Supreme Court Nominations

[Jackson]

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.

That really does not make any sense. One of the reasons I voted for my candidate, is that I wanted HIM to select the next SC Justice. That is HIS job. Not the next president.

 

[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.

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

I don't see any NO votes from the Rs. Especially if the vote does not take place until after the election when the pressure is off. A NO vote guarantees the end of your career in the GOP IMHO. But realistically, I don't see the Senate getting the confirmation vote done before election day, those guys will adjourn no later than the 2nd week in October cuz they have re-election campaigns to attend to.

 

[Faun]

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?

If Biden wins and Republicans hold a vote between November 30th and Christmas, there's the possibility Democrats would need only 3 Republicans to vote nay to defeat confirmation. And they would likely have that with Collins, Murkowski and Romney.

 

[rightwinger]

When the left starts in with their you can’t fill the seat bullshit just point them here and tell them to STFU.

History Is on the Side of Republicans Filling a Supreme Court Vacancy in 2020 | National Review

Choosing not to fill a vacancy would be a historically unprecedented act of unilateral disarmament.

www.nationalreview.com

Republicans set the precedent.

You don’t fill SCOTUS vacancies in an election year......let the people decide

 

[Flash]

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....

We always have to worry about the courage of the RINOs. Most of the time they have none.

 

[Flash]

When the left starts in with their you can’t fill the seat bullshit just point them here and tell them to STFU.

History Is on the Side of Republicans Filling a Supreme Court Vacancy in 2020 | National Review

Choosing not to fill a vacancy would be a historically unprecedented act of unilateral disarmament.

www.nationalreview.com

Republicans set the precedent.

You don’t fill SCOTUS vacancies in an election year......let the people decide

No Moon Bat you are lying once again. You are either lying or you are confused.

The precedent is that the President always nominates a replacement in an election year.

If it is the same Party in charge of the Senate then the nominee is confirmed.

If it is another Party then the confirmation is put off until after the election.

Pull your head out of your unedcated ass.

 

[Flash]

 

[martybegan]

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.

It all depends on who controls the Senate and the White House.

In this situation Republicans control both places. They got the bully pulpit.

 

[kaz]

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.

Well, since you're putting up your own goalposts, it was going to end up that way anyway.

Vote if you want to, don't if you don't want to, but we're a bunch of meanies and it's our fault is frankly a pretty whiny thing to say.

You should vote based on one thing. Is it worth it to you to try to stop the Democrats with Trump? Or is Trump really the same as the Democrats?

I said for the last 30 years that while the two parties SAY different things, they act the same way in the end. I no longer believe that. That is why I am not voting third party this time and I'm voting for Trump. You have the same choice to make. But blaming it on us and then taking a little emotional shot there is not the way to do it

 

[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

I don't see any NO votes from the Rs. Especially if the vote does not take place until after the election when the pressure is off. A NO vote guarantees the end of your career in the GOP IMHO. But realistically, I don't see the Senate getting the confirmation vote done before election day, those guys will adjourn no later than the 2nd week in October cuz they have re-election campaigns to attend to.

Murkowski already said no vote if it is before the election and the other said no as well. I would put pressure on both of these women and have Trump help Murkoski in her campaign.

( hadn't thought of re-election campaigns and going home...so that is interesting. Let's see what Trump says about that.
Thanks for a good post.

 

[Jackson]

View attachment 390678

EEWwwww! Feinstein is in a lovers quarrel with Murkowski? Or is she the power behind Murkowski?

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

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.

Covid , no funerals too dangerous. Vote today !

 

[jwoodie]

Perhaps a Judiciary Committee vote before the election and a Senate Confirmation afterwards?

 

[Fueri]

Romney issued a statement this morning indicating he will vote.

The pubs have the votes. Ovah'.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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

I don't see any NO votes from the Rs. Especially if the vote does not take place until after the election when the pressure is off. A NO vote guarantees the end of your career in the GOP IMHO. But realistically, I don't see the Senate getting the confirmation vote done before election day, those guys will adjourn no later than the 2nd week in October cuz they have re-election campaigns to attend to.

This will be over in two weeks..

Barrett was recently nominated so her FBI file needs just minor updating. Her senate files are the same way. One staffer has said both updates would be done by the end of this week, about the time the nomination is handed down. They could vote her out of committee within a week and the floor the next.

With all of the recent interviews by senators on the judiciary there is no reason she can not be seated before November..

 

[kaz]

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

I don't see any NO votes from the Rs. Especially if the vote does not take place until after the election when the pressure is off. A NO vote guarantees the end of your career in the GOP IMHO. But realistically, I don't see the Senate getting the confirmation vote done before election day, those guys will adjourn no later than the 2nd week in October cuz they have re-election campaigns to attend to.

This will be over in two weeks..

Barrett was recently nominated so her FBI file needs just minor updating. Her senate files are the same way. One staffer has said both updates would be done by the end of this week, about the time the nomination is handed down. They could vote her out of committee within a week and the floor the next.

With all of the recent interviews by senators on the judiciary there is no reason she can not be seated before November..

There is good reason to confirm her quickly rather than get closer to the election

 

[toobfreak]

When the left starts in with their you can’t fill the seat bullshit just point them here and tell them to STFU.

History Is on the Side of Republicans Filling a Supreme Court Vacancy in 2020 | National Review

Choosing not to fill a vacancy would be a historically unprecedented act of unilateral disarmament.

www.nationalreview.com

Well, the thing is Mike, we all understand that the democrats aren't screaming bloody murder because replacing Ruth now is historically or legally WRONG.

They are screaming because doing so sticks ONE MORE DAGGER in their chest politically in losing control of a branch of government that was supposed to be INDEPENDENT in the first place!

Actually looking at the voting records and ideological leanings of the justices, it is RUTH and Obama's two appointments (BLUE) who show extreme radicalism and partisanship, not Trump's (RED) who are fairly smack down the middle of the road! Trump not the democrats is the one more fair and balanced!

 

[KissMy]

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

When the left starts in with their you can’t fill the seat bullshit just point them here and tell them to STFU.

History Is on the Side of Republicans Filling a Supreme Court Vacancy in 2020 | National Review

Choosing not to fill a vacancy would be a historically unprecedented act of unilateral disarmament.

www.nationalreview.com

I would consider NOT filling Dead Ruth's spot derelict of duty.

Hate fuck these communist shit twinkle-toed cocksuckers into the next fucking millennium.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Nope. Fill that bitch up. NOW!!!