Why I Think Trump Should Go Ahead and Nominate Amy Coney Barrett Over Democrat Objections

HereWeGoAgain

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2010
Messages
66,419
Reaction score
15,962
Points
2,210
Location
Fuck Y'all I'm From Texas!
Even if she was nominated by Trump, it's doubtful that she would be able to get confirmed by the Senate before the election.
Ginsburg was placed in less time.
It took them 50 days to confirm RBG.



Ruth Bader Ginsburg (50 days)
President announces nomination: June 14, 1993
Senate receives nomination: June 22, 1993
Confirmed: August 3, 1993
Prove it.
 

Truth2Know

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
Messages
265
Reaction score
110
Points
190
You're right, Trump CAN appoint someone for SCOTUS up until his last day. Doesn't mean they are going to be confirmed by the Senate that fast though. If they aren't confirmed before the election, and Biden makes it in, he can simply withdraw her nomination and she won't be SCOTUS.
Please help me understand this situation. Here is what I know:
1. All current senators will serve until January 02, 2021.
2. One third of current senators are up for election on November 03. Depending on the outcome of these elections, the Democrat/Republican senator totals may change, effective January 03, 2021.
3. President Trump has vowed to nominate a woman for a Supreme Court this coming week.
4. If the Senate confirms the nominated woman by January 02, 2021, she will be a Supreme Court Justice. There is NOTHING Mr. Biden can do (legally) to remove this Supreme Court Justice.
5. If for some reason the Senate (as presently constituted or as is will be on January 03, 2021) rejects the confirmation of the nominated woman by January 20, 2021, AND Mr. Biden finds himself president on that day (God help us all), then Mr. Biden can make his own nomination. However, I don't believe he can withdraw President Trump's nomination. President Trump's nomination, once made can only be withdrawn by President Trump himself. Until the Senate (again, as presently constituted or as is will be on January 03, 2021) confirms or rejects President Trump's nominee, there would be nothing Mr. Biden can do except watch.

Do I have this right?
 

Jackson

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Messages
27,430
Reaction score
7,801
Points
290
Location
Nashville
Even if she was nominated by Trump, it's doubtful that she would be able to get confirmed by the Senate before the election.
Why does she have to be confirmed by the election? End of the year is doable.

But, I do believe in Trump. If anybody can put this on a fast track, Trump can.
If she's not confirmed before the election and Biden wins, Biden can simply say he doesn't want her and she's no longer in the running for SCOTUS.
That isn't true at all. Trump will remain President (if he loses) Until January 20th, 2021. The Senate can confirm right up until then and there isn't a thing anyone can do about it.
If a president can issue pardons and commutations on his last day in office, he can appoint a SCOTUS Justice. A president has full power until the day before the next president in inaugurated,
Wrong. A president can appoint a justice DURING A RECESS but it would be temporary until the senators return. Then she has to be voted on.
 

Jackson

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Messages
27,430
Reaction score
7,801
Points
290
Location
Nashville
Even if she was nominated by Trump, it's doubtful that she would be able to get confirmed by the Senate before the election.
Ginsburg was placed in less time.
It took them 50 days to confirm RBG.



Ruth Bader Ginsburg (50 days)
President announces nomination: June 14, 1993
Senate receives nomination: June 22, 1993
Confirmed: August 3, 1993
Prove it.
You're right, Trump CAN appoint someone for SCOTUS up until his last day. Doesn't mean they are going to be confirmed by the Senate that fast though. If they aren't confirmed before the election, and Biden makes it in, he can simply withdraw her nomination and she won't be SCOTUS.
Please help me understand this situation. Here is what I know:
1. All current senators will serve until January 02, 2021.
2. One third of current senators are up for election on November 03. Depending on the outcome of these elections, the Democrat/Republican senator totals may change, effective January 03, 2021.
3. President Trump has vowed to nominate a woman for a Supreme Court this coming week.
4. If the Senate confirms the nominated woman by January 02, 2021, she will be a Supreme Court Justice. There is NOTHING Mr. Biden can do (legally) to remove this Supreme Court Justice.
5. If for some reason the Senate (as presently constituted or as is will be on January 03, 2021) rejects the confirmation of the nominated woman by January 20, 2021, AND Mr. Biden finds himself president on that day (God help us all), then Mr. Biden can make his own nomination. However, I don't believe he can withdraw President Trump's nomination. President Trump's nomination, once made can only be withdrawn by President Trump himself. Until the Senate (again, as presently constituted or as is will be on January 03, 2021) confirms or rejects President Trump's nominee, there would be nothing Mr. Biden can do except watch.

Do I have this right?
That is my understanding.
 

DJT for Life

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2017
Messages
3,276
Reaction score
742
Points
195
I was convinced we needed a calming choice that everyone can accept, but I have been chewing this thing like over-smoke beef jerkey since last night and I have changed my mind for the following reasons:

1) Amy Coney Barrett deserves her seat on the court as a very accomplished new American woman who balances career and family life (7 kids) and still is one of the top minds in her profession. She is also a Constitutional Original intent judge, the kind we really need to reign in all the bullshit case law we have h ad recently (United....) A woman a deserving as her should not be passed over for reasons based on political gamesmanship.

2) Realpolitical logic told me that picking a 'conservative' jurist to fill RBGs seat would inflame the left and drive them to the polls. But the left is already hysterical and hates everything Trump does, no matter what he does. Trump could pick Jesus Christ and the left would go ape shit batcrazy. So why bother? Just bolster your base and pick what they want, there is really no downside.

3) I reflected on how the Democrats treated Bret Kavanaugh and it still pisses me off.

Nail 'em Mr President.

Nail them to the wall, set them on fire and use them for target practice.

Fuck the Democrats all to Hell.
I don't have a problem with Barrett at all, but the smart pick, might be Barbara Lagora. An Hispanic, Cuban-American,
who currently resides on the 11th Circuit and was approved by the Senate 80-15 a few years back. Did I mention that
she is from Miami?

She got confirmed by 25 more votes than Barrett because she is from Miami, Hispanic and Cuban-American. The Dems
are already under water with the Latino vote in this state. They go after a Cuban-American, as tight-knit as that
block is, they can kiss Florida goodbye.

Lagora would be Trump's pick
 

Jackson

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Messages
27,430
Reaction score
7,801
Points
290
Location
Nashville
I was convinced we needed a calming choice that everyone can accept, but I have been chewing this thing like over-smoke beef jerkey since last night and I have changed my mind for the following reasons:

1) Amy Coney Barrett deserves her seat on the court as a very accomplished new American woman who balances career and family life (7 kids) and still is one of the top minds in her profession. She is also a Constitutional Original intent judge, the kind we really need to reign in all the bullshit case law we have h ad recently (United....) A woman a deserving as her should not be passed over for reasons based on political gamesmanship.

2) Realpolitical logic told me that picking a 'conservative' jurist to fill RBGs seat would inflame the left and drive them to the polls. But the left is already hysterical and hates everything Trump does, no matter what he does. Trump could pick Jesus Christ and the left would go ape shit batcrazy. So why bother? Just bolster your base and pick what they want, there is really no downside.

3) I reflected on how the Democrats treated Bret Kavanaugh and it still pisses me off.

Nail 'em Mr President.

Nail them to the wall, set them on fire and use them for target practice.

Fuck the Democrats all to Hell.
I don't have a problem with Barrett at all, but the smart pick, might be Barbara Lagora. An Hispanic, Cuban-American,
who currently resides on the 11th Circuit and was approved by the Senate 80-15 a few years back. Did I mention that
she is from Miami?

She got confirmed by 25 more votes than Barrett because she is from Miami, Hispanic and Cuban-American. The Dems
are already under water with the Latino vote in this state. They go after a Cuban-American, as tight-knit as that
block is, they can kiss Florida goodbye.

Lagora would be Trump's pick
Amy Barrett was recently vetted for the District Appeals court as well. And she has 2 Haitian children she adopted as well as five of her own. Since she's already been vetted, this time will not be needed at least shouldn't be needed. Quicker nomination.
 

ABikerSailor

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
49,883
Reaction score
9,911
Points
2,040
Location
Amarillo TX
Even if she was nominated by Trump, it's doubtful that she would be able to get confirmed by the Senate before the election.
Ginsburg was placed in less time.
It took them 50 days to confirm RBG.



Ruth Bader Ginsburg (50 days)
President announces nomination: June 14, 1993
Senate receives nomination: June 22, 1993
Confirmed: August 3, 1993
Prove it.
I just did, didn't you read the link? Took 50 days to get RBG to the SCOTUS.
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
67,161
Reaction score
11,282
Points
2,030
Even if she was nominated by Trump, it's doubtful that she would be able to get confirmed by the Senate before the election.
Why does she have to be confirmed by the election? End of the year is doable.

But, I do believe in Trump. If anybody can put this on a fast track, Trump can.
Not that I endorse the GOP waiting but there is this...

The rationale the turtle gives for, with a straight face, claiming this is different than it was for Garland was that the 2018 election saw the Senate gain seats for the Republican Party based on voters wanting the Senate to confirm Trump nominees.

The reason the end of the year may not be doable is because if the GOP loses seats...or even control of the Senate, the horse-shit rationale of "they elected us to do it" no longer holds the sliver of credibility turtle believes it does.

Politically, the GOP should just approve the nominee as fast as possible. Its the smartest play they have in this minefield.
 

Jackson

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Messages
27,430
Reaction score
7,801
Points
290
Location
Nashville
If Ginsberg and the Democrats were so concerned about replacing the next Justice with their choice, they should have had Ginsberg resign when Obama was president.

They didn't do it because the thought Hillary was going to be the next president. Well, surprise! You plan didn't work.

So sit on you hands and stop complaining.

Your plan now is the impeach the president again> LMAO! You didn't have a crime the first time...God knows you are going to be looking like asses again.
 

Billy000

Democratic Socialist
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
23,696
Reaction score
4,829
Points
290
Location
Colorado
I was convinced we needed a calming choice that everyone can accept, but I have been chewing this thing like over-smoke beef jerkey since last night and I have changed my mind for the following reasons:

1) Amy Coney Barrett deserves her seat on the court as a very accomplished new American woman who balances career and family life (7 kids) and still is one of the top minds in her profession. She is also a Constitutional Original intent judge, the kind we really need to reign in all the bullshit case law we have h ad recently (United....) A woman a deserving as her should not be passed over for reasons based on political gamesmanship.

2) Realpolitical logic told me that picking a 'conservative' jurist to fill RBGs seat would inflame the left and drive them to the polls. But the left is already hysterical and hates everything Trump does, no matter what he does. Trump could pick Jesus Christ and the left would go ape shit batcrazy. So why bother? Just bolster your base and pick what they want, there is really no downside.

3) I reflected on how the Democrats treated Bret Kavanaugh and it still pisses me off.

Nail 'em Mr President.

Nail them to the wall, set them on fire and use them for target practice.

Fuck the Democrats all to Hell.
You idiots will knee jerk declare any of Trump's choices to be the best regardless of who they are or if you knew anything about them in the first place. You're incapable of thinking for yourselves.
 

Claudette

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
38,058
Reaction score
8,274
Points
1,330
I was convinced we needed a calming choice that everyone can accept, but I have been chewing this thing like over-smoke beef jerkey since last night and I have changed my mind for the following reasons:

1) Amy Coney Barrett deserves her seat on the court as a very accomplished new American woman who balances career and family life (7 kids) and still is one of the top minds in her profession. She is also a Constitutional Original intent judge, the kind we really need to reign in all the bullshit case law we have h ad recently (United....) A woman a deserving as her should not be passed over for reasons based on political gamesmanship.

2) Realpolitical logic told me that picking a 'conservative' jurist to fill RBGs seat would inflame the left and drive them to the polls. But the left is already hysterical and hates everything Trump does, no matter what he does. Trump could pick Jesus Christ and the left would go ape shit batcrazy. So why bother? Just bolster your base and pick what they want, there is really no downside.

3) I reflected on how the Democrats treated Bret Kavanaugh and it still pisses me off.

Nail 'em Mr President.

Nail them to the wall, set them on fire and use them for target practice.

Fuck the Democrats all to Hell.
Yup Barrett is a Constitutionalist and we need more of those folks on the SC. Hope Trump gets this going fast and gets her approved.
 

BluesLegend

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
48,789
Reaction score
14,669
Points
2,630
Location
Trump's Army
Even if she was nominated by Trump, it's doubtful that she would be able to get confirmed by the Senate before the election.
Why does she have to be confirmed by the election? End of the year is doable.

But, I do believe in Trump. If anybody can put this on a fast track, Trump can.
Not that I endorse the GOP waiting but there is this...

The rationale the turtle gives for, with a straight face, claiming this is different than it was for Garland was that the 2018 election saw the Senate gain seats for the Republican Party based on voters wanting the Senate to confirm Trump nominees.

The reason the end of the year may not be doable is because if the GOP loses seats...or even control of the Senate, the horse-shit rationale of "they elected us to do it" no longer holds the sliver of credibility turtle believes it does.

Politically, the GOP should just approve the nominee as fast as possible. Its the smartest play they have in this minefield.
Are you now admitting Obama, Biden, and Dem leaders were wrong to push to confirm THEIR nominee in an election year? Dems can't have it both ways, advocating one position when it gives them an advantage then the exact opposite position when Reps have the advantage.

Dems started this entire mess by changing Senate rules under Obama now it's bit them in the ass. McConnell warned Dems this would happen.
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
67,161
Reaction score
11,282
Points
2,030
Even if she was nominated by Trump, it's doubtful that she would be able to get confirmed by the Senate before the election.
Why does she have to be confirmed by the election? End of the year is doable.

But, I do believe in Trump. If anybody can put this on a fast track, Trump can.
Not that I endorse the GOP waiting but there is this...

The rationale the turtle gives for, with a straight face, claiming this is different than it was for Garland was that the 2018 election saw the Senate gain seats for the Republican Party based on voters wanting the Senate to confirm Trump nominees.

The reason the end of the year may not be doable is because if the GOP loses seats...or even control of the Senate, the horse-shit rationale of "they elected us to do it" no longer holds the sliver of credibility turtle believes it does.

Politically, the GOP should just approve the nominee as fast as possible. Its the smartest play they have in this minefield.
Are you now admitting Obama, Biden, and Dem leaders were wrong to push to confirm THEIR nominee in an election year? Dems can't have it both ways, advocating one position when it gives them an advantage then the exact opposite position when Reps have the advantage.

Dems started this entire mess by changing Senate rules under Obama now it's bit them in the ass. McConnell warned Dems this would happen.
No. If anyone is wanting it both ways, it's Turtle and company. 48 months ago, he wouldn't hold a hearing for a nominee in an election year...48 months later, he will hold a nominee in an election year.

The reasoning turtle is promoting is why it's dangerous to have the seat empty on election day.... His cartoonish rationale for being so duplicitous is that the R's expanded their margin in the Senate and turtle is stating that the reason was so they could approve Trump judges. If the R's lose the Senate on election day, that moronic claim is no longer valid.
 

BluesLegend

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
48,789
Reaction score
14,669
Points
2,630
Location
Trump's Army
Even if she was nominated by Trump, it's doubtful that she would be able to get confirmed by the Senate before the election.
Why does she have to be confirmed by the election? End of the year is doable.

But, I do believe in Trump. If anybody can put this on a fast track, Trump can.
Not that I endorse the GOP waiting but there is this...

The rationale the turtle gives for, with a straight face, claiming this is different than it was for Garland was that the 2018 election saw the Senate gain seats for the Republican Party based on voters wanting the Senate to confirm Trump nominees.

The reason the end of the year may not be doable is because if the GOP loses seats...or even control of the Senate, the horse-shit rationale of "they elected us to do it" no longer holds the sliver of credibility turtle believes it does.

Politically, the GOP should just approve the nominee as fast as possible. Its the smartest play they have in this minefield.
Are you now admitting Obama, Biden, and Dem leaders were wrong to push to confirm THEIR nominee in an election year? Dems can't have it both ways, advocating one position when it gives them an advantage then the exact opposite position when Reps have the advantage.

Dems started this entire mess by changing Senate rules under Obama now it's bit them in the ass. McConnell warned Dems this would happen.
No. If anyone is wanting it both ways, it's Turtle and company. 48 months ago, he wouldn't hold a hearing for a nominee in an election year...48 months later, he will hold a nominee in an election year.

The reasoning turtle is promoting is why it's dangerous to have the seat empty on election day.... His cartoonish rationale for being so duplicitous is that the R's expanded their margin in the Senate and turtle is stating that the reason was so they could approve Trump judges. If the R's lose the Senate on election day, that moronic claim is no longer valid.
Dems made their bed now they can lay in it. The American people chose Trump and Republicans to nominate and confirm SCOTUS justices. In 2016 and 2018. How many elections do we need, let me guess keep the seat vacant until Dems eventually regain control of the Senate and White House am I right? :eusa_hand:
 

ABikerSailor

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
49,883
Reaction score
9,911
Points
2,040
Location
Amarillo TX
Even if she was nominated by Trump, it's doubtful that she would be able to get confirmed by the Senate before the election.
Why does she have to be confirmed by the election? End of the year is doable.

But, I do believe in Trump. If anybody can put this on a fast track, Trump can.
Not that I endorse the GOP waiting but there is this...

The rationale the turtle gives for, with a straight face, claiming this is different than it was for Garland was that the 2018 election saw the Senate gain seats for the Republican Party based on voters wanting the Senate to confirm Trump nominees.

The reason the end of the year may not be doable is because if the GOP loses seats...or even control of the Senate, the horse-shit rationale of "they elected us to do it" no longer holds the sliver of credibility turtle believes it does.

Politically, the GOP should just approve the nominee as fast as possible. Its the smartest play they have in this minefield.
Are you now admitting Obama, Biden, and Dem leaders were wrong to push to confirm THEIR nominee in an election year? Dems can't have it both ways, advocating one position when it gives them an advantage then the exact opposite position when Reps have the advantage.

Dems started this entire mess by changing Senate rules under Obama now it's bit them in the ass. McConnell warned Dems this would happen.
No. If anyone is wanting it both ways, it's Turtle and company. 48 months ago, he wouldn't hold a hearing for a nominee in an election year...48 months later, he will hold a nominee in an election year.

The reasoning turtle is promoting is why it's dangerous to have the seat empty on election day.... His cartoonish rationale for being so duplicitous is that the R's expanded their margin in the Senate and turtle is stating that the reason was so they could approve Trump judges. If the R's lose the Senate on election day, that moronic claim is no longer valid.
Dems made their bed now they can lay in it. The American people chose Trump and Republicans to nominate and confirm SCOTUS justices. In 2016 and 2018. How many elections do we need, let me guess keep the seat vacant until Dems eventually regain control of the Senate and White House am I right? :eusa_hand:
Keeping the seat vacant for 45 days or so isn't that much. Especially when you consider that McConnell and the GOP blocked Obama from having his pick confirmed for almost a year.
 

BluesLegend

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
48,789
Reaction score
14,669
Points
2,630
Location
Trump's Army
Even if she was nominated by Trump, it's doubtful that she would be able to get confirmed by the Senate before the election.
Why does she have to be confirmed by the election? End of the year is doable.

But, I do believe in Trump. If anybody can put this on a fast track, Trump can.
Not that I endorse the GOP waiting but there is this...

The rationale the turtle gives for, with a straight face, claiming this is different than it was for Garland was that the 2018 election saw the Senate gain seats for the Republican Party based on voters wanting the Senate to confirm Trump nominees.

The reason the end of the year may not be doable is because if the GOP loses seats...or even control of the Senate, the horse-shit rationale of "they elected us to do it" no longer holds the sliver of credibility turtle believes it does.

Politically, the GOP should just approve the nominee as fast as possible. Its the smartest play they have in this minefield.
Are you now admitting Obama, Biden, and Dem leaders were wrong to push to confirm THEIR nominee in an election year? Dems can't have it both ways, advocating one position when it gives them an advantage then the exact opposite position when Reps have the advantage.

Dems started this entire mess by changing Senate rules under Obama now it's bit them in the ass. McConnell warned Dems this would happen.
No. If anyone is wanting it both ways, it's Turtle and company. 48 months ago, he wouldn't hold a hearing for a nominee in an election year...48 months later, he will hold a nominee in an election year.

The reasoning turtle is promoting is why it's dangerous to have the seat empty on election day.... His cartoonish rationale for being so duplicitous is that the R's expanded their margin in the Senate and turtle is stating that the reason was so they could approve Trump judges. If the R's lose the Senate on election day, that moronic claim is no longer valid.
Dems made their bed now they can lay in it. The American people chose Trump and Republicans to nominate and confirm SCOTUS justices. In 2016 and 2018. How many elections do we need, let me guess keep the seat vacant until Dems eventually regain control of the Senate and White House am I right? :eusa_hand:
Keeping the seat vacant for 45 days or so isn't that much. Especially when you consider that McConnell and the GOP blocked Obama from having his pick confirmed for almost a year.
Obama, Biden, and Dems said the GOP was wrong for doing that. Fine our bad we'll fill the seat now okay.
 

HereWeGoAgain

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2010
Messages
66,419
Reaction score
15,962
Points
2,210
Location
Fuck Y'all I'm From Texas!
Even if she was nominated by Trump, it's doubtful that she would be able to get confirmed by the Senate before the election.
Ginsburg was placed in less time.
It took them 50 days to confirm RBG.



Ruth Bader Ginsburg (50 days)
President announces nomination: June 14, 1993
Senate receives nomination: June 22, 1993
Confirmed: August 3, 1993
Prove it.
I just did, didn't you read the link? Took 50 days to get RBG to the SCOTUS.
You'll have to do better than CNN.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
25,441
Reaction score
4,037
Points
280
I was convinced we needed a calming choice that everyone can accept, but I have been chewing this thing like over-smoke beef jerkey since last night and I have changed my mind for the following reasons:

1) Amy Coney Barrett deserves her seat on the court as a very accomplished new American woman who balances career and family life (7 kids) and still is one of the top minds in her profession. She is also a Constitutional Original intent judge, the kind we really need to reign in all the bullshit case law we have h ad recently (United....) A woman a deserving as her should not be passed over for reasons based on political gamesmanship.

2) Realpolitical logic told me that picking a 'conservative' jurist to fill RBGs seat would inflame the left and rive them to the polls. But the left is already hysterical and hates everything Trump does, no matter what he does. Trump could pick Jesus Christ and the left would go ape shit batcrazy. So why bother? Just bolster your base and pick what they want, there is really no downside.

3) I reflected on how the Democrats treated Bret Kavanaugh and it still pisses me off.

Nail 'em Mr President.

Nail them to the wall, set them on fire and use them for target practice.

Fuck the Democrats all to Hell.
Merrick Garland deserved a seat on the court too.
Not correct. He deserved a VOTE from the Senate, that's it.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
53,779
Reaction score
11,092
Points
2,040
Even if she was nominated by Trump, it's doubtful that she would be able to get confirmed by the Senate before the election.
What is there stop stop the nomination process from proceeding at speed?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top