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

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
54,152
Reaction score
11,460
Points
2,040
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.
Too bad the Republicans controlled the Senate, and within their rights held off on offering their consent.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
87,173
Reaction score
20,207
Points
2,180
Location
in between
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.
Too bad the Republicans controlled the Senate, and within their rights held off on offering their consent.
For strictly partisan purposes. Just because it's "within their right" doesn't mean they should do it. It set a precedent.

If the Democrats control the White House and the Senate, would you agree it is within their right to expand the SCOTUS?
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
87,173
Reaction score
20,207
Points
2,180
Location
in between
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.
True.

And he did not get it.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
54,152
Reaction score
11,460
Points
2,040
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.
Too bad the Republicans controlled the Senate, and within their rights held off on offering their consent.
For strictly partisan purposes. Just because it's "within their right" doesn't mean they should do it. It set a precedent.

If the Democrats control the White House and the Senate, would you agree it is within their right to expand the SCOTUS?
It's constitutional, but stupid. It would just result in further packing as we go back and forth.

Unless of course their plan is to make sure they never lose a federal election again, ever.

And court packing is not the same as holding up or speeding up an nomination process just because your party controls the proper branches to do it.

Do you honestly think if Dems had the White House, and the Senate, and say Thomas was the one who passed away, that they wouldn't be trying to fill that seat just as fast as Trump and Mitch are?
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
87,173
Reaction score
20,207
Points
2,180
Location
in between
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.
Too bad the Republicans controlled the Senate, and within their rights held off on offering their consent.
For strictly partisan purposes. Just because it's "within their right" doesn't mean they should do it. It set a precedent.

If the Democrats control the White House and the Senate, would you agree it is within their right to expand the SCOTUS?
It's constitutional, but stupid. It would just result in further packing as we go back and forth.

Unless of course their plan is to make sure they never lose a federal election again, ever.

And court packing is not the same as holding up or speeding up an nomination process just because your party controls the proper branches to do it.

Do you honestly think if Dems had the White House, and the Senate, and say Thomas was the one who passed away, that they wouldn't be trying to fill that seat just as fast as Trump and Mitch are?
Of course they would. It's their right. BUT, McConnell created a new "rule" and changed the landscape when he denied a president that right.
 

Rawley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2014
Messages
21,756
Reaction score
6,704
Points
2,095
It's constitutional, but stupid. It would just result in further packing as we go back and forth.
Unless of course their plan is to make sure they never lose a federal election again, ever.
And court packing is not the same as holding up or speeding up an nomination process just because your party controls the proper branches to do it.
Do you honestly think if Dems had the White House, and the Senate, and say Thomas was the one who passed away, that they wouldn't be trying to fill that seat just as fast as Trump and Mitch are?
Of course they would.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
25,848
Reaction score
4,443
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.
True.

And he did not get it.
I said then and say now he should have gotten the vote, and if the Republicans wanted to deny Obama the pick, they should have voted him down, and the same applies today. TRUMP! should nominate and the Senate should vote, period. If they don't like doing it right before an election, they can wait until after, but they still have some time between election and inauguration, so basically there's no good reason to not vote.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
54,152
Reaction score
11,460
Points
2,040
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.
Too bad the Republicans controlled the Senate, and within their rights held off on offering their consent.
For strictly partisan purposes. Just because it's "within their right" doesn't mean they should do it. It set a precedent.

If the Democrats control the White House and the Senate, would you agree it is within their right to expand the SCOTUS?
It's constitutional, but stupid. It would just result in further packing as we go back and forth.

Unless of course their plan is to make sure they never lose a federal election again, ever.

And court packing is not the same as holding up or speeding up an nomination process just because your party controls the proper branches to do it.

Do you honestly think if Dems had the White House, and the Senate, and say Thomas was the one who passed away, that they wouldn't be trying to fill that seat just as fast as Trump and Mitch are?
Of course they would. It's their right. BUT, McConnell created a new "rule" and changed the landscape when he denied a president that right.
He didn't create anything. He was the first person ever to delay a confirmation for an SC justice?
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
25,848
Reaction score
4,443
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.
Too bad the Republicans controlled the Senate, and within their rights held off on offering their consent.
For strictly partisan purposes. Just because it's "within their right" doesn't mean they should do it. It set a precedent.

If the Democrats control the White House and the Senate, would you agree it is within their right to expand the SCOTUS?
It's constitutional, but stupid. It would just result in further packing as we go back and forth.

Unless of course their plan is to make sure they never lose a federal election again, ever.

And court packing is not the same as holding up or speeding up an nomination process just because your party controls the proper branches to do it.

Do you honestly think if Dems had the White House, and the Senate, and say Thomas was the one who passed away, that they wouldn't be trying to fill that seat just as fast as Trump and Mitch are?
Of course they would. It's their right. BUT, McConnell created a new "rule" and changed the landscape when he denied a president that right.
And since it's not a law, he can change it again. Politics is just another name for hypocrisy, and is another reason why the best and brightest don't go into it. We saw the same thing when Reid went nuclear, then didn't like it when it was used against him.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
87,173
Reaction score
20,207
Points
2,180
Location
in between
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.
Too bad the Republicans controlled the Senate, and within their rights held off on offering their consent.
For strictly partisan purposes. Just because it's "within their right" doesn't mean they should do it. It set a precedent.

If the Democrats control the White House and the Senate, would you agree it is within their right to expand the SCOTUS?
It's constitutional, but stupid. It would just result in further packing as we go back and forth.

Unless of course their plan is to make sure they never lose a federal election again, ever.

And court packing is not the same as holding up or speeding up an nomination process just because your party controls the proper branches to do it.

Do you honestly think if Dems had the White House, and the Senate, and say Thomas was the one who passed away, that they wouldn't be trying to fill that seat just as fast as Trump and Mitch are?
Of course they would. It's their right. BUT, McConnell created a new "rule" and changed the landscape when he denied a president that right.
And since it's not a law, he can change it again. Politics is just another name for hypocrisy, and is another reason why the best and brightest don't go into it. We saw the same thing when Reid went nuclear, then didn't like it when it was used against him.
Of course. And he will change it. Which is making some in the senate (on his side) uncomfortable.

If the Dems decide to expand the court, it's using McConnel's own tactics against him.

Edited to add - I don't think this is comparable to what Reid did. What McConnel is doing is not consistent. Inventing rule, then uninviting it. It sets precedents and breaks the normal conventions by which they operate. Not a good thing.
 

dudmuck

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2017
Messages
6,852
Reaction score
1,702
Points
275
Location
Camarillo, CA
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.
Too bad the Republicans controlled the Senate, and within their rights held off on offering their consent.
For strictly partisan purposes. Just because it's "within their right" doesn't mean they should do it. It set a precedent.

If the Democrats control the White House and the Senate, would you agree it is within their right to expand the SCOTUS?
It's constitutional, but stupid. It would just result in further packing as we go back and forth.

Unless of course their plan is to make sure they never lose a federal election again, ever.

And court packing is not the same as holding up or speeding up an nomination process just because your party controls the proper branches to do it.

Do you honestly think if Dems had the White House, and the Senate, and say Thomas was the one who passed away, that they wouldn't be trying to fill that seat just as fast as Trump and Mitch are?
When Obama had to replace scalia, there was a republican majority in senate, just as there is today, but they didnt even allow a vote on it then.

 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
54,152
Reaction score
11,460
Points
2,040
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.
Too bad the Republicans controlled the Senate, and within their rights held off on offering their consent.
For strictly partisan purposes. Just because it's "within their right" doesn't mean they should do it. It set a precedent.

If the Democrats control the White House and the Senate, would you agree it is within their right to expand the SCOTUS?
It's constitutional, but stupid. It would just result in further packing as we go back and forth.

Unless of course their plan is to make sure they never lose a federal election again, ever.

And court packing is not the same as holding up or speeding up an nomination process just because your party controls the proper branches to do it.

Do you honestly think if Dems had the White House, and the Senate, and say Thomas was the one who passed away, that they wouldn't be trying to fill that seat just as fast as Trump and Mitch are?
When Obama had to replace scalia, there was a republican majority in senate, just as there is today, but they didnt even allow a vote on it then.

And?

The Senate was under Republican Control, and there is no Constitutional requirement for a time limit on how long they can wait before a vote, a confirmation, or even hearings.
 

ABikerSailor

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
50,026
Reaction score
10,030
Points
2,040
Location
Amarillo TX
McConnell delayed Obama from nominating a SCOTUS for over 8 months, saying that it was too close to the election and we should wait to see who the next president is. Now? Less than 45 days out, and they are saying they need to push it through before the election. Talk about hypocritical.
 
OP
JimBowie1958

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
63,136
Reaction score
15,788
Points
2,220
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
Too bad the Republicans controlled the Senate, and within their rights held off on offering their consent.
For strictly partisan purposes.
You mean like the impeachment back in January that was totally fake and partisan as hell?

Like the Kavanaugh hearings that were turned into a circus sideshow?

Democrats think the majority of seats on the SCOTUS is their 'right' somehow, because that is the only way they have pushed so many things on us like homosexual marriage and Affirmative Action.

Those days are OVER, COMPLETELY DEAD AND GONE, and not soon enough for my preferences.
 

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
46,296
Reaction score
9,230
Points
2,030
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.
Please post the items of the Democratic Party Platform that you disagree with.
 
OP
JimBowie1958

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
63,136
Reaction score
15,788
Points
2,220
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
If the Dems decide to expand the court, it's using McConnel's own tactics against him.
No it is not since McConnell is against putting more justices on the SCOTUS.

Schumer saying that is what he will do is pure horse crap as the bill to change the SCOTUS would require BOTH houses of Congress as well as the White House, and the Republicans will NEVER cooperate with it.

Republicans should mimic Schumers bluff and drop the filibuster and put TWELVE more Conservative justices on the court as soon as they control both houses and the WH too.

Edited to add - I don't think this is comparable to what Reid did. What McConnel is doing is not consistent. Inventing rule, then uninviting it. It sets precedents and breaks the normal conventions by which they operate. Not a good thing.
McConnell is being 100% consistent. That you dont grasp why is not his problem.

The polite nonpartisan days are over since the Democrats are now controled by Marxists and their sympathizers.

It is political TOTAL WAR and if it goes to a shooting war, so be it.
 
OP
JimBowie1958

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
63,136
Reaction score
15,788
Points
2,220
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
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.
Please post the items of the Democratic Party Platform that you disagree with.
Do you really think he has actually read the platform?

Hell, even the candidates dont read the platforms, only nerds like us.
 

DJT for Life

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2017
Messages
3,298
Reaction score
757
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
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.
The nomination is going to come Friday or Saturday....thus that is really not an issue. They've all been rcently v etted, so the
FBI only has to begin where they left off last time.

I have no issues with Barrett and she is probably the more deserving choice...I just think a Lagora nomination puts the
Dems in a horrible position to attack her. That can also speed up the process.
 

DukeU

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2020
Messages
1,354
Reaction score
1,371
Points
1,908
The reason the end of the year may not be doable is because if the GOP loses seats
When do they have to give up their seat, January?!? Until then, they are in charge and were elected by guess who? The people have spoken.
 

DukeU

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2020
Messages
1,354
Reaction score
1,371
Points
1,908
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.
We must have a full bench in the S.C. to deal with this debacle of an election we're about to have due to lunatic leftists. The people choose the President, and the President chooses the S.C. nominee.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top