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

protectionist

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
39,889
Reaction score
7,339
Points
1,130
Even if Biden were to win (perish the thought), Trump would still be POTUS for 3 more months and can select a justice before or after the election. I say do it immediately, to stop any leftist loon lower court decision already on the dockets.

Should be interesting to see Kamala Harris trying to knock down Trump's pick, like she outrageously did to Kavanaugh. Will give Trump and Pence lots of ammunition for the debates. :biggrin:
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
62,626
Reaction score
11,991
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?
Trump being a milquetoast Republican and giving the Democrats their way would be the worst possible think he could do for his base of support.

It's a given at this point that Democrats would not confirm a Republican nominee for SCOTUS ever much less in an election year. And they would 100% do it if they had the Senate and Presidency themselves.

How does it help us to agree to live by rules they don't live by? And this is totally the Constitutional process.

As I pointed out,

- Democrats invented the court nominee filibuster under W and eliminated it under Obama

- Democrats invented the administration nominee filibuster under W and eliminated it under Obama

- Democrats changed the voting rules to get Obamacare when Scott Brown was elected removing their filibuster proof majority

- Democrats have already said they will change the rules and start nominating more left judges than the current limit of 9 to get control of the court when they can

- Democrats have already said the filibuster is gone so they can get the green new deal and Marxist government enacted

We're fighting for our lives at this point, and you're still worried about fighting barbarians with Marcus of Queensbury rules. You're a good guy, but you're not being realistic about what it takes to fight back
 

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
17,996
Reaction score
13,620
Points
2,415
Replacing her before the election would crush any Dimwinger hopes of Biden getting the pick. If there is a possibility he would get the pick, Dimwinger turnout goes up.

Replace her and crush the Dimwinger dreams.
 

B. Kidd

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
25,489
Reaction score
8,190
Points
900
Location
Western Lands
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?
Politics is such a hypocrisy filled exercise, the allegation of hypocrisy is the weakest of arguments/pesuasiveness.
 

Blaine Sweeter

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2019
Messages
3,882
Reaction score
2,882
Points
1,930
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?
Don't forget what Leningrad Lindsey said.

Zoom to :20 seconds, if you have the balls to watch this at all.

Republican hypocrisy at it's best.

Lindsey now supports going forward with nomination.

"Elections have consequences"-Barry Hussein Obama
What has that got to do with this?????
The asswipe Republican senators wouldn't even give Merrick Garland an interview in 2016.
None of them spoke with Garland at all.
But RBG isn't dead 24 hours and they are racing to replace her.
HYPOCRITES.
GOP SUCKS.
I think with your answer, you're saying that the democrats would put the nominee up
for a vote before the new Congress in 2021. Thank you for your honest answer.
I'm just stating facts.
Republicans hate facts.
Your spin on what you THINK is my answer is just that, spin.
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
62,626
Reaction score
11,991
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
Replacing her before the election will cost at least a couple of republican senate seats and almost certainly cost Trump the presidency. If they proceed it's only because they have calculated that losing both is already a foregone conclusion.
^^^ Wishful thinking
 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
39,051
Reaction score
16,374
Points
1,630
Location
Florida
Trump needs to act immediately. To see the Democrats come unhinged like they did with Kavanaugh, just weeks before the election, will remind people of who they really are. This is a no brainer for Trump.

Unhinged Democrats always make for great Trump campaign ads.
 
OP
Meister

Meister

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
42,610
Reaction score
15,908
Points
2,250
Location
Conservative part of the Northwest
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.
The Dem's already go after Trump 24/7/365 over everything and anything. One more item on their TDS hate list really isn't going to make a difference. ... :cool:
Oh, I agree, fully, Sunni, but it's the drip, drip, drip this close to the election with fresh meat on the table.
Trump won 2016 by putting pedal to the floor, balls to the wall, full steam ahead, no second guessing, never looking back.

2020, Trump starts making measured decisions, does the "sensible" thing and holds off replacing Ruth until after the election, then loses the election, Biden gets in and replaces Ruth with another Kagan.

You really want to gamble that?
It is a gamble either way it goes, and I'm inclined to have it completed before 2021.
Trouble is that if Harris gets in and the dems win the Senate, they could pack the
courts with liberals.
 

Sunni Man

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
55,538
Reaction score
16,073
Points
2,210
Location
Patriotic American Muslim
The day after that far left liberal loon is lowered into the ground.
Pres.Trump needs to present the person he has chosen to take her place. .. :cool:
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
70,022
Reaction score
12,138
Points
2,210
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?
Don't forget what Leningrad Lindsey said.

Zoom to :20 seconds, if you have the balls to watch this at all.

Republican hypocrisy at it's best.

Lindsey now supports going forward with nomination.

And Graham is up for re-election.
 

Harry Dresden

Adamantium Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Messages
73,967
Reaction score
12,380
Points
2,210
Location
Nv.
Trump needs to act immediately. To see the Democrats come unhinged like they did with Kavanaugh, just weeks before the election, will remind people of who they really are. This is a no brainer for Trump.
Lyin, cheatin, Moscow Mitch:

Wow!....A politician spun on a dime to have a completely opposite opinion today!

Knock me over with a feather.
A Republican, let's be clear.
And the Senate may not move on this.
There's many Republican senators who are in very tight races, like Spineless Susan Collins, who is another piece of GOP filth.
why are you avoiding answering meisters question?....
 
OP
Meister

Meister

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
42,610
Reaction score
15,908
Points
2,250
Location
Conservative part of the Northwest
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?
Don't forget what Leningrad Lindsey said.

Zoom to :20 seconds, if you have the balls to watch this at all.

Republican hypocrisy at it's best.

Lindsey now supports going forward with nomination.

"Elections have consequences"-Barry Hussein Obama
What has that got to do with this?????
The asswipe Republican senators wouldn't even give Merrick Garland an interview in 2016.
None of them spoke with Garland at all.
But RBG isn't dead 24 hours and they are racing to replace her.
HYPOCRITES.
GOP SUCKS.
I think with your answer, you're saying that the democrats would put the nominee up
for a vote before the new Congress in 2021. Thank you for your honest answer.
I'm just stating facts.
Republicans hate facts.
Your spin on what you THINK is my answer is just that, spin.
Why won't you answer my question then?
 

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
25,266
Reaction score
11,976
Points
1,280
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
Replacing her before the election will cost at least a couple of republican senate seats and almost certainly cost Trump the presidency. If they proceed it's only because they have calculated that losing both is already a foregone conclusion.
You obviously forgot what it did to voters in fly over country who came out en-mass.... IT didn't end well for Hillary... and your doing it again...
 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
39,051
Reaction score
16,374
Points
1,630
Location
Florida
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?
Don't forget what Leningrad Lindsey said.

Zoom to :20 seconds, if you have the balls to watch this at all.

Republican hypocrisy at it's best.

Lindsey now supports going forward with nomination.

"Elections have consequences"-Barry Hussein Obama
What has that got to do with this?????
The asswipe Republican senators wouldn't even give Merrick Garland an interview in 2016.
None of them spoke with Garland at all.
But RBG isn't dead 24 hours and they are racing to replace her.
HYPOCRITES.
GOP SUCKS.
I think with your answer, you're saying that the democrats would put the nominee up
for a vote before the new Congress in 2021. Thank you for your honest answer.
I'm just stating facts.
Republicans hate facts.
Your spin on what you THINK is my answer is just that, spin.

You don't understand the facts. Typical confused Moon Bat.

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

In the times where the Senate was the same party as the President the nominee was voted on.

In the times where the Senate was a different party as the President the confirmation was held off until after the election.

Those are the real rules.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
70,022
Reaction score
12,138
Points
2,210
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?
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
62,626
Reaction score
11,991
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?
Don't forget what Leningrad Lindsey said.

Zoom to :20 seconds, if you have the balls to watch this at all.

Republican hypocrisy at it's best.

Lindsey now supports going forward with nomination.

"Elections have consequences"-Barry Hussein Obama
What has that got to do with this?????
The asswipe Republican senators wouldn't even give Merrick Garland an interview in 2016.
None of them spoke with Garland at all.
But RBG isn't dead 24 hours and they are racing to replace her.
HYPOCRITES.
GOP SUCKS.
I think with your answer, you're saying that the democrats would put the nominee up
for a vote before the new Congress in 2021. Thank you for your honest answer.
I'm just stating facts.
Republicans hate facts.
Your spin on what you THINK is my answer is just that, spin.
You hate facts. You called it "hypocrisy."

So you're seriously claiming that Biden meant that if the Senate and Presidency were both in Democrat hands he wouldn't have confirmed a nominee in an election year? Of course he didn't mean that. Get the stupid you care about "facts" shit out of here, you don't
 

Redcurtain

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2020
Messages
3,738
Reaction score
3,635
Points
1,908
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.
 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
39,051
Reaction score
16,374
Points
1,630
Location
Florida
The riots won’t matter
The looting won’t matter
The mail-in ballot scamming won’t matter.

And they know it.

Conservatives have the Supreme Court. Now we sit back and observe the last squeals of the dying animal that is the Marxist Left.

\uD83C\uDDFA\uD83C\uDDF8\uD83C\uDDFA\uD83C\uDDF8\uD83C\uDDFA\uD83C\uDDF8\uD83C\uDDFA\uD83C\uDDF8

Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) September 19, 2020
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top