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

[Nostra]

First you have nominations of chase 1796 and Rutledge 1795 as both being during an "election year"

They're not even the same YEAR IDIOT.

Sorry you are too fucking stupid to read a graph.

When a graph says that 1795 and 1796 are BOTH election years, the graph is as f'd up as you are.

I knew I couldn't dumb down to your level.

Good luck remembering to breath, Moron.

 

[meaner gene]

Look at "nominations after election day".............see: J Adams, Van Buren, B Harrison to see the three who lost their election, but had a SC nominee confirmed after the election.

You really want to go with what happened before the civil war? The republicans are at least starting with 1880.

 

[meaner gene]

Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president's Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year," he said.

You know that argument has never been made until now. Before they just said the McConnell rule of 2016 that said nothing about the parties of the people involved.

This is a political construct thought up after the fact, rather than as a principle they turned hypocrite on.

140 years of precedent says otherwise.

Actually Nostra is saying it hasn't happened for the last 180 years.

 

[Nostra]

Look at "nominations after election day".............see: J Adams, Van Buren, B Harrison to see the three who lost their election, but had a SC nominee confirmed after the election.

You really want to go with what happened before the civil war? The republicans are at least starting with 1880.

Why not?

Is that not American history? You do realize we have been a country since we declared independence in 1776, right?

 

[Nostra]

Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president's Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year," he said.

You know that argument has never been made until now. Before they just said the McConnell rule of 2016 that said nothing about the parties of the people involved.

This is a political construct thought up after the fact, rather than as a principle they turned hypocrite on.

140 years of precedent says otherwise.

Actually Nostra is saying it hasn't happened for the last 180 years.

What did I say hasn't happened for the last 180 years?

Watch this....................

 

[Picaro]

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?

Do it now, don't wait around. This election is going to be decided in the courts, and mail in ballots alone will take months to count as the DEmocrats stall and stall and interfere via the friendly Judges they still have on the benches. There is no gain to be had in waiting, the lines are already mostly drawn, and everything to lose by waiting.

 

[meaner gene]

When a graph says that 1795 and 1796 are BOTH election years, the graph is as f'd up as you are.

I knew I couldn't dumb down to your level.

Please explain the election of November 1795 followed by the election of November 1796

And how they're both election years.

 

[Picaro]

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 deranged Democrat's already go after Trump 24/7/365 over everything and anything. One more item on their TDS hate list isn't going to make a difference. ...

Exactly.

 

[meaner gene]

You really want to go with what happened before the civil war? The republicans are at least starting with 1880.

Why not?

Is that not American history? You do realize we have been a country since we declared independence in 1776, right?

If you talk precedence, you take the one which lasted at least as long as not.

You're arguing we should do what we did for 50 years, and ignore what we did for 180 years.

 

[Nostra]

When a graph says that 1795 and 1796 are BOTH election years, the graph is as f'd up as you are.

I knew I couldn't dumb down to your level.

Please explain the election of November 1795 followed by the election of November 1796

And how they're both election years.

Hey Dumbass, once again you demonstrate you are too fucking stupid to read a graph............

Nomination date: 12/10/1795.

That is within a year of the Nov 1796 election.

Nowhere in the graph does it say there was an election in 1795, Fuckwit.

Do you ever get tired of making a complete fool of yourself?

 

[Picaro]

I don't think the decision to nominate a replacement justice is going to hurt Trump any, and whether the Senate confirms that person really isn't his responsibility. Where I think it falls more heavily is on the GOP senators who are running for re-election and are in tight races. They would be put into the difficult position of saying one way or the other how they would vote to confirm, and either way that position could hurt their candidacy. It's going to be a purely political decision, weighing the what happens if I do this vs what happens if I do that. I suspect everybody is ging to be doing a lot of polling and surveys over the next couple of weeks to see which way the wind is blowing.

If they do it quickly they have time for voters to get over any issues they have and keep their momentum going. In any case a SC seat trumps a seat or two in the Senate long term; some of the Democrat Senators are already trying to isolate themselves from their Party radicals as well.

 

[meaner gene]

Nomination date: 12/10/1795.

That is within a year of the Nov 1796 election.

So you and the graph lied that it was during "an election year"

Your graph says

"Election Year Nominations Before Election Day"

 

[meaner gene]

"Election Year Nominations Before Election Day"

Apparently you don't know how to read a graph.

 

[meaner gene]

Election year = within a year of an election.

This is as bad as when you said that USSC Texas v US

That Trump was on the Texas side.

 

[Nostra]

Nomination date: 12/10/1795.

That is within a year of the Nov 1796 election.

So you and the graph lied that it was during "an election year"

Your graph says

"Election Year Nominations Before Election Day"

Dude, you need to hang it up. You keep making yourself look worse with each post.

You asked for proof nominees were approved after a President lost the election. I brought a graph showing three were. You latched onto numbers in 1795 that you didn't comprehend, got your ass handed to you, and you are still trying to act like you aren't a complete moron.

It isn't working, Asswipe.

 

[Nostra]

Election year = within a year of an election.

This is as bad as when you said that USSC Texas v US

That Trump was on the Texas side.

Wow! I can't believe you are flailing so badly you brought up that link that kicked your own ass again.

 

[meaner gene]

So you and the graph lied that it was during "an election year"

Your graph says

"Election Year Nominations Before Election Day"

Dude, you need to hang it up. You keep making yourself look worse with each post.

You said "during an election year" is the same as "within a year of an election"

That's being an a-hole.

 

[meaner gene]

I can tell when you get your ass kicked. You start posting shit.

You said "within a year of an election" was the same as "during an election year"

Well you are within 80 IQ points of being an IDIOT.

 

[Nostra]

So you and the graph lied that it was during "an election year"

Your graph says

"Election Year Nominations Before Election Day"

Dude, you need to hang it up. You keep making yourself look worse with each post.

You said "during an election year" is the same as "within a year of an election"

That's being an a-hole.

 

[Nostra]

I can tell when you get your ass kicked. You start posting shit.

You said "within a year of an election" was the same as "during an election year"

Well you are within 80 IQ points of being an IDIOT.

Dude, you need to hang it up. You keep making yourself look worse with each post.

You asked for proof nominees were approved after a President lost the election. I brought a graph showing three were. You latched onto numbers in 1795 that you didn't comprehend, got your ass handed to you, and you are still trying to act like you aren't a complete moron.

It isn't working, Asswipe.