No.........best just to go for it......as the SAS motto states..."Who Dares Wins."

 

[2aguy]

They'll fill it. The short list is there. It's not like RGB passing is a huge shock, so the nominees are likely already established. I expect a nominee PDQ. Of course Trump will nominate someone.

But you have two republican members of the democrat party, Romney and murkowski, and at least two cowards, Graham and Collins to contend with......those 4 could end the attempt by refusing to vote for the nominee......

This would be risky for them, true.....the anger of Trump voters at Graham and collins could endanger any chance they have at re-election........even though I would vote for them regardless.....Trump needs to hold the Senate if he wins the election....democrats will not confirm any appointees for Trump if they win the Senate.....so these backstabbing, coward, quisling Republicans have to be voted back into office...the time to have removed them was during the primaries...

Theyd need all 4. Unlikely, IMO.

And there are a couple of Democrats as well who could vote yes, like Manchin

Now...there is that...thanks, I hadn't even thought of that....but he was just re-elected, he may feel his oats and think he has enough time to hide voting against her....