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

[Nostra]

Embarassed? Nostra said that in the USSC case of Texas V United States.

That Trump represented Texas.

You are a lying sack, Dumbass.
I never said Trump represented Texas.

From YOUR link, you raving idiot.

Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) had agreed it would take up the case Texas v. United States

Since when does Texas = Trump, Moron.

Looks like you did say that Trump represented Texas.

I have your quote right here.

Um, can you not read simple English?
Seriously, go to bed..........get in your refrigerator box.............wherever you go to sleep it off. You are really making yourself look like a raving lunatic with every post.

Here is the post of mine you quoted. How the fuck did you interpret this as me saying Trump represented Texas?
Since when does Texas = Trump, Moron.

 

[Nostra]

So do you think his rules would have changed over two weeks; that he would have said at the time, two months is okay, but a month and a half is out of the question?

The law is clear. It says that 45 days is the cut-off point after which the election has started. So two months, is pre-election, while 45 days is during an election.

So YES, those two weeks makes it a completely different ballgame.

Link us up to this law that says you can't nominate a justice 45 days from an election.

This should be good................

That wasn't what I was arguing with Ray from Cleveland.

Here is what you claimed:

The law is clear. It says that 45 days is the cut-off point after which the election has started

Quote the law that says that............
GO!

 

[meaner gene]

You are a lying sack, Dumbass.
I never said Trump represented Texas.

the case Texas v. United States

Since when does Texas = Trump, Moron.

 

[Nostra]

 

[meaner gene]

 

[Zander]

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!


View attachment 390677

There is nothing to be gained by showing decorum or restraint. The right play is to twist the knife. Put a knee on the neck. Get'r done! Pick a euphemism, but announce it Monday and have her seated immediately. Why even bother to hold hearings? They're just for show now. Thanks to Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer.

 

[WEATHER53]

So 45 days has been done at the quickest and longer happens also

 

[Claudette]

Replace her NOW!! ...

Yup. Get the ball rolling now and get Barrett on the SC. She's a Constitutionalist Judge and we need more of those folks on the SC. Hope Trump does it as soon as he can cause the Senate will pass her.

 

[Flash]

If the Republican Senate do not confirm the Presidential nominee then they did not do what the American people elected them to do.

 

[Flash]

 

[j-mac]

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 doubt there is enough time to place a new nominee in the vacant position before the election...

It's a priority since the Court is in session. Both women candidates have been vetted extensively and supremely qualified.

Not enough time with the review and interview process...Congress is about to adjourn for campaign season ..

Should Trump loose, which I think unlikely, That would leave him 104 days....plenty of time...And if Democrats try to slow walk his nominee, then McConnell can hold a floor vote at any time....And push the nominee through....Chew on that.

Depends on more than the election of one man, don't chew yer fat..

ok, tell me

 

[BluesLegend]

If Dems can impeach in an election year we can fill a SCOTUS seat in an election year!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So do you think his rules would have changed over two weeks; that he would have said at the time, two months is okay, but a month and a half is out of the question?

The law is clear. It says that 45 days is the cut-off point after which the election has started. So two months, is pre-election, while 45 days is during an election.

So YES, those two weeks makes it a completely different ballgame.

I never heard of such a law. The only law about nominating and seating Supreme Court justices are in the US Constitution. And I don't recall the Constitution giving any timeline. It simply says the sitting President has the authority to nominate a judge, and the Senate to consent.

 

[Claudette]

So do you think his rules would have changed over two weeks; that he would have said at the time, two months is okay, but a month and a half is out of the question?

The law is clear. It says that 45 days is the cut-off point after which the election has started. So two months, is pre-election, while 45 days is during an election.

So YES, those two weeks makes it a completely different ballgame.

I never heard of such a law. The only law about nominating and seating Supreme Court justices are in the US Constitution. And I don't recall the Constitution giving any timeline. It simply says the sitting President has the authority to nominate a judge, and the Senate to consent.

Yup. That's exactly what it says. There is no timeline and I hope Trump nominates Barrett. She's a Constitutional Judge and we need more of those people on the SC.

 

[Redfish]

Redfish does not stipulate the number of SCOTUS seats. No, my monkey, there is no set number.

Since there are 13 appellate districts, change it to thirteen.

correct, I do not stipulate the number, the constitution does that. Changing the number from 9 would require a constitutional amendment approved by 38 states. Its not happening.

That's actually not correct. It's only set by congressional legislation. If Democrats have both houses and the White House, then they can change the filibuster rules and stack the court.

FDR threatened the SCOTUS he was going to do that because they kept blocking his Marxist New Deal policies. The SCOTUS caved and stopped blocking him. One of the low points in American history, that was the end of the 9th and 10th amendments.

BTW, there haven't always been nine, congress changed it before.

They should have amended the Constitution like they did to limit the President to two terms and to clarify the order of succession. But we do seem to be headed now to an endless loop where when Democrats take the presidency and both houses they will stack the court and when Republicans take it back they'll restack it back and so on.

Democrats have removed any and all limits on how far they will go. Which is why their threats not to replace RBG are empty. They are already doing it

I stand corrected, thanks

 

[Nostra]

So do you think his rules would have changed over two weeks; that he would have said at the time, two months is okay, but a month and a half is out of the question?

The law is clear. It says that 45 days is the cut-off point after which the election has started. So two months, is pre-election, while 45 days is during an election.

So YES, those two weeks makes it a completely different ballgame.

I never heard of such a law. The only law about nominating and seating Supreme Court justices are in the US Constitution. And I don't recall the Constitution giving any timeline. It simply says the sitting President has the authority to nominate a judge, and the Senate to consent.

There is no such law. meaner gene is making shit up like he always does.

 

[eddiew]

LOL Trump has a degree and he's a shit brain AND I have enough ,,believe me to bury you and kaz lol

Apparently Trump is about 6 billion smarter than you, besides I'm way younger than you and much smarter-- -- how do you know I don't have more in stocks and real estate than you?

I mean, if YOU can amass 11 million, ANYONE can. Any one.

Lets get something straight freak I've never said more money means more brilliant ,Example ,,,look at trump.... I've worked hard all my life put in lots of hours to get to where I'm now and I'm smart enough to know that trump is an AH and needs to be gone

Eddie, isn't it past your bedtime?

lol 10,,,,10;30,,, wake up at 4am for the futures

 

[Redfish]

Why would anyone complain about Republicans or Democrats acting like politicians.

The Pubs will try to push a nomination through to ratification, the Dems will oppose it, and then the Dems will crucify the Pubs in the elections.

wanna bet?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

LOL Trump has a degree and he's a shit brain AND I have enough ,,believe me to bury you and kaz lol

Apparently Trump is about 6 billion smarter than you, besides I'm way younger than you and much smarter-- -- how do you know I don't have more in stocks and real estate than you?

I mean, if YOU can amass 11 million, ANYONE can. Any one.

Lets get something straight freak I've never said more money means more brilliant ,Example ,,,look at trump.... I've worked hard all my life put in lots of hours to get to where I'm now and I'm smart enough to know that trump is an AH and needs to be gone

Eddie, isn't it past your bedtime?

lol 10,,,,10;30,,, wake up at 4am for the futures

You play commodities too?

 

[eddiew]

LOL Trump has a degree and he's a shit brain AND I have enough ,,believe me to bury you and kaz lol

Apparently Trump is about 6 billion smarter than you, besides I'm way younger than you and much smarter-- -- how do you know I don't have more in stocks and real estate than you?

I mean, if YOU can amass 11 million, ANYONE can. Any one.

Lets get something straight freak I've never said more money means more brilliant ,Example ,,,look at trump.... I've worked hard all my life put in lots of hours to get to where I'm now and I'm smart enough to know that trump is an AH and needs to be gone

Eddie, isn't it past your bedtime?

lol 10,,,,10;30,,, wake up at 4am for the futures

You play commodities too?

No That's above my pay grade Just stocks and covered calls DOW now down over 800 ouch