Supreme Court Nominations

[Jackson]

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?

How many are on the Judicial Committee? And what is the party makeup of its members? Let's hope there is an odd number on that there are more R that D.

 

[toobfreak]

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.

I'm sure Donald has had a list of picks in the ready for Ruth to croak for a LONG TIME.

 

[kaz]

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.

The problem with that is that one thing that caused Trump to win and Romney to lose was that Trump is standing up for us.

HW never understood the no new taxes thing why it defeated him. He thought he shouldn't have said it. Wrong. He shouldn't have raised taxes.

Then we had Dole, W, W and McCain who between them had no fight against the Democrat party at all. W let them bring down his Presidency because he wouldn't fight back and Democrat lies became truth unchallenged.

Romney remember did well in the first two debates. Then he thought he was winning and the third debate agreed with every word that came out of Obama's mouth. He could have put Obama away in the election with a strong third debate. But wussing out just made us all realize he had no real fight in him. His numbers dipped and he lost.

Trump is FINALLY fighting back. Not doing this would be taken like Romney in the third debate. It's the source of his avid support. It's why I am willing to come back and vote for Trump even though I voted third party six of the last seven elections. I'd be crushed if he caved to the Democrats

 

[DrLove]

According to National Review?

"I’m sure I’m not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, “Hey, I think she just winked at me.” And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can’t be learned; it’s either something you have or you don’t, and man, she’s got it." -National Review Editor Rich Lowry

 

[toobfreak]

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.

I’d bet Barrett is nominated on Monday. Trump already said he was saving her nomination for that seat. She’s already vetted so it would be a quick turnaround.

Woman for woman. After all, Democrats are the ones always saying they are for woman's rights and that Trump does not appoint enough gals to high positions!

 

[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

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....

Oh, he's not a slam dunk yes. I'm just agreeing though that the Democrats have to run the table, and it's not just the 4 Republicans they need to get

 

[Flash]

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.

In every administration where there was an opening on the Court in an election year the President has nominated a replacement.

In every one of those years where it was the same party running the Senate then the nominee was voted on.

In those years where a different party was in charge of the Senate they waited until after the election.

Nothing different here.

 

[toobfreak]

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.

I’d bet Barrett is nominated on Monday. Trump already said he was saving her nomination for that seat. She’s already vetted so it would be a quick turnaround.

Yep... but I think Trump will wait until after RBG's funeral. Nothing is out of the question here.

You may be right if the funeral is quick and they don’t drag it out. Either way I bet Barrett is packing some bags right now. I would bet she’s already heard from Trump and several senators.

I hope......and now we only have to worry about Romney, murkowski, graham and collins.......enemies behind the wire....

Especially Romney. That asshole is another McCain with raging TDS.

 

[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?

How many are on the Judicial Committee? And what is the party makeup of its members? Let's hope there is an odd number on that there are more R that D.

Currently 20 members, 11 Repubs and 9 Dems. Don't know who they are, but I'm guessing the hearings will be somewhat raucous.

 

[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?

How many are on the Judicial Committee? And what is the party makeup of its members? Let's hope there is an odd number on that there are more R that D.

The Republicans control the Senate so they have majorities on all the committees...the key is, how many of the Republicans on the committee are cowards and quislings......?

 

[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?

How many are on the Judicial Committee? And what is the party makeup of its members? Let's hope there is an odd number on that there are more R that D.

Currently 20 members, 11 Repubs and 9 Dems. Don't know who they are, but I'm guessing the hearings will be somewhat raucous.

Hmmmmm......how can you tell.....?

 

[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.

I’d bet Barrett is nominated on Monday. Trump already said he was saving her nomination for that seat. She’s already vetted so it would be a quick turnaround.

Yep... but I think Trump will wait until after RBG's funeral. Nothing is out of the question here.

You may be right if the funeral is quick and they don’t drag it out. Either way I bet Barrett is packing some bags right now. I would bet she’s already heard from Trump and several senators.

I hope......and now we only have to worry about Romney, murkowski, graham and collins.......enemies behind the wire....

Especially Romney. That asshole is another McCain with raging TDS.

Yep.........this will be a close thing.........a razors edge...

 

[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.

The problem with that is that one thing that caused Trump to win and Romney to lose was that Trump is standing up for us.

HW never understood the no new taxes thing why it defeated him. He thought he shouldn't have said it. Wrong. He shouldn't have raised taxes.

Then we had Dole, W, W and McCain who between them had no fight for the Democrat party at all. W let them bring down his Presidency because he wouldn't fight back and Democrat lies became truth unchallenged.

Romney remember did well in the first two debates. Then he thought he was winning and the third debate agreed with every word that came out of Obama's mouth. He could have put Obama away in the election with a strong third debate. But wussing out just made us all realize he had no real fight in him. His numbers dipped and he lost.

Trump is FINALLY fighting back. Not doing this would be taken like Romney in the third debate. It's the source of his avid support. It's why I am willing to come back and vote for Trump even though I voted third party six of the last seven elections. I'd be crushed if he caved to the Democrats

Trump won't cave.....lindsey graham is another matter....

 

[Jackson]

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?

How many are on the Judicial Committee? And what is the party makeup of its members? Let's hope there is an odd number on that there are more R that D.

Currently 20 members, 11 Repubs and 9 Dems. Don't know who they are, but I'm guessing the hearings will be somewhat raucous.

Thank you for the info!
Well, that sounds like the vote could take a short time, don't you think?

 

[Jackson]

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?

How many are on the Judicial Committee? And what is the party makeup of its members? Let's hope there is an odd number on that there are more R that D.

The Republicans control the Senate so they have majorities on all the committees...the key is, how many of the Republicans on the committee are cowards and quislings......?

Well, Graham is leader of the Judiciary and that's not good. Hope Romney isn't on it.

 

[kaz]

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.

The problem with that is that one thing that caused Trump to win and Romney to lose was that Trump is standing up for us.

HW never understood the no new taxes thing why it defeated him. He thought he shouldn't have said it. Wrong. He shouldn't have raised taxes.

Then we had Dole, W, W and McCain who between them had no fight for the Democrat party at all. W let them bring down his Presidency because he wouldn't fight back and Democrat lies became truth unchallenged.

Romney remember did well in the first two debates. Then he thought he was winning and the third debate agreed with every word that came out of Obama's mouth. He could have put Obama away in the election with a strong third debate. But wussing out just made us all realize he had no real fight in him. His numbers dipped and he lost.

Trump is FINALLY fighting back. Not doing this would be taken like Romney in the third debate. It's the source of his avid support. It's why I am willing to come back and vote for Trump even though I voted third party six of the last seven elections. I'd be crushed if he caved to the Democrats

Trump won't cave.....lindsey graham is another matter....

I get why you say that. Lindsey Grahmnesty and McConnell were two of the most no nuts Senators. But they both for some reason grew a pair under Trump. But based on history, I see why you'd have trouble trusting either of them

 

[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.

The problem with that is that one thing that caused Trump to win and Romney to lose was that Trump is standing up for us.

HW never understood the no new taxes thing why it defeated him. He thought he shouldn't have said it. Wrong. He shouldn't have raised taxes.

Then we had Dole, W, W and McCain who between them had no fight for the Democrat party at all. W let them bring down his Presidency because he wouldn't fight back and Democrat lies became truth unchallenged.

Romney remember did well in the first two debates. Then he thought he was winning and the third debate agreed with every word that came out of Obama's mouth. He could have put Obama away in the election with a strong third debate. But wussing out just made us all realize he had no real fight in him. His numbers dipped and he lost.

Trump is FINALLY fighting back. Not doing this would be taken like Romney in the third debate. It's the source of his avid support. It's why I am willing to come back and vote for Trump even though I voted third party six of the last seven elections. I'd be crushed if he caved to the Democrats

Trump won't cave.....lindsey graham is another matter....

I get why you say that. Lindsey Grahmnesty and McConnell were two of the most no nuts Senators. But they both for some reason grew a pair under Trump. But based on history, I see why you'd have trouble trusting either of them

The Republicans are in quite the pickle..........Trump supporters, the most enthusiastic voters this cycle...want that confirmation. Votes will depend on how the republicans act on this.........

 

[Jackson]

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.

The problem with that is that one thing that caused Trump to win and Romney to lose was that Trump is standing up for us.

HW never understood the no new taxes thing why it defeated him. He thought he shouldn't have said it. Wrong. He shouldn't have raised taxes.

Then we had Dole, W, W and McCain who between them had no fight for the Democrat party at all. W let them bring down his Presidency because he wouldn't fight back and Democrat lies became truth unchallenged.

Romney remember did well in the first two debates. Then he thought he was winning and the third debate agreed with every word that came out of Obama's mouth. He could have put Obama away in the election with a strong third debate. But wussing out just made us all realize he had no real fight in him. His numbers dipped and he lost.

Trump is FINALLY fighting back. Not doing this would be taken like Romney in the third debate. It's the source of his avid support. It's why I am willing to come back and vote for Trump even though I voted third party six of the last seven elections. I'd be crushed if he caved to the Democrats

Trump won't cave.....lindsey graham is another matter....

I get why you say that. Lindsey Grahmnesty and McConnell were two of the most no nuts Senators. But they both for some reason grew a pair under Trump. But based on history, I see why you'd have trouble trusting either of them

The Republicans are in quite the pickle..........Trump supporters, the most enthusiastic voters this cycle...want that confirmation. Votes will depend on how the republicans act on this.........

Most Reps would come out and vote and it will be smart to select a woman to preserve the Row vs. Wade issue for the ladies' votes.

As usual. Biden came out and just said he would nominate a black woman. SMH... forget any legal history, just make sure she is black. Biden is just a mess.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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.

Read the link I provided in the OP. That’s why I put it there.

 

[Jackson]

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?

How many are on the Judicial Committee? And what is the party makeup of its members? Let's hope there is an odd number on that there are more R that D.

Senate Judicial Committee

Chairman Lindsey Graham R

Dianne Feinstein D

Chuck Grassley R

Patrick Leahy D

John Cornyn R

Dick Durbin D

Michael S. Lee R

Sheldon Whitehouse D

Ted Cruz

Amy Klobuchar D

Ben Sasse R

Christopher A. Coons D

Joshua D. Hawley R

Richard Blumenthal D

Thom Tillis R

Mazie Hirono D

Joni Ernst R

Cory Booker D

Mike Crapo R

Kamala Harris D

John Kennedy R

Marsha Blackburn R