RBG Politcal Discussion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That's two. If Romney sides with them, that's 3.

But Collins said she would do it in the lame duck session??!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think if Trump and McConnell manage to ram through a nominee, this could seriously backfire on them. This would only energize the Democrats and they aren’ going to win any more Republican votes.

Filling this seat is worth more than the 2020 election. The GOP can lock up SCOTUS for a generation if we play our cards right.

If they do this, like Obi-Wan, the response would be swift. 15 SCOTUS seats, the end of the filibuster and statehood for DC and PR, and maybe Guam.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They won’t vote on her replacement until AFTER the election. Trump wants to use this to increase his chances of winning and McConnell does not want to further burden vulnerable Senators.

Well McConnell has already announced the opposite.

...The point is they will do in lame duck....like the disgusting little shits that they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Give me a break... if the dems held the senate they would ABSOLUTELY confirm a new SC judge. Stop with the drama.

the drama was mitch denying Garland a vote...hence the issue

[Anonymous]

https://twitter.com/FirenzeMike/status/1307148194124619777?s=20


good points
Mr. Graham

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They won’t vote on her replacement until AFTER the election. Trump wants to use this to increase his chances of winning and McConnell does not want to further burden vulnerable Senators.

Well McConnell has already announced the opposite.

He didn't say when he just said fast and that Trump's nominee will get a vote. Theyll do the vote during the lame duck to make this election about the court. Incompetence, covid, and authoritarianism are now forgotten about. Trump gets taken out of the equation. The devil's bargain just got dangled to conservatives.

[Anonymous]

https://www.axios.com/trump-ginsburg-supreme-court-10bf5f37-bb33-41d6-a647-1143fbdb2d98.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic&utm_content=1100&fbclid=IwAR0ko9iVlmjuoUJi2tZ7_uNyJr3sz0IM58-CNbOUFO5Z3U2nY3Y8W9Z8PKg

President Trump will move within days to nominate his third Supreme Court justice in just three-plus short years — and shape the court for literally decades to come, top Republican sources tell Axios.

Driving the news: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans are ready to move to confirm Trump's nominee before Election Day, just 46 days away, setting up one of the most consequential periods of our lifetimes, the sources say.

What they're saying: "In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia’s death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president’s second term. We kept our promise. Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year," McConnell said in a statement.

"By contrast, Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary. Once again, we will keep our promise."
"President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they win Democrats must pack the court.

What does this mean and how would we do this? Increase the number of justices from nine? What does that require? Constitutional amendment?

I don’t think there’s anything in the constitution that says that there needs to be nine justices. FDR tried to do this during one of his terms.

And he was roundly mocked as a monarch wannabe, and so gave up on the idea. Seriously, people...

Mitch will have destroyed the institution of the senate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Give me a break... if the dems held the senate they would ABSOLUTELY confirm a new SC judge. Stop with the drama.

the drama was mitch denying Garland a vote...hence the issue

KEEP IN MIND THAT HAPPEND IN MARCH NOT SEPTEMBER

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So McConnell can ram through a SC confirmation but cannot pass another bill to help people who have lost their jobs because of Covid? Interesting.

Yup. Because the democrats got rid of the filibuster for judicial nominations. Resp the whirlwind.

Because Mitch, as minority leader, took unprecedented steps to force vacancies in the judiciary, to the point that the court complained that it was becoming unfunctional.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was this a fake "just heard" reaction? I'm not sure of the time of death being public, what he was doing prior to question, and question. Someone must have told him before reporters, right?

Who was that? Those words... those words don’t sound like Trump at all so who the heck was that?

There’s no way that was a spontaneous, sincere reaction. He knew and was prepped on how to respond.

I think it was spontaneous. If he’d been prepped, he’d have been egged on by the horrible people around him and been fired up by them reminding him of what “it could get for him”. He’s not a conservative and he doesn’t care about Roe v. Wade. He’ll say plenty of stupid stuff tomorrow.

This. Count on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Give me a break... if the dems held the senate they would ABSOLUTELY confirm a new SC judge. Stop with the drama.

the drama was mitch denying Garland a vote...hence the issue

KEEP IN MIND THAT HAPPEND IN MARCH NOT SEPTEMBER

Scalia died in February. I remember because we were away for the long weekend. The Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary had just happened but no other voting had occurred. People were voting in the presidential general election TODAY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Biden should nominate Obama.

LOVE that idea. Not sure Obama would though.

Is it legal?