What's new
By:

RBG RIP

I’m sure Moscow Mitch will follow the tradition he set 4 years ago to let the american people decide who the next Supreme Court Justice should be.

what’s funny is he could do a lot to restoring faith in our system by postponing this until after the election. Instead, we all know what he’s going to do and the effect it’ll have on Democrats. This only invites further anger, escalation, and the desire to destroy norms.
 
A true revolutionary.

What’s going to be infuriating is the senate will rush to confirm a nominee and completely ignore their narrative in 2016.
 
This sounds weird, but Trump might not want to fill it immediately. He might use it as bait to boost turnout to get him re-elected. I could see him using this vacancy in an attempt to save his own skin and get himself re-elected.

If he nominates a judge, he’s just asking to further boost democratic turnout and depress his own turnout.

What do you think?
 
Avery said:
A true revolutionary.

What’s going to be infuriating is the senate will rush to confirm a nominee and completely ignore their narrative in 2016.
Click to expand...

Murkowski already has said No.

So I think we just need 2 more. Romney and Collins?

Edit: 3 more. Not sure how we get there.
 
Last edited:
The Thriller said:
Murkowski already has said No.

So I think we just need 2 more. Romney and Collins?
Click to expand...

It’s a very risky move for those incumbents up for re-election, but never count on them scorching the earth.

What the D’s should do should they choose to ram something through is basically state that they will expand the court when they have control.

Or nominate Garland like should have occurred four years ago. Snowball’s chance of that.
 
JazzyFresh said:
Rip.

Unlike others I won't make this political yet. Very strong and powerful woman. Kicked life's *** but in the end it gets us all.

Rip again.
Click to expand...

Let’s be honest - politics are a dirty business and the hypocrisy knows no bounds.

People are already licking their lips at a replacement and will ignore everything that was said in 2016 about letting the voters decide - including Trump himself.

If Trump wins and the R’s retain the senate, fine, put forth a nominee. But if nominating someone in March is too late, to suggest that doing so literally a month prior to an election is okay will show our republic is broken.

Now, politically, I think Trump actually has a play here to put forth a nominee, but state that they will only be confirmed if you vote, vote, vote. That might help his turnout and get some undecideds. Jamming somebody through might break undecideds for Biden and Trump will ultimately need to do what’s best for him.
 
Last edited:
Avery said:
Let’s be honest - politics are a dirty business and the hypocrisy knows no bounds.

People are already licking their lips at a replacement and will ignore everything that was said in 2016 about letting the voters decide - including Trump himself.

If Trump wins and the R’s retain the senate, fine, put forth a nominee. But if nominating someone in March is too late, to suggest that doing so literally a month prior to an election is okay will show our republic is broken.
Click to expand...
Yeah but can't we(WE) just give it a rest for a minute? The answer is no, but personally I'll give her the respect she deserves for a day or two
 
JazzyFresh said:
Yeah but can't we(WE) just give it a rest for a minute? The answer is no, but personally I'll give her the respect she deserves for a day or two
Click to expand...

Well, Mitch McConnell already released this tonight in a statement so consider etiquette busted:

“President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate."
 
Avery said:
Well, Mitch McConnell already released this tonight in a statement so consider etiquette busted:

“President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate."
Click to expand...
I already said it won't happen. Same with Herman Cains death. Same with op and others bashing Trump. People can be gross. There's no red or blue in that.

I'm going to try to leave it at that though.
 
Glad to see republicans not playing politics... oh wait



Aren’t we too close to an election? Merrick Garland was nominated 250 days before an election but that was “too close.” Now we’re under 50 and it’s fine? If Mitch does this Democrats need to expand the court this spring.
 
The Thriller said:
I’m sure Moscow Mitch will follow the tradition he set 4 years ago to let the american people decide who the next Supreme Court Justice should be.

what’s funny is he could do a lot to restoring faith in our system by postponing this until after the election. Instead, we all know what he’s going to do and the effect it’ll have on Democrats. This only invites further anger, escalation, and the desire to destroy norms.
Click to expand...

We need to move into the next phase of destroying this country if they ram someone in there. Im glad I have comrades like you on our side.
 
Avery said:
Let’s be honest - politics are a dirty business and the hypocrisy knows no bounds.

People are already licking their lips at a replacement and will ignore everything that was said in 2016 about letting the voters decide - including Trump himself.

If Trump wins and the R’s retain the senate, fine, put forth a nominee. But if nominating someone in March is too late, to suggest that doing so literally a month prior to an election is okay will show our republic is broken.

Now, politically, I think Trump actually has a play here to put forth a nominee, but state that they will only be confirmed if you vote, vote, vote. That might help his turnout and get some undecideds. Jamming somebody through might break undecideds for Biden and Trump will ultimately need to do what’s best for him.
Click to expand...

If I had to guess, I would think that Mitch McConnell doesn't want the question of the open court seat to disrupt the current Senate races. It would be a huge rallying cry for Democrats to try to flip the Senate. He'll want to nip this in the bud, and that's probably why he already made a statement about moving forward with a confirmation, even though Trump hasn't mentioned it yet.

His argument this time is that the Republicans already hold both the White House and the Senate, so that gives them enough of a mandate to move forward. It'll be interesting to see if Republican senators fall in line.
 
Catchall said:
If I had to guess, I would think that Mitch McConnell doesn't want the question of the open court seat to disrupt the current Senate races. It would be a huge rallying cry for Democrats to try to flip the Senate. He'll want to nip this in the bud, and that's probably why he already made a statement about moving forward with a confirmation, even though Trump hasn't mentioned it yet.
Click to expand...
Trump has already mentioned it.

In other news:

4fklfv.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top