To Replace Ginsberg Before the Election, Or Hold Off Until After the Election?

protectionist

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
39,384
Reaction score
6,861
Points
1,130
Oooo....A politician expressed the exact opposite opinion of that which he held just a few years ago.

There's something we don't see every day! :rolleyes-41:
Maybe not every day, but at least every YEAR we do - like Pelosi, Schumer, Obama, etc saying they were opposed to illegal immigration just a few years ago ; now support sanctuary cities.
Like them downplaying the Covid virus a few months ago, and now condemning Trump for doing that.

Trump has plenty of role models.
 

protectionist

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
39,384
Reaction score
6,861
Points
1,130
because it will be a big fight and they have shown in the past they dont have the stomach for that.
FALSE! They fought for Kavanaugh. They fought for Trump in 2016, fought for him in 2019 with the impeachment laughingstock, and they're fighting for him again right now.
 

Quasar44

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Messages
4,967
Reaction score
2,755
Points
903
Location
Las Vegas
I want to apologize!!


I was wrong to say Gutter-Berg will burn in hell !!
Yes , She has killed more babies than anyone in the history of mankind

wishing such a evil monster to burn in hell is sophomoric and rude
I am sorry
 

Quasar44

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Messages
4,967
Reaction score
2,755
Points
903
Location
Las Vegas
Please accept my apology to all those who liked her
 

protectionist

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
39,384
Reaction score
6,861
Points
1,130
GOP up for office can only succeed with a Center-liberal nominee to point to as one of their own. The Trumped-Up election prospects get way less support, the further down-ticket they go: Already.
GOP up for office can only succeed with a far-right, strong law & order nominee to point to as one of their own. The Trumped-Up election prospects get way more support, the further anti BLM, anti-Antifa, anti-Democrat mayors they go: :biggrin:
 

Crixus

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2015
Messages
24,290
Reaction score
3,614
Points
290
Location
BFE Texas.
because it will be a big fight and they have shown in the past they dont have the stomach for that.
FALSE! They fought for Kavanaugh. They fought for Trump in 2016, fought for him in 2019 with the impeachment laughingstock, and they're fighting for him again right now.

no they diddnt. they let him get publicly horse whipped for weeks when they diddnt have to. already Merkowski and collins are o their knees blowing chucky, Romney soon to follow and corey gardener next. romney knows he is out, and thwt be has been out. the other three are out, and the gop should cut them loose and let them fend for them selves. so that leaves it until after the election.
 

protectionist

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
39,384
Reaction score
6,861
Points
1,130
no they diddnt. they let him get publicly horse whipped for weeks when they diddnt have to. already Merkowski and collins are o their knees blowing chucky, Romney soon to follow and corey gardener next. romney knows he is out, and thwt be has been out. the other three are out, and the gop should cut them loose and let them fend for them selves. so that leaves it until after the election.
I didn't know the "they" you were speaking of, was the Republicans' 4 worst RINO traitors.
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
61,248
Reaction score
10,845
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
I'm torn over the replacing of Ms Ginsberg before the end of the year. On one hand, it would insure a conservative justice replacing her.
On the other hand, it would give the left a lot of negative ammunition to go after Trump for trying to replace her after what McConnell did in 2016.
Trump doesn't need the extra distraction during the campaigning, along with the msm going after him relentlessly for trying.
If he was upfront and saying that he's going to hold off, it could give him some positive momentum in the eyes of the voters in the swing states.
What say you?
It’s not a option we need her seat filled, it could be a constitutional crisis if it’s not filled.. I would hold hearings ASAP
Oh? Why would there be a Constitutional crisis?
Democrats plan to challenge the 2020 election, and having a 4-4 court would “risk a constitutional crisis” given that likelihood.
Democrats don't plan to challenge anything, except Trump abuse of power and cheating.

If Trump doesn't try to pull a fast one, the winner will be who all the citizens voted for, on their ballot...

The supreme court is not suppose to decide any election.... if there are problems, the it is Congress who decides, according to the Constitution, not the Court.
So if trump declared winner night of the election democrats will concede?
If Impeached Trump wins the election and Republicans retain control of the Senate, then there's no reason not to hold confirmation hearings.
No reason to not hold them now.
There's already 2, likely 3 nay votes should they try that. Plus there's Graham, who's on record for saying the American people should decide in an upcoming election ... and he himself is up for re-election. Is he willing to gamble his seat to get Ginsburg's replacement in before the election?what about any one of the other nearly 2 dozen Republican Senators up for re-election in November. It would prolly only take one.
If the way Republicans need to win elections is to capitulate to the Democrats, they they've lost already. Full speed ahead!
They don't have to capitulate to anyone.
They can abide by what they said in 2016.
It's as simple as that.
So you think Biden meant in 1992 that a Democrat Senate would not have confirmed a Democrat president nomination. You actually believe that
 

toobfreak

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
30,936
Reaction score
14,925
Points
1,600
Nominate Barrett on Monday. Why wait? Chuck and Nancy wouldn't.......
I can go either way, Z. Wait till after the funeral to show a little class, but lose precious days and get no respect from the Left for it anyway, or,

Announce it on Monday ASAP partly showing the vitalness of filling her empty seat, partly to utilize every day available to you and partly because moving that fast is not only what THEY'D do, but doing so before she's even laid to rest is as cold and calculating as they are and the ruthlessness (sorry) of it for Trump to forge ahead giving them the finger will just drive the Left right up the wall as they see the inexorable collapse of yet one more thing parlaying out against them!

BONUS: when they rail about it in the media how Trump practically kicked her casket out of his way to appoint someone in her place, it'll just score brownie points with all his supporters driving his popularity even higher!


Supreme_Court_Ruth Cap.jpg
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
61,248
Reaction score
10,845
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
I'm torn over the replacing of Ms Ginsberg before the end of the year. On one hand, it would insure a conservative justice replacing her.
On the other hand, it would give the left a lot of negative ammunition to go after Trump for trying to replace her after what McConnell did in 2016.
Trump doesn't need the extra distraction during the campaigning, along with the msm going after him relentlessly for trying.
If he was upfront and saying that he's going to hold off, it could give him some positive momentum in the eyes of the voters in the swing states.
What say you?
It’s not a option we need her seat filled, it could be a constitutional crisis if it’s not filled.. I would hold hearings ASAP
Oh? Why would there be a Constitutional crisis?
Democrats plan to challenge the 2020 election, and having a 4-4 court would “risk a constitutional crisis” given that likelihood.
Democrats don't plan to challenge anything, except Trump abuse of power and cheating.

If Trump doesn't try to pull a fast one, the winner will be who all the citizens voted for, on their ballot...

The supreme court is not suppose to decide any election.... if there are problems, the it is Congress who decides, according to the Constitution, not the Court.
So if trump declared winner night of the election democrats will concede?
If Impeached Trump wins the election and Republicans retain control of the Senate, then there's no reason not to hold confirmation hearings.
No reason to not hold them now.
There's already 2, likely 3 nay votes should they try that. Plus there's Graham, who's on record for saying the American people should decide in an upcoming election ... and he himself is up for re-election. Is he willing to gamble his seat to get Ginsburg's replacement in before the election?what about any one of the other nearly 2 dozen Republican Senators up for re-election in November. It would prolly only take one.
If the way Republicans need to win elections is to capitulate to the Democrats, they they've lost already. Full speed ahead!
It's not capitulation to Democrats -- it's capitulation to the Republicans who held that very position 4 years ago. I didn't think Biden stood a chance at winning this election. I think this would change that.
Yes, you see what you want to see
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
61,248
Reaction score
10,845
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
I'm torn over the replacing of Ms Ginsberg before the end of the year. On one hand, it would insure a conservative justice replacing her.
On the other hand, it would give the left a lot of negative ammunition to go after Trump for trying to replace her after what McConnell did in 2016.
Trump doesn't need the extra distraction during the campaigning, along with the msm going after him relentlessly for trying.
If he was upfront and saying that he's going to hold off, it could give him some positive momentum in the eyes of the voters in the swing states.
What say you?
It’s not a option we need her seat filled, it could be a constitutional crisis if it’s not filled.. I would hold hearings ASAP
Oh? Why would there be a Constitutional crisis?
Democrats plan to challenge the 2020 election, and having a 4-4 court would “risk a constitutional crisis” given that likelihood.
If that were to happen, then the most recent ruling by a lower court would stand. So no, there would be no Constitutional crisis.
Hence the crisis,, we are just going to fill it real quick to avoid any chaos.
Again, there is no crisis. But try to force this through and there's a good chance the Senate will vote against confirmation.
WTF do you mean "force it thru"? The normal process will be followed.
Even some Republicans say confirmation hearings should wait until after the election in circumstances like this. Forcing it through means going against that.
So just to be clear, you're claiming that in 92 Biden meant that if Democrats had the Senate and White House, he would not have moved ahead with confirmation hearings. You're actually claiming that?
In 1992, a Republican sat in the White House. And Biden’s position at the time was to hold off confirmation hearings, had there been a vacancy, until after the election.
Yes. Exactly what Republicans did in 2016. So what's the problem?
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
61,248
Reaction score
10,845
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
I'm torn over the replacing of Ms Ginsberg before the end of the year. On one hand, it would insure a conservative justice replacing her.
On the other hand, it would give the left a lot of negative ammunition to go after Trump for trying to replace her after what McConnell did in 2016.
Trump doesn't need the extra distraction during the campaigning, along with the msm going after him relentlessly for trying.
If he was upfront and saying that he's going to hold off, it could give him some positive momentum in the eyes of the voters in the swing states.
What say you?
It’s not a option we need her seat filled, it could be a constitutional crisis if it’s not filled.. I would hold hearings ASAP
Oh? Why would there be a Constitutional crisis?
Democrats plan to challenge the 2020 election, and having a 4-4 court would “risk a constitutional crisis” given that likelihood.
Democrats don't plan to challenge anything, except Trump abuse of power and cheating.

If Trump doesn't try to pull a fast one, the winner will be who all the citizens voted for, on their ballot...

The supreme court is not suppose to decide any election.... if there are problems, the it is Congress who decides, according to the Constitution, not the Court.
So if trump declared winner night of the election democrats will concede?
If Impeached Trump wins the election and Republicans retain control of the Senate, then there's no reason not to hold confirmation hearings.
Well he won and can make a pick
The American people should decide which president replaces Ginsburg.
They did. In 2016.
They did in 2012 too. In 2016, Republicans threw that notion out the window.
Here's an interesting fact for you. In 2016 Obama did nominate a justice for the supreme court. No one took that power away from him.

Here's another interesting fact. The Senate was also elected and they have the Constitutional power of "advice and consent." And guess what. They were elected by the people too ...
I never said otherwise.
Of course you did. You said they had to confirm Obama's nomination. Obama can only nominate. The Senate has the power to say thumbs up or down. That's what they did, thumbs down
 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
38,575
Reaction score
14,971
Points
1,590
Location
Florida
But he can easily say that, because the majority of voters, chose him to be President.

President Trump doesn't have that luxury of support...

The people in this country, by majority, chose someone else to be President....the electoral college got him there....

Obama won both.

:)
Notice how liberals carefully use such terms as "voters" and "The people in this country", rather than Americans (which would have to exclude millions of illegal alien voters).

And it is the electoral college that gives the power of the vote to the 50 STATES, not the population. Somebody doesn't like that ? Plenty of countries out there to move to. Bon Voyage!
America is the entire continent of north america and south america and central america. Perhaps you mean US citizens.

Oooo....A politician expressed the exact opposite opinion of that which he held just a few years ago.

There's something we don't see every day! :rolleyes-41:

Like Obama thinking he could nominate a Supreme Court Justice in an election year but Trump shouldn't?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top