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

[protectionist]

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.

 

[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?

Trump being a milquetoast Republican and giving the Democrats their way would be the worst possible think he could do for his base of support.

It's a given at this point that Democrats would not confirm a Republican nominee for SCOTUS ever much less in an election year. And they would 100% do it if they had the Senate and Presidency themselves.

How does it help us to agree to live by rules they don't live by? And this is totally the Constitutional process.

As I pointed out,

- Democrats invented the court nominee filibuster under W and eliminated it under Obama

- Democrats invented the administration nominee filibuster under W and eliminated it under Obama

- Democrats changed the voting rules to get Obamacare when Scott Brown was elected removing their filibuster proof majority

- Democrats have already said they will change the rules and start nominating more left judges than the current limit of 9 to get control of the court when they can

- Democrats have already said the filibuster is gone so they can get the green new deal and Marxist government enacted

We're fighting for our lives at this point, and you're still worried about fighting barbarians with Marcus of Queensbury rules. You're a good guy, but you're not being realistic about what it takes to fight back

 

[Nostra]

Replacing her before the election would crush any Dimwinger hopes of Biden getting the pick. If there is a possibility he would get the pick, Dimwinger turnout goes up.

Replace her and crush the Dimwinger dreams.

 

[B. Kidd]

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?

Politics is such a hypocrisy filled exercise, the allegation of hypocrisy is the weakest of arguments/pesuasiveness.

 

[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?

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.

"Elections have consequences"-Barry Hussein Obama

What has that got to do with this?????
The asswipe Republican senators wouldn't even give Merrick Garland an interview in 2016.
None of them spoke with Garland at all.
But RBG isn't dead 24 hours and they are racing to replace her.
HYPOCRITES.
GOP SUCKS.

I think with your answer, you're saying that the democrats would put the nominee up
for a vote before the new Congress in 2021. Thank you for your honest answer.

I'm just stating facts.
Republicans hate facts.
Your spin on what you THINK is my answer is just that, spin.

 

[kaz]

Replacing her before the election will cost at least a couple of republican senate seats and almost certainly cost Trump the presidency. If they proceed it's only because they have calculated that losing both is already a foregone conclusion.

^^^ Wishful thinking

 

[Flash]

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.

Unhinged Democrats always make for great Trump campaign ads.

 

[Meister]

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

Oh, I agree, fully, Sunni, but it's the drip, drip, drip this close to the election with fresh meat on the table.

Trump won 2016 by putting pedal to the floor, balls to the wall, full steam ahead, no second guessing, never looking back.

2020, Trump starts making measured decisions, does the "sensible" thing and holds off replacing Ruth until after the election, then loses the election, Biden gets in and replaces Ruth with another Kagan.

You really want to gamble that?

It is a gamble either way it goes, and I'm inclined to have it completed before 2021.
Trouble is that if Harris gets in and the dems win the Senate, they could pack the
courts with liberals.

 

[Sunni Man]

The day after that far left liberal loon is lowered into the ground.
Pres.Trump needs to present the person he has chosen to take her place. ..

 

[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?

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.

And Graham is up for re-election.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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:

Wow!....A politician spun on a dime to have a completely opposite opinion today!

Knock me over with a feather.

A Republican, let's be clear.
And the Senate may not move on this.
There's many Republican senators who are in very tight races, like Spineless Susan Collins, who is another piece of GOP filth.

why are you avoiding answering meisters question?....

 

[Meister]

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.

"Elections have consequences"-Barry Hussein Obama

What has that got to do with this?????
The asswipe Republican senators wouldn't even give Merrick Garland an interview in 2016.
None of them spoke with Garland at all.
But RBG isn't dead 24 hours and they are racing to replace her.
HYPOCRITES.
GOP SUCKS.

I think with your answer, you're saying that the democrats would put the nominee up
for a vote before the new Congress in 2021. Thank you for your honest answer.

I'm just stating facts.
Republicans hate facts.
Your spin on what you THINK is my answer is just that, spin.

Why won't you answer my question then?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Replacing her before the election will cost at least a couple of republican senate seats and almost certainly cost Trump the presidency. If they proceed it's only because they have calculated that losing both is already a foregone conclusion.

You obviously forgot what it did to voters in fly over country who came out en-mass.... IT didn't end well for Hillary... and your doing it again...

 

[B. Kidd]

I think the hearings would destroy the Democrat party the hate the vitriol that will spew from
There foaming mouth will scare voters away. HEARINGS NOW

This is guaranteed!

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The libs will hurl at him regardless if chooses someone or not.

 

[Flash]

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.

"Elections have consequences"-Barry Hussein Obama

What has that got to do with this?????
The asswipe Republican senators wouldn't even give Merrick Garland an interview in 2016.
None of them spoke with Garland at all.
But RBG isn't dead 24 hours and they are racing to replace her.
HYPOCRITES.
GOP SUCKS.

I think with your answer, you're saying that the democrats would put the nominee up
for a vote before the new Congress in 2021. Thank you for your honest answer.

I'm just stating facts.
Republicans hate facts.
Your spin on what you THINK is my answer is just that, spin.

You don't understand the facts. Typical confused Moon Bat.

In every administration where there was an election year vacancy on the Court the President nominated a replacement.

In the times where the Senate was the same party as the President the nominee was voted on.

In the times where the Senate was a different party as the President the confirmation was held off until after the election.

Those are the real rules.

 

[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?

 

[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?

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.

"Elections have consequences"-Barry Hussein Obama

What has that got to do with this?????
The asswipe Republican senators wouldn't even give Merrick Garland an interview in 2016.
None of them spoke with Garland at all.
But RBG isn't dead 24 hours and they are racing to replace her.
HYPOCRITES.
GOP SUCKS.

I think with your answer, you're saying that the democrats would put the nominee up
for a vote before the new Congress in 2021. Thank you for your honest answer.

I'm just stating facts.
Republicans hate facts.
Your spin on what you THINK is my answer is just that, spin.

You hate facts. You called it "hypocrisy."

So you're seriously claiming that Biden meant that if the Senate and Presidency were both in Democrat hands he wouldn't have confirmed a nominee in an election year? Of course he didn't mean that. Get the stupid you care about "facts" shit out of here, you don't

 

[Redcurtain]

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.

 

[Flash]

The riots won’t matter
The looting won’t matter
The mail-in ballot scamming won’t matter.

And they know it.

Conservatives have the Supreme Court. Now we sit back and observe the last squeals of the dying animal that is the Marxist Left.

\uD83C\uDDFA\uD83C\uDDF8\uD83C\uDDFA\uD83C\uDDF8\uD83C\uDDFA\uD83C\uDDF8\uD83C\uDDFA\uD83C\uDDF8

Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) September 19, 2020