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

[Coyote]

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?

Will Trump concede if Biden wins?

He probably would under normal circumstances. But with all this mail-in BS, he might not concede at first until every vote is properly counted.

Trump refused to say he would concede in 2016 either.

Who cares? All Democrat Politicos suck.

Can’t say I’m impressed with the Republicos.

I doubt they are impressed by you,,,

Who cares? They are scum.

about you?,,,nobody,,,

hey did you ever find that link for the 1000 lawyers trump hired???

No.

I did not make the claim. Why should I?

you backed it up,,,

Huh? I just made comment about sharks. Idiot.

which is conformation of her comment,,,

In your weird delusional world maybe. I am sure both have teams of lawyers.

 

[San Souci]

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?

Will Trump concede if Biden wins?

He probably would under normal circumstances. But with all this mail-in BS, he might not concede at first until every vote is properly counted.

Trump refused to say he would concede in 2016 either.

Who cares? All Democrat Politicos suck.

Can’t say I’m impressed with the Republicos.

Of course not. We love this country.

 

[beautress]

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?

I trust that God will help us out.
.

 

[Coyote]

Why is this a question ?

Of course they should proceed.

Now Eric Holder supports expanding the court if this happens.

That bastard needs to face a 10 gun firing squad.

Typical violent rightwingers. If you can’t demonize them them into silence, shoot them.

On other hand, why not expand it? You guys broke precedents with SCOTUS nominations when you refused even to hold hearings on Garland. Why not expand it? Why would you care since precedents and such do not matter?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

You guys used to think Roberts was a conservative...now you think he is a moderate. If the blob appointee isn't in lockstep with the cause du jour, you guys will claim this justice is liberal as well. So there is no insurance.

Its a hard choice the blob faces....
If you put Judge Judy out (just to pick a name) now and the justice isn't seated before election day, the DEMS have an issue to "re take the senate" because there is a clear cause and effect; You give the DEMS a majority and Judge Judy may not be seated. Its BS but there are no shortage of people who believe campaign promises. Some actually believed and still believe Mexico is paying for the wall that isn't being built.

Also...no small consequence...Democrats who aren't crazy about Biden/Harris or Harris/Biden may be crazy about blocking Judge Judy and go to the polls in higher turnout than there would be otherwise. Meaning that if you get 10-15 more DEMS going to the polls in each precinct...that is like a million more votes for the Democrats (there are over 100,000 voting districts/precincts across the nation). Electorally it won't matter except in the swing states but do you really want to stoke the fires in those 8,000 to 10,000 precincts across WI, MI, PA, VA, FL, MN, AZ?

So if I were the blob....
I would make a pact with McConnell and say if I name someone before the election, can you guarantee me a confirmation before the election. If not, perhaps wait until after the election to name someone and have it done in a lame-duck session. The DEM turnout is going to be higher regardless but if Judge Judy has a terrible record from the standpoint of Democrats...you'll get a greater turnout. If Judge Judy is a moderate...you'll get less turnout. Also, if it's a done deal...it removes the motivation for those fence sitting democrats to go to the polls since the justice is seated.

Will the Senate go for it....
Who knows. A lot of the senators are up for re-election as well. If they are facing a difficult re-election bid...they may want to play the innocent victim and not come down on one side or the other. Susan Collins is probably the most affected by all of this since it brings into sharp-focus how disgustingly silly Trump has made her look.

Well.....according to you on the left, we are finished. We are going to lose the White House (according to your polls) therefore we are going to lose the nomination anyway. So why not go all or nothing?

Let's push this through, and since Biden is going to win, at least we have our judge. Sounds reasonable to me.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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?

Will Trump concede if Biden wins?

He probably would under normal circumstances. But with all this mail-in BS, he might not concede at first until every vote is properly counted.

Trump refused to say he would concede in 2016 either.

Who cares? All Democrat Politicos suck.

Can’t say I’m impressed with the Republicos.

I doubt they are impressed by you,,,

Who cares? They are scum.

about you?,,,nobody,,,

hey did you ever find that link for the 1000 lawyers trump hired???

No.

I did not make the claim. Why should I?

you backed it up,,,

Don't bet on anything supporting docs from that one.

Why should I should I support what I didn’t claim? You support it.

Even when you claim it, you don't support it.

Shove it sideways.

 

[Nostra]

Why is this a question ?

Of course they should proceed.

Now Eric Holder supports expanding the court if this happens.

That bastard needs to face a 10 gun firing squad.

Typical violent rightwingers. If you can’t demonize them them into silence, shoot them.

On other hand, why not expand it? You guys broke precedents with SCOTUS nominations when you refused even to hold hearings on Garland. Why not expand it? Why would you care since precedents and such do not matter?

You guys broke precedents with SCOTUS nominations when you refused even to hold hearings on Garland

You are either a liar, or ignorant.

That has been done numerous times when the opposing party controls the Senate in an election year. Admit you are ignorant, or a liar. Has to be one or the other.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Why is this a question ?

Of course they should proceed.

Now Eric Holder supports expanding the court if this happens.

That bastard needs to face a 10 gun firing squad.

Eric who????

The dick who used to be Obama's corrupt AG.

 

[progressive hunter]

Why is this a question ?

Of course they should proceed.

Now Eric Holder supports expanding the court if this happens.

That bastard needs to face a 10 gun firing squad.

Typical violent rightwingers. If you can’t demonize them them into silence, shoot them.

On other hand, why not expand it? You guys broke precedents with SCOTUS nominations when you refused even to hold hearings on Garland. Why not expand it? Why would you care since precedents and such do not matter?

precedent doesnt matter on the constitution dumbass,,,

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why is this a question ?

Of course they should proceed.

Now Eric Holder supports expanding the court if this happens.

That bastard needs to face a 10 gun firing squad.

Typical violent rightwingers. If you can’t demonize them them into silence, shoot them.

On other hand, why not expand it? You guys broke precedents with SCOTUS nominations when you refused even to hold hearings on Garland. Why not expand it? Why would you care since precedents and such do not matter?

You want to talk about precedents now?

Biden in 2016: President Has 'Constitutional Duty' to Nominate Justice

The current Democratic presidential nominee said in 2016 that he would push ahead with the nomination of a Supreme Court appointee "even a few months before a presidential election."

www.newsweek.com

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Why is this a question ?

Of course they should proceed.

Now Eric Holder supports expanding the court if this happens.

That bastard needs to face a 10 gun firing squad.

Typical violent rightwingers. If you can’t demonize them them into silence, shoot them.

On other hand, why not expand it? You guys broke precedents with SCOTUS nominations when you refused even to hold hearings on Garland. Why not expand it? Why would you care since precedents and such do not matter?

When you own the senate....you get to make the call.

Remember that ?

Go ahead and expand it.

It will pretty much mean the end of our federal government.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Why is this a question ?

Of course they should proceed.

Now Eric Holder supports expanding the court if this happens.

That bastard needs to face a 10 gun firing squad.

Typical violent rightwingers. If you can’t demonize them them into silence, shoot them.

On other hand, why not expand it? You guys broke precedents with SCOTUS nominations when you refused even to hold hearings on Garland. Why not expand it? Why would you care since precedents and such do not matter?

Bullshit.

You need to get off the Romper Room talking points.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why is this a question ?

Of course they should proceed.

Now Eric Holder supports expanding the court if this happens.

That bastard needs to face a 10 gun firing squad.

Eric who????

The dick who used to be Obama's corrupt AG.

Yes, I know that. But who is he today anyway? Don't these retired Democrats ever go away?

 

[Meister]

Why is this a question ?

Of course they should proceed.

Now Eric Holder supports expanding the court if this happens.

That bastard needs to face a 10 gun firing squad.

Typical violent rightwingers. If you can’t demonize them them into silence, shoot them.

On other hand, why not expand it? You guys broke precedents with SCOTUS nominations when you refused even to hold hearings on Garland. Why not expand it? Why would you care since precedents and such do not matter?

When you own the senate....you get to make the call.

Remember that ?

Go ahead and expand it.

It will pretty much mean the end of our federal government.

I really don't think that the democrats care about that. Anything to bring Trump down...they're all in.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Why is this a question ?

Of course they should proceed.

Now Eric Holder supports expanding the court if this happens.

That bastard needs to face a 10 gun firing squad.

Eric who????

The dick who used to be Obama's corrupt AG.

Yes, I know that. But who is he today anyway? Don't these retired Democrats ever go away?

He is an agitator.

Just showing what the left is doing.

 

[WEATHER53]

Liberals feel it’s boo hoo hoo not fair so that means it’s a stellar idea.

 

[candycorn]

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?

You guys used to think Roberts was a conservative...now you think he is a moderate. If the blob appointee isn't in lockstep with the cause du jour, you guys will claim this justice is liberal as well. So there is no insurance.

Its a hard choice the blob faces....
If you put Judge Judy out (just to pick a name) now and the justice isn't seated before election day, the DEMS have an issue to "re take the senate" because there is a clear cause and effect; You give the DEMS a majority and Judge Judy may not be seated. Its BS but there are no shortage of people who believe campaign promises. Some actually believed and still believe Mexico is paying for the wall that isn't being built.

Also...no small consequence...Democrats who aren't crazy about Biden/Harris or Harris/Biden may be crazy about blocking Judge Judy and go to the polls in higher turnout than there would be otherwise. Meaning that if you get 10-15 more DEMS going to the polls in each precinct...that is like a million more votes for the Democrats (there are over 100,000 voting districts/precincts across the nation). Electorally it won't matter except in the swing states but do you really want to stoke the fires in those 8,000 to 10,000 precincts across WI, MI, PA, VA, FL, MN, AZ?

So if I were the blob....
I would make a pact with McConnell and say if I name someone before the election, can you guarantee me a confirmation before the election. If not, perhaps wait until after the election to name someone and have it done in a lame-duck session. The DEM turnout is going to be higher regardless but if Judge Judy has a terrible record from the standpoint of Democrats...you'll get a greater turnout. If Judge Judy is a moderate...you'll get less turnout. Also, if it's a done deal...it removes the motivation for those fence sitting democrats to go to the polls since the justice is seated.

Will the Senate go for it....
Who knows. A lot of the senators are up for re-election as well. If they are facing a difficult re-election bid...they may want to play the innocent victim and not come down on one side or the other. Susan Collins is probably the most affected by all of this since it brings into sharp-focus how disgustingly silly Trump has made her look.

Well.....according to you on the left, we are finished. We are going to lose the White House (according to your polls) therefore we are going to lose the nomination anyway. So why not go all or nothing?

Let's push this through, and since Biden is going to win, at least we have our judge. Sounds reasonable to me.

I've said about 10 times here I think your blob is going to win dumbass.

 

[Meister]

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?

You guys used to think Roberts was a conservative...now you think he is a moderate. If the blob appointee isn't in lockstep with the cause du jour, you guys will claim this justice is liberal as well. So there is no insurance.

Its a hard choice the blob faces....
If you put Judge Judy out (just to pick a name) now and the justice isn't seated before election day, the DEMS have an issue to "re take the senate" because there is a clear cause and effect; You give the DEMS a majority and Judge Judy may not be seated. Its BS but there are no shortage of people who believe campaign promises. Some actually believed and still believe Mexico is paying for the wall that isn't being built.

Also...no small consequence...Democrats who aren't crazy about Biden/Harris or Harris/Biden may be crazy about blocking Judge Judy and go to the polls in higher turnout than there would be otherwise. Meaning that if you get 10-15 more DEMS going to the polls in each precinct...that is like a million more votes for the Democrats (there are over 100,000 voting districts/precincts across the nation). Electorally it won't matter except in the swing states but do you really want to stoke the fires in those 8,000 to 10,000 precincts across WI, MI, PA, VA, FL, MN, AZ?

So if I were the blob....
I would make a pact with McConnell and say if I name someone before the election, can you guarantee me a confirmation before the election. If not, perhaps wait until after the election to name someone and have it done in a lame-duck session. The DEM turnout is going to be higher regardless but if Judge Judy has a terrible record from the standpoint of Democrats...you'll get a greater turnout. If Judge Judy is a moderate...you'll get less turnout. Also, if it's a done deal...it removes the motivation for those fence sitting democrats to go to the polls since the justice is seated.

Will the Senate go for it....
Who knows. A lot of the senators are up for re-election as well. If they are facing a difficult re-election bid...they may want to play the innocent victim and not come down on one side or the other. Susan Collins is probably the most affected by all of this since it brings into sharp-focus how disgustingly silly Trump has made her look.

Well.....according to you on the left, we are finished. We are going to lose the White House (according to your polls) therefore we are going to lose the nomination anyway. So why not go all or nothing?

Let's push this through, and since Biden is going to win, at least we have our judge. Sounds reasonable to me.

I've said about 10 times here I think your blob is going to win dumbass.

Our blob is your blob, just remember that.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Our Republic must remain functional.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Personally, I'd abolish the SCOTUS and leave it to the state justice departments. But that's quite another discussion completely.