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

Redcurtain

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2020
Messages
3,738
Reaction score
3,622
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.
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?
If Impeached Trump wins the election and Republicans retain control of the Senate, then there's no reason not to hold confirmation hearings.
Well he won and can make a pick
The American people should decide which president replaces Ginsburg.
And they did .
They did with Obama too. That no longer matters according to the GOP. Now it should be left up to the American people. And if you try to force it against the will of the American people, then Democrats will be justified to stack the court next year should they win this election.
He did pick, and we picked the senate,, Hussain lost a lot of seats. Elections have consequences
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
68,343
Reaction score
11,509
Points
2,060
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.
If that were to happen, then the most recent ruling by a lower court would stand. So no, there would be no Constitutional crisis.
Hence the crisis,, we are just going to fill it real quick to avoid any chaos.
Again, there is no crisis. But try to force this through and there's a good chance the Senate will vote against confirmation.
Poor Faun---is negotiating/pleading for a bone.

Hun, Trump is president he gets to nominate even if he loses the election.
The Senate is republican controlled and they get to vote on that nomination even if they lose the election as well.

Election is what Nov 8 and the new (if there is a new) president and senate don't take over till next year. Plenty of time to put in a new supreme court judge regardless of what happens in the election.

Poor faun--gets no bone from this. Trump and the republican senate are chosing the next SC Justice. RBG's need for power just cost the libs a SC seat for decades to come.
Ok, I'll see you at the polls on Novermber 8th.
 

B. Kidd

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
24,735
Reaction score
7,374
Points
280
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?
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.
If that were to happen, then the most recent ruling by a lower court would stand. So no, there would be no Constitutional crisis.
Hence the crisis,, we are just going to fill it real quick to avoid any chaos.
Again, there is no crisis. But try to force this through and there's a good chance the Senate will vote against confirmation.
Poor Faun---is negotiating/pleading for a bone.

Hun, Trump is president he gets to nominate even if he loses the election.
The Senate is republican controlled and they get to vote on that nomination even if they lose the election as well.

Election is what Nov 8 and the new (if there is a new) president and senate don't take over till next year. Plenty of time to put in a new TRUMP supreme court judge regardless of what happens in the election.

Poor faun--gets no bone from this. Trump and the republican senate are chosing the next SC Justice. RBG's need for power just cost the libs a SC seat for decades to come.
Dimm's are holding a strategy meeting today.
And one thing is for sure! They will pick the wrong strategy!!
 

Redcurtain

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2020
Messages
3,738
Reaction score
3,622
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.
If that were to happen, then the most recent ruling by a lower court would stand. So no, there would be no Constitutional crisis.
Hence the crisis,, we are just going to fill it real quick to avoid any chaos.
Again, there is no crisis. But try to force this through and there's a good chance the Senate will vote against confirmation.
Poor Faun---is negotiating/pleading for a bone.

Hun, Trump is president he gets to nominate even if he loses the election.
The Senate is republican controlled and they get to vote on that nomination even if they lose the election as well.

Election is what Nov 8 and the new (if there is a new) president and senate don't take over till next year. Plenty of time to put in a new supreme court judge regardless of what happens in the election.

Poor faun--gets no bone from this. Trump and the republican senate are chosing the next SC Justice. RBG's need for power just cost the libs a SC seat for decades to come.
Ok, I'll see you at the polls on Novermber 8th.
Will you accept the results?
 

Crixus

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2015
Messages
24,290
Reaction score
3,614
Points
290
Location
BFE Texas.
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?

so pretend it matters to you and isnt just a bunch of rep on USMB, do you honestly believe Chucky boy would hold off? at best trump is gone i alittle over 4 years. who ever fills that seat will be there until you die. it would be epicly stupid not to fill that seat.
 

Turtlesoup

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
2,092
Reaction score
2,432
Points
1,893
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.
If that were to happen, then the most recent ruling by a lower court would stand. So no, there would be no Constitutional crisis.
Hence the crisis,, we are just going to fill it real quick to avoid any chaos.
Again, there is no crisis. But try to force this through and there's a good chance the Senate will vote against confirmation.
Poor Faun---is negotiating/pleading for a bone.

Hun, Trump is president he gets to nominate even if he loses the election.
The Senate is republican controlled and they get to vote on that nomination even if they lose the election as well.

Election is what Nov 8 and the new (if there is a new) president and senate don't take over till next year. Plenty of time to put in a new supreme court judge regardless of what happens in the election.

Poor faun--gets no bone from this. Trump and the republican senate are chosing the next SC Justice. RBG's need for power just cost the libs a SC seat for decades to come.
Ok, I'll see you at the polls on Novermber 8th.

You won't see me since I'm voting early and in person------I do hope that you do show up on 11-8 or later though.
 

mascale

VIP Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
6,253
Reaction score
579
Points
85
The Conservatives have put the Entire GOP in a popular vote trap. Scalia may have been an iconic, "A(s)S-hole," but Ginsburg became an iconic, "RGB:" Even in books and novels: Popular, bi-partisan, and liberal in rulings. The Conservatives could support the legal basis of the iconic legal interpretations, even.

So in rushes a Trumped-Up nominee, and McConnell with. . . .an unknown, of relatively low stature and standing. If the nominee is perceived an ideologue with an agenda--so painted, so described, and so obvious--then the confirmation process will call attention to the Liberal Democratic side of the general election--and support it.

GOP up for office can only succeed with a Center-liberal nominee to point to as one of their own. The Trumped-Up election prospects get way less support, the further down-ticket they go: Already.

For any Democrats, not only does a "Talking Point," happen, but also a debate position with the compare and contras on their side. Ginsburg was a Clinton nominee, and famously Civil Rights liberal.

A Compare and Contrast--RBG with any nominee--is certain.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Even Deut 23: 19-20, is not about foreign aid!)
 

Crixus

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2015
Messages
24,290
Reaction score
3,614
Points
290
Location
BFE Texas.
whats really awesome is how bad this riles half black jesus. not only was his scotus pick snubbed and told to kick rocks, but he will be alive when the lefts hold on the court is likely going to be lost while he and his husband have to watch. not like i have any faith that the court will be what its supposed to be, the judges always turn left anyway, but its nice to know the assholes in washington are losing sleep over it.
 

Lovebears65

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2011
Messages
6,609
Reaction score
1,840
Points
255
Location
Georgia
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 say replace her.. Payback for the sham impeachment
 

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
17,310
Reaction score
12,916
Points
2,415
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?
If Impeached Trump wins the election and Republicans retain control of the Senate, then there's no reason not to hold confirmation hearings.
No reason to not hold them now.
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
61,436
Reaction score
11,015
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
The Conservatives have put the Entire GOP in a popular vote trap. Scalia may have been an iconic, "A(s)S-hole," but Ginsburg became an iconic, "RGB:" Even in books and novels: Popular, bi-partisan, and liberal in rulings. The Conservatives could support the legal basis of the iconic legal interpretations, even.

So in rushes a Trumped-Up nominee, and McConnell with. . . .an unknown, of relatively low stature and standing. If the nominee is perceived an ideologue with an agenda--so painted, so described, and so obvious--then the confirmation process will call attention to the Liberal Democratic side of the general election--and support it.

GOP up for office can only succeed with a Center-liberal nominee to point to as one of their own. The Trumped-Up election prospects get way less support, the further down-ticket they go: Already.

For any Democrats, not only does a "Talking Point," happen, but also a debate position with the compare and contras on their side. Ginsburg was a Clinton nominee, and famously Civil Rights liberal.

A Compare and Contrast--RBG with any nominee--is certain.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Even Deut 23: 19-20, is not about foreign aid!)
This is the capitulating loser mentality that doomed the GOP to second rate status until Trump came and started fighting back. Turns out the country had fight in us, it was the politicians who didn't
 

Crixus

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2015
Messages
24,290
Reaction score
3,614
Points
290
Location
BFE Texas.
The Conservatives have put the Entire GOP in a popular vote trap. Scalia may have been an iconic, "A(s)S-hole," but Ginsburg became an iconic, "RGB:" Even in books and novels: Popular, bi-partisan, and liberal in rulings. The Conservatives could support the legal basis of the iconic legal interpretations, even.

So in rushes a Trumped-Up nominee, and McConnell with. . . .an unknown, of relatively low stature and standing. If the nominee is perceived an ideologue with an agenda--so painted, so described, and so obvious--then the confirmation process will call attention to the Liberal Democratic side of the general election--and support it.

GOP up for office can only succeed with a Center-liberal nominee to point to as one of their own. The Trumped-Up election prospects get way less support, the further down-ticket they go: Already.

For any Democrats, not only does a "Talking Point," happen, but also a debate position with the compare and contras on their side. Ginsburg was a Clinton nominee, and famously Civil Rights liberal.

A Compare and Contrast--RBG with any nominee--is certain.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Even Deut 23: 19-20, is not about foreign aid!)

bull shit. "RBG" is nust another dead old person in washington. the death of tictoc means more to young people. this only matters to stupid split tails i pussy hats and info ho's on FOX news.
 

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
17,310
Reaction score
12,916
Points
2,415
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.
If that were to happen, then the most recent ruling by a lower court would stand. So no, there would be no Constitutional crisis.
Hence the crisis,, we are just going to fill it real quick to avoid any chaos.
Again, there is no crisis. But try to force this through and there's a good chance the Senate will vote against confirmation.
WTF do you mean "force it thru"? The normal process will be followed.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: kaz

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
17,310
Reaction score
12,916
Points
2,415
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?
If Impeached Trump wins the election and Republicans retain control of the Senate, then there's no reason not to hold confirmation hearings.
Well he won and can make a pick
The American people should decide which president replaces Ginsburg.
They did. In 2016.
 

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
17,310
Reaction score
12,916
Points
2,415
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?
If Impeached Trump wins the election and Republicans retain control of the Senate, then there's no reason not to hold confirmation hearings.
Well he won and can make a pick
The American people should decide which president replaces Ginsburg.
And they did .
They did with Obama too. That no longer matters according to the GOP. Now it should be left up to the American people. And if you try to force it against the will of the American people, then Democrats will be justified to stack the court next year should they win this election.
Who says it is against the will of the people?
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
68,343
Reaction score
11,509
Points
2,060
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.
If that were to happen, then the most recent ruling by a lower court would stand. So no, there would be no Constitutional crisis.
Hence the crisis,, we are just going to fill it real quick to avoid any chaos.
Again, there is no crisis. But try to force this through and there's a good chance the Senate will vote against confirmation.
Poor Faun---is negotiating/pleading for a bone.

Hun, Trump is president he gets to nominate even if he loses the election.
The Senate is republican controlled and they get to vote on that nomination even if they lose the election as well.

Election is what Nov 8 and the new (if there is a new) president and senate don't take over till next year. Plenty of time to put in a new supreme court judge regardless of what happens in the election.

Poor faun--gets no bone from this. Trump and the republican senate are chosing the next SC Justice. RBG's need for power just cost the libs a SC seat for decades to come.
Ok, I'll see you at the polls on Novermber 8th.
Will you accept the results?
Of course I will. I wasn't happy with the results in 2000 but I still accepted it.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
68,343
Reaction score
11,509
Points
2,060
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.
If that were to happen, then the most recent ruling by a lower court would stand. So no, there would be no Constitutional crisis.
Hence the crisis,, we are just going to fill it real quick to avoid any chaos.
Again, there is no crisis. But try to force this through and there's a good chance the Senate will vote against confirmation.
Poor Faun---is negotiating/pleading for a bone.

Hun, Trump is president he gets to nominate even if he loses the election.
The Senate is republican controlled and they get to vote on that nomination even if they lose the election as well.

Election is what Nov 8 and the new (if there is a new) president and senate don't take over till next year. Plenty of time to put in a new supreme court judge regardless of what happens in the election.

Poor faun--gets no bone from this. Trump and the republican senate are chosing the next SC Justice. RBG's need for power just cost the libs a SC seat for decades to come.
Ok, I'll see you at the polls on Novermber 8th.

You won't see me since I'm voting early and in person------I do hope that you do show up on 11-8 or later though.
I'm voting by mail the day my ballot arrives.
 

B. Kidd

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
24,735
Reaction score
7,374
Points
280
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?
I say replace her.. Payback for the sham impeachment
Get ready for a street fight. :popcorn:
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top