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

BluesLegend

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
48,803
Reaction score
14,704
Points
2,630
Location
Trump's Army
Just because it's "within their right" doesn't mean they should do it. It set a precedent.
Lib please Dems would do it in a heartbeat. Not a question, Dems have already attempted to do just that so get down off your high horse you double talking flip flopping Dem talking points spewing hack.
 

DukeU

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2020
Messages
1,028
Reaction score
1,039
Points
1,908
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.
Supreme Court vacancy needs to be filled to deal with the chaos democrats are about to unleash. As if they hadn't caused chaos already. :eusa_wall:
 

Zander

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2009
Messages
22,465
Reaction score
8,906
Points
940
Location
Los Angeles 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.
Maybe, . He was nominated , but because "elections have consequences" the GOP held the Senate and chose not to consider him.

Now the scenario is different. The GOP still has the Senate- they've actually added to their majority since then, and the people elected Trump to the White House. Whomever Trump nominates will get a vote on the floor and will be seated as a justice on the Supreme Court.

Get over it.
 

Dick Foster

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2018
Messages
7,916
Reaction score
4,446
Points
1,065
Location
The People's Republic of the Californicated
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 think Trump, the senate and the American people should simply ignore the democratic house today. They have shown themselves to be totally irresponsible and therefore unworthy of any consideration whatsoever on any issue whatsoever.
 

gmeyers1944

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2019
Messages
304
Reaction score
237
Points
173
Location
Westfield, NY (near Buffalo)
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.
Here is the process. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 states, "The president shall have the power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint...........Judges of the Supreme Court." President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace Atonin Scalia. The Senate chose not to vote on Advice and Consent (their right). President Trump will soon make his selection to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg. There is no reason for him not to do so. Several Democrats oppose doing this now who were in favor of doing so in 2016. Did they miraculously change their honest opinion in the intervening 4 years? I think not.
 

gmeyers1944

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2019
Messages
304
Reaction score
237
Points
173
Location
Westfield, NY (near Buffalo)
Even if she was nominated by Trump, it's doubtful that she would be able to get confirmed by the Senate before the election.
She was confirmed by the senate in 2017. There’s no reason this couldn’t be wrapped up in a week.
She was confirmed for being on the Seventh Circuit court of appeals, not SCOTUS. In order for her to be SCOTUS, she would have to go through the confirmation process again.
Does the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals have a lower requirement for justices than SCOTUS?
 

gmeyers1944

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2019
Messages
304
Reaction score
237
Points
173
Location
Westfield, NY (near Buffalo)
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.
If Biden wins, he won't be president until January 20, 2021. He won't be able to stop the appointment of a Trump appointee until then, quite possibly too late.
 

gmeyers1944

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2019
Messages
304
Reaction score
237
Points
173
Location
Westfield, NY (near Buffalo)
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?
FDR tried to pull that crap in 1937.
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
67,294
Reaction score
11,370
Points
2,030
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.
You missed the point.
The argument turtle is making is that it was the "will of the voters" that the GOP gained seats to install judges. You can't make the argument with a straight face if you lose seats.

Not that it will matter, of course. Nobody expects integrity from their elected officials
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
67,294
Reaction score
11,370
Points
2,030
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.
Not an unreasonable argument.... Its a shame the GOP leadership isn't making it.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
67,339
Reaction score
20,442
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
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?





No, it had been done at least twice before.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
67,339
Reaction score
20,442
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
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.





Like I said, it had been done before, and to be honest the Dems have been so vitriolic since the Bork hearings I have no problem with Mitch following the letter of the law.

The Dems have been so obnoxious over the last 30 years they really have no legit position.
 

DukeU

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2020
Messages
1,028
Reaction score
1,039
Points
1,908
You can't make the argument with a straight face if you lose seats.
So, the last election when the people gave Republicans the majority means nothing? I don't understand your argument.

They are in those seats for a reason, they were elected. If someone else is elected to replace them then they will be in charge the moment they take their place, not a second before.
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
67,294
Reaction score
11,370
Points
2,030
You can't make the argument with a straight face if you lose seats.
So, the last election when the people gave Republicans the majority means nothing? I don't understand your argument.

They are in those seats for a reason, they were elected. If someone else is elected to replace them then they will be in charge the moment they take their place, not a second before.
Constitutionally it means nothing. Having the 51's vote means something, having the 52, 53, 54th does not.
Reasoning that a President has more authority if he gets 353 electoral votes than 304 is nuts, would you agree?
 

bendog

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
35,032
Reaction score
4,174
Points
1,140
Location
Dog House in back yard
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.
But did McConnell's treatment of Judge Garland bother you too? Obama nominated Garland explicitly because he was pro 2nd Amendment to appeal to the gop. He was also pro-Roe and he was not in favor of Citizens United.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
67,339
Reaction score
20,442
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
You can't make the argument with a straight face if you lose seats.
So, the last election when the people gave Republicans the majority means nothing? I don't understand your argument.

They are in those seats for a reason, they were elected. If someone else is elected to replace them then they will be in charge the moment they take their place, not a second before.
Constitutionally it means nothing. Having the 51's vote means something, having the 52, 53, 54th does not.
Reasoning that a President has more authority if he gets 353 electoral votes than 304 is nuts, would you agree?






In general it is acknowledged that the more electoral votes, the greater the perceived mandate for the presidents agenda.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
67,339
Reaction score
20,442
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
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.
But did McConnell's treatment of Judge Garland bother you too? Obama nominated Garland explicitly because he was pro 2nd Amendment to appeal to the gop. He was also pro-Roe and he was not in favor of Citizens United.






No. It was a beautiful example of how the Founders set this country up. It was set up to be an adversarial system. The Founders realized that if the system wasn't then the politicians would more easily work together to take power and Rights away from the people.
 

bendog

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
35,032
Reaction score
4,174
Points
1,140
Location
Dog House in back yard
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.
But did McConnell's treatment of Judge Garland bother you too? Obama nominated Garland explicitly because he was pro 2nd Amendment to appeal to the gop. He was also pro-Roe and he was not in favor of Citizens United.






No. It was a beautiful example of how the Founders set this country up. It was set up to be an adversarial system. The Founders realized that if the system wasn't then the politicians would more easily work together to take power and Rights away from the people.
Sure. but denying McConnell and the gop are not being hypocritical and having two standards is ….. at best not being truthful.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top