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

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
67,309
Reaction score
20,419
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.
Sure. but denying McConnell and the gop are not being hypocritical and having two standards is ….. at best not being truthful.






They AREN'T being hypocritical. They are merely following historical precedent, and of course, the biden rule.
 

AZrailwhale

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
603
Reaction score
598
Points
493
Location
Arizona
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?
I wonder what the democrats would say if Trump responded to their threats of packing the court by nominating ten justices instead of one?
Then if the democrats still wanted to pack the court they'd have to seat twelve justices. That would raise the number of justices to thirty making it really hard to get consensus verdicts.
 

AZrailwhale

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
603
Reaction score
598
Points
493
Location
Arizona
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
The key difference was that Obama was a lame duck with no chance of reelection. Trump has a chance of reelection ranging from very good to no9t a chance depending on who you listen to.
 

LAUGHatLEFTISTS

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2020
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
2,128
Points
1,920
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.
I understand in the upside down world of leftism you believe this to be true.
In the real world it is you idiots that will.declare any Trump nomination unqualified because you didnt get your way. The Kavanaugh hearing circus is the proof.
 

antontoo

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2016
Messages
17,447
Reaction score
2,449
Points
290
Merrick Garland deserved a seat on the court too.
Republican control of the Senate at the time says otherwise.
Well thats exactly where this is going - Presidents don't get a hearing for their nominations if the Senate doesn't feel like it.

Republicans have now pretty directly admitted that hold up of Garland nomination had no valid reason behind it - they effectively admitted that you don't need one.

If you think Democrats will simply forgetaboutit you need to think again.
 
Last edited:

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
53,779
Reaction score
11,092
Points
2,040
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
The key difference was that Obama was a lame duck with no chance of reelection. Trump has a chance of reelection ranging from very good to no9t a chance depending on who you listen to.
I wouldn't even take it that far. Obama didn't have a Democratic controlled Senate, Trump has a Republican controlled Senate. The Dems would do the exact same things the Republicans did/will do if the situations were reversed.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
53,779
Reaction score
11,092
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?
I wonder what the democrats would say if Trump responded to their threats of packing the court by nominating ten justices instead of one?
Then if the democrats still wanted to pack the court they'd have to seat twelve justices. That would raise the number of justices to thirty making it really hard to get consensus verdicts.
That would be interesting, I would disagree with it vehemently, but it would be interesting.

Now if he appointed 3 new ones, all women, and each one of a different color, I wonder how dems would react to that one.
 

Crixus

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2015
Messages
24,290
Reaction score
3,614
Points
290
Location
BFE Texas.
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.

those are all good reasons, but how about he seats a judge because that is what the constitution says a presidant is supposed to do? no libtard can show any leagel reason not to, all they got is emotion.
 

Norman

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
29,228
Reaction score
11,973
Points
940
Only unapologetic Americans should be chosen for the task. People who stand strong and never kneel to anything other than the American flag. Does she have what it takes?
 

Taz

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
20,532
Reaction score
1,201
Points
190
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.
Brett Cavanaugh is a scumbag.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
67,309
Reaction score
20,419
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.
Brett Cavanaugh is a scumbag.





That's the beauty of this country. Any retard can call anybody names. Whether there is evidence, or not.

Hello retard! :bye1:
 
Last edited:

Norman

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
29,228
Reaction score
11,973
Points
940
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.
Brett Cavanaugh is a scumbag.
The scumbags were the ones that false accused Kavanaugh of great ill. Thankfully they will soon be seeing the door.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top