RBG Politcal Discussion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish RBG had stepped down and allowed Obama to appoint someone. The Democrats seem to scared to expand the court or take any action to balance the court.

Total republicans victory. This court will make Dred Scott v. Sanford seem very reasonable.

Total and complete victory. Her decision to not retire during Obama’s administration was pure hubris and it will lead to GOP control of the judiciary for a GENERATION. You’ll be an elderly person the next time the Dems take over the court, if ever given the long term skew of the senate to the GOP.

How would Obama appointed her replacement? He couldn't even appoint Scalia's replacement.

She would have had to retire during his first term. Under the McConnell rule, he wasn't allowed to appoint anyone once the GOP got control of Senate in 2012.

Republicans didn’t win the Senate back until 2014. She should have stepped down in 2013 or 2014.

Translation: She should have been psychic.

Maybe retire at 80? One has to ask what is more important her doing the work or the work she was doing? If the work is the most important thing you make sure someone is there to continue it. Lots of Democrats talked to her and asked her to retire. She said no. I know best. Now it looks likes everything she did will be wiped away.

I don't disagree. But it doesn't change the fact McConnell's blatant lying surprised everyone. It's hard to make good choices when your opponent is a liar with no regard for the well being of the nation.

[Anonymous]

So it's going to be Amy Coney Barrett.

Now what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
So it's going to be Amy Coney Barrett.

Now what?

Women are hosed. She believes rape and incest are not acceptable for someone to have an abortion. She is a QANON supporter. She is extremely religious, and will vote accordingly. Pre existing conditions gone day after the election. ACA gone day after the election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So it's going to be Amy Coney Barrett.

Now what?

Women are hosed. She believes rape and incest are not acceptable for someone to have an abortion. She is a QANON supporter. She is extremely religious, and will vote accordingly. Pre existing conditions gone day after the election. ACA gone day after the election.

I’m not sure she’ll get through. Let’s see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
So it's going to be Amy Coney Barrett.

Now what?

yuck. I am a republican, but I don't want her onthecourt.

[Anonymous]

Any short-term options to block the vote, such as impeachment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So it's going to be Amy Coney Barrett.

Now what?

Women are hosed. She believes rape and incest are not acceptable for someone to have an abortion. She is a QANON supporter. She is extremely religious, and will vote accordingly. Pre existing conditions gone day after the election. ACA gone day after the election.

I’m not sure she’ll get through. Let’s see.

She will. Democracy is one man, one vote and that one man is Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any short-term options to block the vote, such as impeachment?

They are talking about that and other similar stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any short-term options to block the vote, such as impeachment?

They are talking about that and other similar stuff.

Impeachments are not taken seriously anymore

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any short-term options to block the vote, such as impeachment?

Lol impeachment would do nothing. The Senate would refuse to hold a trial, let alone convict, for such an obvious sham.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any short-term options to block the vote, such as impeachment?

They are talking about that and other similar stuff.

Impeachments are not taken seriously anymore

My thought is that since Trump has said that she is needed on the Court ASAP so she can rule on his expected election challenge, there is a 100% chance that he will say that to her when he meets her in person. The press will ask him if he mentioned the election and he probably will lie and then tweet something stupid that admits it and tries to justify it.

Democrats should ask in her hearings whether Trump asked or implied that she would rule for him in a hypothetical challenge of ballots, and put pressure on her to announce that she would recuse herself from participating in a case challenging this election. Trump would lose his shit and say or tweet something that would force a recusal. If she has to announce a recusal before she is approved, Trump might withdraw the nomination and try to appoint someone else. Raising the probability of an election case quid pro quo attached to the nomination would put pressure on the 4 or 5 Republican Senators with a tiny bit of conscience and honor to at least demand that she recuse herself from an election challenge brought by Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any short-term options to block the vote, such as impeachment?

They are talking about that and other similar stuff.

Impeachments are not taken seriously anymore

My thought is that since Trump has said that she is needed on the Court ASAP so she can rule on his expected election challenge, there is a 100% chance that he will say that to her when he meets her in person. The press will ask him if he mentioned the election and he probably will lie and then tweet something stupid that admits it and tries to justify it.

Democrats should ask in her hearings whether Trump asked or implied that she would rule for him in a hypothetical challenge of ballots, and put pressure on her to announce that she would recuse herself from participating in a case challenging this election. Trump would lose his shit and say or tweet something that would force a recusal. If she has to announce a recusal before she is approved, Trump might withdraw the nomination and try to appoint someone else. Raising the probability of an election case quid pro quo attached to the nomination would put pressure on the 4 or 5 Republican Senators with a tiny bit of conscience and honor to at least demand that she recuse herself from an election challenge brought by Trump.

This is smart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any short-term options to block the vote, such as impeachment?

Lol impeachment would do nothing. The Senate would refuse to hold a trial, let alone convict, for such an obvious sham.

The point would be to jam things up. Obviously this Senate would not convict Trump for anything.
But it would take at least a day of procedural nonsense for the Senate to dispose of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any short-term options to block the vote, such as impeachment?

Lol impeachment would do nothing. The Senate would refuse to hold a trial, let alone convict, for such an obvious sham.

The point would be to jam things up. Obviously this Senate would not convict Trump for anything.
But it would take at least a day of procedural nonsense for the Senate to dispose of it.

The senate doesn’t have to act on articles of impeachment immediately. They can throw it on the back burner and deal with it after the scotus nominee is confirmed, or in December, or never if they like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any short-term options to block the vote, such as impeachment?

Lol impeachment would do nothing. The Senate would refuse to hold a trial, let alone convict, for such an obvious sham.

The point would be to jam things up. Obviously this Senate would not convict Trump for anything.
But it would take at least a day of procedural nonsense for the Senate to dispose of it.

The senate doesn’t have to act on articles of impeachment immediately. They can throw it on the back burner and deal with it after the scotus nominee is confirmed, or in December, or never if they like.

You sure? Back in December Mitch said that once the House impeached they'd have no choice but to take it up.