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

AquaAthena

Law and Order-Now
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
16,638
Reaction score
13,539
Points
2,415
Location
Central Coast
The taste of power must be sweet. If it wasn't, RBG would have retired under the last administration when
she was first diagnosed.
That's right, Meister. RBG, by not retiring 6 years ago, also gave the sitting President of the USA the situation we are in right now: the legal obligation to select a nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States in an election year. Twenty-nine times there has been a vacancy in a presidential election year. Long may she serve! :113:
 

SAYIT

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
46,142
Reaction score
12,066
Points
2,250
After much MSM speculation and Dem jubilation it seems McConnell is having little trouble lining up his Repub colleagues should Trump nominate a replacement for RBG. Romney, Grassley, and Gardner have all indicated they are open to considering a 3rd Trump USSC nominee leaving only Murkowski and Collins as holdouts and even they have expressed only doubts that the process should move forward ... not that they are necessarily opposed.

Gardner put it even a Dem can understand:
"When a President exercises constitutional authority to nominate a judge for the Supreme Court vacancy, the Senate must decide how to best fulfill its constitutional duty of advice and consent," Gardner said in a statement.

"I have and will continue to support judicial nominees who will protect our Constitution, not legislate from the bench, and uphold the law. Should a qualified nominee who meets this criteria be put forward, I will vote to confirm."

 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
63,629
Reaction score
13,467
Points
2,290
After much MSM speculation and Dem jubilation it seems McConnell is having little trouble lining up his Repub colleagues should Trump nominate a replacement for RBG. Romney, Grassley, and Gardner have all indicated they are open to considering a 3rd Trump USSC nominee leaving only Murkowski and Collins as holdouts and even they have expressed only doubts that the process should move forward ... not that they are necessarily opposed.

Gardner put it even a Dem can understand:
"When a President exercises constitutional authority to nominate a judge for the Supreme Court vacancy, the Senate must decide how to best fulfill its constitutional duty of advice and consent," Gardner said in a statement.

"I have and will continue to support judicial nominees who will protect our Constitution, not legislate from the bench, and uphold the law. Should a qualified nominee who meets this criteria be put forward, I will vote to confirm."

I think at this point a lot of Senators are starting to get emails and snail mails now about how their constituents want them to handle things. That will sway their opinions if anything. Of course they will ignore what Democrats demand, and pay attention to the Republican and Independent voters.
 

my2¢

So it goes
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
9,909
Reaction score
1,908
Points
290
Location
State 48
Trump should move forward whenever he's concluded who is the best candidate to replace Ginsburg. My attitude on replacing the justice is the same I held in 2016 when Scalia passed away. I don't care if it's city workers repairing a street or Senators holding hearings on nominees to a federal court position, we taxpayers aren't paying them for sitting on their butts.
 

SAYIT

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
46,142
Reaction score
12,066
Points
2,250
After much MSM speculation and Dem jubilation it seems McConnell is having little trouble lining up his Repub colleagues should Trump nominate a replacement for RBG. Romney, Grassley, and Gardner have all indicated they are open to considering a 3rd Trump USSC nominee leaving only Murkowski and Collins as holdouts and even they have expressed only doubts that the process should move forward ... not that they are necessarily opposed.

Gardner put it even a Dem can understand:
"When a President exercises constitutional authority to nominate a judge for the Supreme Court vacancy, the Senate must decide how to best fulfill its constitutional duty of advice and consent," Gardner said in a statement.

"I have and will continue to support judicial nominees who will protect our Constitution, not legislate from the bench, and uphold the law. Should a qualified nominee who meets this criteria be put forward, I will vote to confirm."

I think at this point a lot of Senators are starting to get emails and snail mails now about how their constituents want them to handle things. That will sway their opinions if anything. Of course they will ignore what Democrats demand, and pay attention to the Republican and Independent voters.
I know it's idealistic but I still want our gov't officials - from the POTUS to Smalltown's dog catcher - to act in the best interests of the governed and within the boundaries of their authority according to the Constitution and the law.

When Gardner said "I have and will continue to support judicial nominees who will protect our Constitution, not legislate from the bench, and uphold the law. Should a qualified nominee who meets this criteria be put forward, I will vote to confirm" he was echoing my sentiments exactly. We need more pro-American judges and fewer RBGs.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
63,629
Reaction score
13,467
Points
2,290
After much MSM speculation and Dem jubilation it seems McConnell is having little trouble lining up his Repub colleagues should Trump nominate a replacement for RBG. Romney, Grassley, and Gardner have all indicated they are open to considering a 3rd Trump USSC nominee leaving only Murkowski and Collins as holdouts and even they have expressed only doubts that the process should move forward ... not that they are necessarily opposed.

Gardner put it even a Dem can understand:
"When a President exercises constitutional authority to nominate a judge for the Supreme Court vacancy, the Senate must decide how to best fulfill its constitutional duty of advice and consent," Gardner said in a statement.

"I have and will continue to support judicial nominees who will protect our Constitution, not legislate from the bench, and uphold the law. Should a qualified nominee who meets this criteria be put forward, I will vote to confirm."

I think at this point a lot of Senators are starting to get emails and snail mails now about how their constituents want them to handle things. That will sway their opinions if anything. Of course they will ignore what Democrats demand, and pay attention to the Republican and Independent voters.
I know it's idealistic but I still want our gov't officials - from the POTUS to Smalltown's dog catcher - to act in the best interests of the governed and within the boundaries of their authority according to the Constitution and the law.

When Gardner said "I have and will continue to support judicial nominees who will protect our Constitution, not legislate from the bench, and uphold the law. Should a qualified nominee who meets this criteria be put forward, I will vote to confirm" he was echoing my sentiments exactly. We need more pro-American judges and fewer RBGs.
To be honest, I don't like what McConnell did with the Obama appointee. While I didn't want to see anybody near a leftist on the court, the nomination should have been voted on even if a dog and pony show with a lot of wasted time.

That said, McConnell also highlighted our history when it came to an opposing Senate party to the President. It's been many many years since that happened, and we were not nearly as divided back then as we are today. Liberalism, Socialism or Communism in our government was not even a thought yet alone a threat as it is today by those on the left.

I found no video or transcript of McConnell stating that under no circumstance should an appointment be approved in an election year as leftists are claiming. He didn't say that, and in fact, I found a video where McConnell stated it's up to the Senate to hear the arguments or not. It supports his position of not hearing the case under Obama, and him allowing it under Trump today. There is really no hypocrisy as the left are claiming.
 

SAYIT

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
46,142
Reaction score
12,066
Points
2,250
After much MSM speculation and Dem jubilation it seems McConnell is having little trouble lining up his Repub colleagues should Trump nominate a replacement for RBG. Romney, Grassley, and Gardner have all indicated they are open to considering a 3rd Trump USSC nominee leaving only Murkowski and Collins as holdouts and even they have expressed only doubts that the process should move forward ... not that they are necessarily opposed.

Gardner put it even a Dem can understand:
"When a President exercises constitutional authority to nominate a judge for the Supreme Court vacancy, the Senate must decide how to best fulfill its constitutional duty of advice and consent," Gardner said in a statement.

"I have and will continue to support judicial nominees who will protect our Constitution, not legislate from the bench, and uphold the law. Should a qualified nominee who meets this criteria be put forward, I will vote to confirm."

I think at this point a lot of Senators are starting to get emails and snail mails now about how their constituents want them to handle things. That will sway their opinions if anything. Of course they will ignore what Democrats demand, and pay attention to the Republican and Independent voters.
I know it's idealistic but I still want our gov't officials - from the POTUS to Smalltown's dog catcher - to act in the best interests of the governed and within the boundaries of their authority according to the Constitution and the law.

When Gardner said "I have and will continue to support judicial nominees who will protect our Constitution, not legislate from the bench, and uphold the law. Should a qualified nominee who meets this criteria be put forward, I will vote to confirm" he was echoing my sentiments exactly. We need more pro-American judges and fewer RBGs.
To be honest, I don't like what McConnell did with the Obama appointee. While I didn't want to see anybody near a leftist on the court, the nomination should have been voted on even if a dog and pony show with a lot of wasted time.

That said, McConnell also highlighted our history when it came to an opposing Senate party to the President. It's been many many years since that happened, and we were not nearly as divided back then as we are today. Liberalism, Socialism or Communism in our government was not even a thought yet alone a threat as it is today by those on the left.

I found no video or transcript of McConnell stating that under no circumstance should an appointment be approved in an election year as leftists are claiming. He didn't say that, and in fact, I found a video where McConnell stated it's up to the Senate to hear the arguments or not. It supports his position of not hearing the case under Obama, and him allowing it under Trump today. There is really no hypocrisy as the left are claiming.
What we have seen the last 4 years is unending leftist hysteria and lying. In fact, if their lips are moving...
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
16,818
Reaction score
4,588
Points
150
After much MSM speculation and Dem jubilation it seems McConnell is having little trouble lining up his Repub colleagues should Trump nominate a replacement for RBG. Romney, Grassley, and Gardner have all indicated they are open to considering a 3rd Trump USSC nominee leaving only Murkowski and Collins as holdouts and even they have expressed only doubts that the process should move forward ... not that they are necessarily opposed.

Gardner put it even a Dem can understand:
"When a President exercises constitutional authority to nominate a judge for the Supreme Court vacancy, the Senate must decide how to best fulfill its constitutional duty of advice and consent," Gardner said in a statement.

"I have and will continue to support judicial nominees who will protect our Constitution, not legislate from the bench, and uphold the law. Should a qualified nominee who meets this criteria be put forward, I will vote to confirm."

I think at this point a lot of Senators are starting to get emails and snail mails now about how their constituents want them to handle things. That will sway their opinions if anything. Of course they will ignore what Democrats demand, and pay attention to the Republican and Independent voters.
I know it's idealistic but I still want our gov't officials - from the POTUS to Smalltown's dog catcher - to act in the best interests of the governed and within the boundaries of their authority according to the Constitution and the law.

When Gardner said "I have and will continue to support judicial nominees who will protect our Constitution, not legislate from the bench, and uphold the law. Should a qualified nominee who meets this criteria be put forward, I will vote to confirm" he was echoing my sentiments exactly. We need more pro-American judges and fewer RBGs.
To be honest, I don't like what McConnell did with the Obama appointee. While I didn't want to see anybody near a leftist on the court, the nomination should have been voted on even if a dog and pony show with a lot of wasted time.

That said, McConnell also highlighted our history when it came to an opposing Senate party to the President. It's been many many years since that happened, and we were not nearly as divided back then as we are today. Liberalism, Socialism or Communism in our government was not even a thought yet alone a threat as it is today by those on the left.

I found no video or transcript of McConnell stating that under no circumstance should an appointment be approved in an election year as leftists are claiming. He didn't say that, and in fact, I found a video where McConnell stated it's up to the Senate to hear the arguments or not. It supports his position of not hearing the case under Obama, and him allowing it under Trump today. There is really no hypocrisy as the left are claiming.
McConnell spoke at length about giving the American people a voice in the nomination of the next supreme court justice, however he is denying the American people this voice.

McConnell pointed out that no one has been appointed to the SCOTUS in an election year with a divided government since 1888. However, that is sufficiently specific set of circumstances that it actually hasn't come up since 1888 as far as I can tell (and I looked reasonably carefully).

Basically, McConnell came up with a bunch of excuses to refuse to hear Garland, some of which are not rational, some of which still apply but are discarded.

Put bluntly, McConnell is a POS who should have just been honest and dispensed with the bullshit about wanting to give the American people a voice.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
63,629
Reaction score
13,467
Points
2,290
After much MSM speculation and Dem jubilation it seems McConnell is having little trouble lining up his Repub colleagues should Trump nominate a replacement for RBG. Romney, Grassley, and Gardner have all indicated they are open to considering a 3rd Trump USSC nominee leaving only Murkowski and Collins as holdouts and even they have expressed only doubts that the process should move forward ... not that they are necessarily opposed.

Gardner put it even a Dem can understand:
"When a President exercises constitutional authority to nominate a judge for the Supreme Court vacancy, the Senate must decide how to best fulfill its constitutional duty of advice and consent," Gardner said in a statement.

"I have and will continue to support judicial nominees who will protect our Constitution, not legislate from the bench, and uphold the law. Should a qualified nominee who meets this criteria be put forward, I will vote to confirm."

I think at this point a lot of Senators are starting to get emails and snail mails now about how their constituents want them to handle things. That will sway their opinions if anything. Of course they will ignore what Democrats demand, and pay attention to the Republican and Independent voters.
I know it's idealistic but I still want our gov't officials - from the POTUS to Smalltown's dog catcher - to act in the best interests of the governed and within the boundaries of their authority according to the Constitution and the law.

When Gardner said "I have and will continue to support judicial nominees who will protect our Constitution, not legislate from the bench, and uphold the law. Should a qualified nominee who meets this criteria be put forward, I will vote to confirm" he was echoing my sentiments exactly. We need more pro-American judges and fewer RBGs.
To be honest, I don't like what McConnell did with the Obama appointee. While I didn't want to see anybody near a leftist on the court, the nomination should have been voted on even if a dog and pony show with a lot of wasted time.

That said, McConnell also highlighted our history when it came to an opposing Senate party to the President. It's been many many years since that happened, and we were not nearly as divided back then as we are today. Liberalism, Socialism or Communism in our government was not even a thought yet alone a threat as it is today by those on the left.

I found no video or transcript of McConnell stating that under no circumstance should an appointment be approved in an election year as leftists are claiming. He didn't say that, and in fact, I found a video where McConnell stated it's up to the Senate to hear the arguments or not. It supports his position of not hearing the case under Obama, and him allowing it under Trump today. There is really no hypocrisy as the left are claiming.
McConnell spoke at length about giving the American people a voice in the nomination of the next supreme court justice, however he is denying the American people this voice.

McConnell pointed out that no one has been appointed to the SCOTUS in an election year with a divided government since 1888. However, that is sufficiently specific set of circumstances that it actually hasn't come up since 1888 as far as I can tell (and I looked reasonably carefully).

Basically, McConnell came up with a bunch of excuses to refuse to hear Garland, some of which are not rational, some of which still apply but are discarded.

Put bluntly, McConnell is a POS who should have just been honest and dispensed with the bullshit about wanting to give the American people a voice.
The voice of the American people took place when we elected Trump for President and expanded our lead in the US Senate. If that is to be expired, it takes place on election day, not weeks or months beforehand.

Again, McConnell stated that it's the Senate that has the option, not a mandate to hear or not hear the case for a nomination by an opposing President. And it was then VP Biden who made the statement that it's the obligation of a sitting President to nominate a SC justice even if only months away from an election.

We don't go by Biden's wishes, Ginsburg's wishes, McConnell's wishes. We go by the wishes of the US Constitution. Our founders stated that it's the obligation for a sitting President (regardless how long before an election) to nominate a replacement on the Supreme Court. That's what the Republicans are doing.
 

LuckyDuck

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
4,929
Reaction score
2,211
Points
290
I'm wondering why ......
........ one right winger here can't see a difference between "10 months before the election" and "47 days before the election" as factors.

I'm also wondering why one right winger here ignores the flagrant flip-flop of Moscow Mitch, pansy Lindsay, and several other Trumplicans from 4 years ago, and instead obsesses on some stance Biden had 30 years ago, ignoring the circumstances of each.

Imagine, the Trumplicans are about to replace a justice that almost single-handedly reshaped America into being a better place for Americans with someone that seeks to shove America back to the 1950's, that in every way will make America a worse place. RBG will never be forgotten. But the current crop of ugly people will be a painful memory that Americans will fight to forget, that it will take generations to repair the damage from.

But to one right winger, it's just a big joke.

So now the Trumplicans are on the verge of getting what they want to please the Bible pounders, an abortion ban, unless at least two conservative justices surprise us. The Trumplicans will pay for their pandering to the religious fanatics. In the meantime, many women will die as a result of this sheer idiocy.
It is irrelevant how many days before an election it is. There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids it. It simply gives the President the power to nominate a candidate for the SCOTUS, as long as that president is in office and the Senate the authority to vote on the nominee. Do your research, there were plenty of SCOTUS nominations in election years. It's their Constitutional right.
Also, remember this, Justices of the Supreme Court are ALL supposed to be "Constitutionalists" that determine cases brought before them, on whether they are Constitutionally acceptable, not whether the cases brought before them are Republican or Democrat.
 

GHook20

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2020
Messages
147
Reaction score
182
Points
43
Location
Las Vegas
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?
Well both sides are hypocrites. If the Democrats were in the GOP position and could nominate a judge to the SCOTUS during an election year they would... we know this because they did just that with Garland. So it is hypocritical to say they are now against it.

The GOP is hypocritical because they prevented Garland based on the same philosophy (or close to it, meaning an outgoing President). And now they are pushing a vote.

Yes they are both hypocrites, the GOP needs to march forward because if Trump loses at least we will have the SCOTUS
Trump losing is less of a concern than it is if the Democrats get a little more control in the Senate. Even with the lead we have, those RINO's in the Senate are not too much help to us. If anything, we need an even stronger majority there to override them.
We have some vulnerable seats in CO, ME, NC, AZ, MT, IA and GA. With all the excitement for Trump we could see the House, senate and whitehouse turn Blue.
If that happens we are never coming back. They will give vote rights to illegals to ensure TX is lost. Lose TX lose the country.
 

Redfish

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2013
Messages
42,708
Reaction score
6,331
Points
1,870
Location
The Big Easy
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
You were corrected, of course. Only Congress seets the number of SCOTUS seats.

You were repeatedly told this, and now you have admitted and apologized for being wrong.

yeah, that's what honest people do, try it sometime, jakewinger.
 

gulfman

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2017
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
1,072
Points
1,940
Should we wait and bury Ginsburg after the election?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top