Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one wondering why Republicans think voting for a nominee (Barrett) who openly says Roe was wrongly decided and the ACA is unconstitutional is going to help vulnerable senators? I’m sure that will go over well in Kansas or Nebraska, but the GOP was going to win those anyway. It’s an unpopular position in CO, AZ, NC, ME, and IA, but they’re going to make their senators vote for this right before the election? I don’t get it.

It really depends on the state. CO, AZ, and ME are trending blue already. A vote could help the candidates in NC, IA, and SC.

I have not seen any data recently but I also tend to think there are many more single-issue voters who identify as pro-life than there are as pro-choice. So, this one issue could help Trump and Republicans more than it hurts. Republicans would never be able to win the presidency or hold the Senate if it were not for religious and cultural (but not necessarily political) conservatives. These voters do not vote their economic self-interest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not “advice and consent.” This is a frigging rubber stamp. The Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, without a nominee named, saying he or she will get out of committed and be confirmed, no problem.

He may be trying to say that there will be 50-51 Republican senators prepared to vote on a nominee this year. The outcome is likely to be a confirmation of this nominee but it is not pre-determined. Republicans help sink the nomination of Harriet Myers during the Bush 43 years. There are two, maybe even three, GOP senators who are prepared to go against their party and not vote for the Republican nominee. When was the last time a Democratic senator ever voted against a Democratic Supreme Court nominee?

Use your brain. They had no issues saying no to Meyers, because Bush was able to just put up another nominee and get them confirmed.
Come on man.

Anonymous wrote:This is not “advice and consent.” This is a frigging rubber stamp. The Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, without a nominee named, saying he or she will get out of committed and be confirmed, no problem.

He may be trying to say that there will be 50-51 Republican senators prepared to vote on a nominee this year. The outcome is likely to be a confirmation of this nominee but it is not pre-determined. Republicans help sink the nomination of Harriet Myers during the Bush 43 years. There are two, maybe even three, GOP senators who are prepared to go against their party and not vote for the Republican nominee. When was the last time a Democratic senator ever voted against a Democratic Supreme Court nominee?

This is not “advice and consent.” This is a frigging rubber stamp. The Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, without a nominee named, saying he or she will get out of committed and be confirmed, no problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Understand, Trump wants a new justice in place before the election so as to ensure whatever appeals go to the SCOTUS work to his favor before the EC certifies the results.

The fix is in.

THIS. This is exactly the whole point. They HAVE to have their “Justice” in and able to sit as soon after “election” day as possible - so as to award the election to Trump. Their only alternatives are cancelling the election or ignoring the election results, both of which are harder for them to do and cannot be assured to work.

It won't happen. Biden's win will be big enough that they won't have a challenge that even Trump's own appointees could support. Roberts is not a soulless sycophant like McConnell or Lindsey Graham or Ted Cruz. He isn't going to forfeit his reputation and the Supreme Court's and the nation's for Trump. Gorsuch and maybe even Kavanaugh will stick with Roberts and the three patriotic liberal Justices against Trump and Barr's fascist plot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Understand, Trump wants a new justice in place before the election so as to ensure whatever appeals go to the SCOTUS work to his favor before the EC certifies the results.

The fix is in.

THIS. This is exactly the whole point. They HAVE to have their “Justice” in and able to sit as soon after “election” day as possible - so as to award the election to Trump. Their only alternatives are cancelling the election or ignoring the election results, both of which are harder for them to do and cannot be assured to work.

They cannot "cancel" the election. Each state runs its own election, not the Federal government. One each state certifies its results, their EC votes should be known, unless there are faithless Electors, which, who knows, is possible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump was right, the system is rigged.

A 6th GOP justice, nominated by an impeached president who lost the popular vote by 3M, confirmed by GOP senators representing 15M fewer Americans than their Democratic colleagues, after Obama's pick couldn't even get a vote.

- Sec. Reich

Well, DNC should never have rigged the nomination process to help Clinton. Bernie would have easily beaten Trump. Too bad. Elections have consequences.

Actually if the DNC hadn't rigged the nomination to help Clinton, Bernie would have had a lot more competition for the nomination and he'd be a nobody right now. He should be grateful to Clinton.

I think O’mally was the best candidate that year and he would have easily beaten Trump. But alas moderate lane was taken by Clinton.

O'Malley wouldn't have won. Instead of talking about emails, we'd would have been talking about what a shithole Baltimore is and Trump would have promised to turn it into Mar-a-lago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump was right, the system is rigged.

A 6th GOP justice, nominated by an impeached president who lost the popular vote by 3M, confirmed by GOP senators representing 15M fewer Americans than their Democratic colleagues, after Obama's pick couldn't even get a vote.

- Sec. Reich

Well, DNC should never have rigged the nomination process to help Clinton. Bernie would have easily beaten Trump. Too bad. Elections have consequences.

Actually if the DNC hadn't rigged the nomination to help Clinton, Bernie would have had a lot more competition for the nomination and he'd be a nobody right now. He should be grateful to Clinton.

I think O’mally was the best candidate that year and he would have easily beaten Trump. But alas moderate lane was taken by Clinton.

Anonymous wrote:Understand, Trump wants a new justice in place before the election so as to ensure whatever appeals go to the SCOTUS work to his favor before the EC certifies the results.

The fix is in.

THIS. This is exactly the whole point. They HAVE to have their “Justice” in and able to sit as soon after “election” day as possible - so as to award the election to Trump. Their only alternatives are cancelling the election or ignoring the election results, both of which are harder for them to do and cannot be assured to work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one wondering why Republicans think voting for a nominee (Barrett) who openly says Roe was wrongly decided and the ACA is unconstitutional is going to help vulnerable senators? I’m sure that will go over well in Kansas or Nebraska, but the GOP was going to win those anyway. It’s an unpopular position in CO, AZ, NC, ME, and IA, but they’re going to make their senators vote for this right before the election? I don’t get it.

They’re not going to vote before the election. It will be a lame duck session vote to provide cover for moderate senators on shaky ground.

Nope, Lindsay Graham and others are indicated they will support the nominee (who hasn't been named) before the election. They want the justice seated to ensure whatever judicial games being played will be decided 6-3. The only thing that would make me laugh in all of this is if Roberts and Gorsuch sided with the liberals and rejected Trump and left the GOP out to dry.

Vote in numbers that make Barr's games impossible to play.

Even if they don’t vote, the nominee will be known and there will be enormous pressure to say how they’ll vote. Voters will probably assume they will vote for unless they say otherwise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one wondering why Republicans think voting for a nominee (Barrett) who openly says Roe was wrongly decided and the ACA is unconstitutional is going to help vulnerable senators? I’m sure that will go over well in Kansas or Nebraska, but the GOP was going to win those anyway. It’s an unpopular position in CO, AZ, NC, ME, and IA, but they’re going to make their senators vote for this right before the election? I don’t get it.

They’re not going to vote before the election. It will be a lame duck session vote to provide cover for moderate senators on shaky ground.

Nope, Lindsay Graham and others are indicated they will support the nominee (who hasn't been named) before the election. They want the justice seated to ensure whatever judicial games being played will be decided 6-3. The only thing that would make me laugh in all of this is if Roberts and Gorsuch sided with the liberals and rejected Trump and left the GOP out to dry.

Vote in numbers that make Barr's games impossible to play.

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one wondering why Republicans think voting for a nominee (Barrett) who openly says Roe was wrongly decided and the ACA is unconstitutional is going to help vulnerable senators? I’m sure that will go over well in Kansas or Nebraska, but the GOP was going to win those anyway. It’s an unpopular position in CO, AZ, NC, ME, and IA, but they’re going to make their senators vote for this right before the election? I don’t get it.

They’re even in a fair amount of trouble in Kansas.

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one wondering why Republicans think voting for a nominee (Barrett) who openly says Roe was wrongly decided and the ACA is unconstitutional is going to help vulnerable senators? I’m sure that will go over well in Kansas or Nebraska, but the GOP was going to win those anyway. It’s an unpopular position in CO, AZ, NC, ME, and IA, but they’re going to make their senators vote for this right before the election? I don’t get it.

They’re not going to vote before the election. It will be a lame duck session vote to provide cover for moderate senators on shaky ground.

Am I the only one wondering why Republicans think voting for a nominee (Barrett) who openly says Roe was wrongly decided and the ACA is unconstitutional is going to help vulnerable senators? I’m sure that will go over well in Kansas or Nebraska, but the GOP was going to win those anyway. It’s an unpopular position in CO, AZ, NC, ME, and IA, but they’re going to make their senators vote for this right before the election? I don’t get it.

Understand, Trump wants a new justice in place before the election so as to ensure whatever appeals go to the SCOTUS work to his favor before the EC certifies the results.

The fix is in.