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

[DukeU]

Actually he can’t do shit about it until he’s sworn in along with the new senate. She could easily be voted in after the election. Assuming Biden even wins.

That was my thinking too, although I'm not 100% positive.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Actually he can’t do shit about it until he’s sworn in along with the new senate. She could easily be voted in after the election. Assuming Biden even wins.

That was my thinking too, although I'm not 100% positive.

The current seat holders still run the country for another three months. President elect or senator elect isn’t an actual position of any power. They can bitch but have no authority to stop or start anything until sworn in. It’s that simple.

 

[Jackson]

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.

What were some of his decisions?

 

[AZrailwhale]

Even if she was nominated by Trump, it's doubtful that she would be able to get confirmed by the Senate before the election.

Are you kidding? Trump proposes her, committee interrogations for two days, a senate vote. Wham bam thank you mam, one confirmed YOUNG STRICT CONSTITUTIONIST JUSTICE by mid October at the latest. The republicans aren’t going to let the democrats pull another Kavanaugh shit show.

 

[Redcurtain]

Even if she was nominated by Trump, it's doubtful that she would be able to get confirmed by the Senate before the election.

Getting democrats to expose the hate will be worth it

 

[Jackson]

Even if she was nominated by Trump, it's doubtful that she would be able to get confirmed by the Senate before the election.

Are you kidding? Trump proposes her, committee interrogations for two days, a senate vote. Wham bam thank you mam, one confirmed YOUNG STRICT CONSTITUTIONIST JUSTICE by mid October at the latest. The republicans aren’t going to let the democrats pull another Kavanaugh shit show.

I believe the hearings are part of the show.
1. Trump put Name up for Justice Person; named goes to talk to senators at their offices
2. Name goes to the Senate Judicial Committee; nominee continues to visit with senators
3. Committee votes for a Senate hearing
4. Senate is heard
5. Vote in the senate

That's five activities that should be done every 8 days to make sure the election of the Justice takes place before the election.

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

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.

They would do it to us .

 

[Darkwind]

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.

 

[bluzman61]

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.

 

[bluzman61]

I don't know this Amy Barrett broad from the man in the f'ing moon, so I'll have to take your word for it that she is tremendous. But whoever the President chooses, whether its Miss Barrett, or someone else, getting this in front of the Senate during the campaign season is paramount.

 

[bluzman61]

I don't know this Amy Barrett broad from the man in the f'ing moon, so I'll have to take your word for it that she is tremendous. But whoever the President chooses, whether its Miss Barrett, or someone else, getting this in front of the Senate during the campaign season is paramount.

Judicial Winning: Amy Coney Barrett | National Review

Judge Barrett drew an important distinction between civic rights, such as voting and jury service, and individual rights such as possessing a gun.

www.nationalreview.com

Since taking the bench, Judge Barrett has been a champion of originalism.​

​

In the 2019 case of Kanter v. Barr, Judge Barrett dissented from a panel opinion that turned away a nonviolent felon’s Second Amendment challenge to federal and state laws prohibiting him from owning a gun. The challenger argued that the laws — which ban all felons, violent and nonviolent, from gun possession — were too broad in that they swept in low-risk people like him (the man had been convicted of Medicare-related mail fraud).​

​

The court sided instead with the government, holding that while the fit between the government objective of reducing violent crime and the group of people banned from obtaining guns was not perfect, it did not need to be a perfect fit. As the court held, “a reasonable fit” is all that was needed for the law to be constitutional — little solace for the individual dispossessed of his Second Amendment rights.​

​

Judge Barrett disagreed, discussing the relationship between felons and the right to bear arms at the Founding, and showcasing a serious commitment to originalism as a means of finding the correct answer to a constitutional question.​

​

Judge Barrett drew an important distinction between civic rights, such as voting and jury service, and individual rights such as possessing a gun. She noted that individuals exercise the right to vote and serve on juries not for their own sake, but “as part of the collective enterprise of self-governance [and] administering justice.” By contrast, as the Supreme Court found in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, rooted in a right to self-defense. This raises the bar: The government can take away civic rights from “unvirtuous” citizens even if they are not dangerous, but individual rights are a different story.​

Who is Amy Coney Barrett? | National Review

Judge Amy Coney Barrett is one of President Trump’s potential nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court. Age: 45 (approximate) Current Position: Circuit Court Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh …

www.nationalreview.com

 

[bluzman61]

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.

Trump wins in a landslide.

 

[DukeU]

 

[bluzman61]

 

[Mike473]

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.

If the senate was controlled by the Dems, he would be on the court. It was not, so he is not on the court. Now, the WH and Senate are in line, so we will have a quick nomination and confirmation. Bad luck for Garland, it is what it is.

 

[Jackson]

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.

They would do it to us .

That is not the point. It is his job to nominate the next SCJ.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

 

[ABikerSailor]

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.

Here's how long it's taken to confirm past Supreme Court justices

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer's plans to retire from the high court after nearly three decades on the bench are set to pave the way for a speedy confirmation process for his eventual successor.

www.cnn.com

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

 

[AZrailwhale]

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,

 

[ABikerSailor]

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,

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.