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

[kaz]

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.

Even if you have to buy a stamp?

 

[Dick Foster]

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?

Let'em whine and bitch they're gonna do it anyway so why take any chances. Its not Trump's fault the old bitch refused to get out of the damn way.

 

[Bush92]

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.

What would the democrats do if they had this very situation, BS?

Replace her ass most haste, post haste.

 

[westwall]

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?

Seize the initiative and replace her as fast as possible.

 

[Faun]

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.

There's already 2, likely 3 nay votes should they try that. Plus there's Graham, who's on record for saying the American people should decide in an upcoming election ... and he himself is up for re-election. Is he willing to gamble his seat to get Ginsburg's replacement in before the election?what about any one of the other nearly 2 dozen Republican Senators up for re-election in November. It would prolly only take one.

 

[Faun]

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.

Even some Republicans say confirmation hearings should wait until after the election in circumstances like this. Forcing it through means going against that.

 

[kaz]

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.

There's already 2, likely 3 nay votes should they try that. Plus there's Graham, who's on record for saying the American people should decide in an upcoming election ... and he himself is up for re-election. Is he willing to gamble his seat to get Ginsburg's replacement in before the election?what about any one of the other nearly 2 dozen Republican Senators up for re-election in November. It would prolly only take one.

If the way Republicans need to win elections is to capitulate to the Democrats, they they've lost already. Full speed ahead!

 

[kaz]

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.

Even some Republicans say confirmation hearings should wait until after the election in circumstances like this. Forcing it through means going against that.

So just to be clear, you're claiming that in 92 Biden meant that if Democrats had the Senate and White House, he would not have moved ahead with confirmation hearings. You're actually claiming that?

 

[Faun]

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.

They did in 2012 too. In 2016, Republicans threw that notion out the window.

 

[Blaine Sweeter]

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:

We have a new president

We have a corrupt con man president who's quickly become an autocrat.
You must like living in an autocracy.
(Look it up.)

 

[Nostra]

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.

There's already 2, likely 3 nay votes should they try that. Plus there's Graham, who's on record for saying the American people should decide in an upcoming election ... and he himself is up for re-election. Is he willing to gamble his seat to get Ginsburg's replacement in before the election?what about any one of the other nearly 2 dozen Republican Senators up for re-election in November. It would prolly only take one.

Put them on record before the election. If they wimp out, vote them out.

 

[Nostra]

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.

Even some Republicans say confirmation hearings should wait until after the election in circumstances like this. Forcing it through means going against that.

No. The normal process is being followed. Just because you claim some squish Rep is against it doesn't mean it is being forced thru, idiot.

 

[kaz]

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.

They did in 2012 too. In 2016, Republicans threw that notion out the window.

Here's an interesting fact for you. In 2016 Obama did nominate a justice for the supreme court. No one took that power away from him.

Here's another interesting fact. The Senate was also elected and they have the Constitutional power of "advice and consent." And guess what. They were elected by the people too ...

Funny how all roads to you lead to Democrat and none to truth

 

[Nostra]

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.

They did in 2012 too. In 2016, Republicans threw that notion out the window.

And in 2014 they voted Republicans into the Senate to confirm judges.

Next?

 

[Blaine Sweeter]

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.

Kamala mopped the floor with both Kavanaugh AND Barr.

 

[kaz]

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:

We have a new president

We have a corrupt con man president who's quickly become an autocrat.
You must like living in an autocracy.
(Look it up.)

LOL, how dare Trump and the Senate exercise their Constitutional powers! That's just undemocratic!!!!!

Um ... what ???

 

[Meathead]

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?

After the impeachment and witch hunt, who cares? Oh yeah, and Reid's nuclear o[ptopn.

 

[Zander]

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?

What would Chucky do?

What would Nancy do?

Do that.

 

[Blaine Sweeter]

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?

Run the most right wing sonofabitch we can find. Straight through the Judiciary Committee right to the Senate floor. They want to play their stupid little fuck, fuck impeachment games...we can play ours.

It's a game they won, Trump is the 3rd POTUS to be impeached, and the FIRST one to be impeached in his FIRST term.

 

[Meathead]

Kamala mopped the floor with both Kavanaugh AND Barr.

I am sure mopping floors come natural to her. She could mop mine, but I have mostly carpeting.