The bastards are already threatening this:

"“If they ever TRY toreplace RBG we burn the entire f---ing thing down,” threatened former CNN staffer and part-time cannibal Reza Aslan."

" “Mitch McConnell is an evil b@stard. Burn the whole party to the ground. The GOP is done.”"

Keep your powder dry.

Are these the same people who claim Trump is destroying "democracy?"

I don't think they know the meaning of the word.

If you believe in the Second Amendment, it's critical that Trump gets reelected.

So he wants Trump to nominate someone who supports late term/live birth abortions, supports open borders and consequent free government-funded medical care and food and housing for illegal aliens, supports blocking mining and fossil fuel development, etc., etc., etc., but will be a strong proponent of Second Amendment rights to the extent of getting rid of requirements for suppressors and full auto, etc.? Haha. What a fucking idiot.

So he wants Trump to nominate someone who supports late term/live birth abortions, supports open borders and consequent free government-funded medical care and food and housing for illegal aliens, supports blocking mining and fossil fuel development, etc., etc., etc., but will be a strong proponent of Second Amendment rights to the extent of getting rid of requirements for suppressors and full auto, etc.? Haha. What a fucking idiot.

You must have watched a different video than I did.   

My data limit gets reset at midmight tonight so I watched the video.
It was pretty good except the mention of three Pubby's that
may stray. I don't think Mitch McConnell was one of them
more likely Mitt Romney.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Just got #5 of Orville Redenbocker popcorn on sale.

My data limit gets reset at midmight tonight so I watched the video.
It was pretty good except the mention of three Pubby's that
may stray. I don't think Mitch McConnell was one of them
more likely Mitt Romney.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Just got #5 of Orville Redenbocker popcorn on sale.

I think the two others being discussed are Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski.  If memory serves, weren't they the ones on the fence regarding Trump's impeachment?  They, along with Mitt Romney, made statements to the effect of, "I think I should see all the evidence before making up my mind."  That included ALL THE DOCUMENTS AND DEPOSITIONS the Democrats in the House tried to coerce from the administration without taking their subpoenas through the courts to have enforced or quashed.

Never-Trumpers (aka Swamp Critters) exist in both parties, because they have a certain way of doing things in DC, and Trump just isn't playing by their rules.  When the President isn't interested in seeking office for power and wealth, it threatens those who are.

Tbh they should not confirm anyone.  All it will do is piss off the left.   Motivate them to vote.  Even if they get someone in they going to pack the courts so instead of 6-3 it will be 6-9. And with current political trends they will be able to pull it off

Tbh they should not confirm anyone.  All it will do is piss off the left.   Motivate them to vote.  Even if they get someone in they going to pack the courts so instead of 6-3 it will be 6-9. And with current political trends they will be able to pull it off

Mitch made the comment during the Obama nomination of Garland that the main reason he delayed was because the Republicans became the majority during Obama's administration.  That, to him, was a mandate by voters that they wanted Obama's policies and decisions to be more constrained than the Dems were doing.

By delaying, he gave the voters another chance to voice their preference for a new justice through the general election.  Had Hildabeast won, the Dems would have had no issue with the delay.

However, the Senate is still a GOP majority.  Until that changes, the President's party is secondary as it relates to McConnell's comments.

The President can only nominate.  The Senate has the power to confirm or reject the nominee.  That, to me, says more about how voters want decisions made than who becomes President.

Congress represents the voters.  The President represents everyone.  At least, that's how the system was designed.

Here's a scenario for you:

- Trump and/or the Senate are unable/unwilling to confirm a new justice by November.

- The Presidential race is so close in a couple of battleground states, and there are so many "irregularities" with mail-in votes, it takes 2 months to go through all the recounts, re-recounts and legal challenges.

- If the final determination of who won the election comes down to a Supreme Court decision:

  (1) What if the Supreme Court is tied (4-4) on whether the race is over regardless of who is in the lead, or the recounts continue allowing whoever is behind to catch up after they "find" enough votes to gain the lead?

  (2)  What if the now-mostly-conservative Supreme Court rules Trump is the winner, and Liberals are unable to accept the decision as legitimate and nonpartisan?

If you lived through the Gore vs Bush 2000 election, you might remember how the Democrats chose specific counties to START a Florida recount, then tried to get the recount stopped as soon as the vote totals favored Gore.  The lawyers from both camps will be trying to game the laws and election procedures for their party before anyone is at work on Wednesday.

You might also remember how the lawyers managed to get the rules changed to allow the recounts to "interpret the intentions" of those who cast ballots with problems like incompletely punched "chads".  The rules had always been that an incomplete or incorrectly marked ballot was deemed a "spoiled ballot" and not to be counted.  I imagine they've learned from that experience and the shenanigans in 2020 will be significantly more "creative".

This is another reason to appoint the justice and confirm them before Nov.  A decision that gives Trump the win will be bad, but a Supreme Court deadlocked over what the Constitution and election laws mean could be a lot worse.

Here's a scenario for you:

- Trump and/or the Senate are unable/unwilling to confirm a new justice by November.

- The Presidential race is so close in a couple of battleground states, and there are so many "irregularities" with mail-in votes, it takes 2 months to go through all the recounts, re-recounts and legal challenges.

- If the final determination of who won the election comes down to a Supreme Court decision:

  (1) What if the Supreme Court is tied (4-4) on whether the race is over regardless of who is in the lead, or the recounts continue allowing whoever is behind to catch up after they "find" enough votes to gain the lead?

  (2)  What if the now-mostly-conservative Supreme Court rules Trump is the winner, and Liberals are unable to accept the decision as legitimate and nonpartisan?

If you lived through the Gore vs Bush 2000 election, you might remember how the Democrats chose specific counties to START a Florida recount, then tried to get the recount stopped as soon as the vote totals favored Gore.  The lawyers from both camps will be trying to game the laws and election procedures for their party before anyone is at work on Wednesday.

You might also remember how the lawyers managed to get the rules changed to allow the recounts to "interpret the intentions" of those who cast ballots with problems like incompletely punched "chads".  The rules had always been that an incomplete or incorrectly marked ballot was deemed a "spoiled ballot" and not to be counted.  I imagine they've learned from that experience and the shenanigans in 2020 will be significantly more "creative".

This is another reason to appoint the justice and confirm them before Nov.  A decision that gives Trump the win will be bad, but a Supreme Court deadlocked over what the Constitution and election laws mean could be a lot worse.

To quote someone who is arguably the world's best example of the essence of the Democrat party,
"I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how.”
J. Stalin
Source;
The Memoirs of Stalin’s Former Secretary by Boris Bazhanov, published in 2002. Translated from the Russian, the version which, according to
Bazhanov, was uttered in 1923 by Stalin in reference to a vote in the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

🤔

https://babylonbee.com/news/trump-nominates-himself-to-the-supreme-court?fbclid=IwAR1EzGj6bGhMCEKXRrENhXX-MlnHdhGOsLtgPbdQv-5PjcBzGcShilB_azg

Remember last year when it was reported that Ginsberg was deceased,  erroneously,  but then we didn't see or hear from her till now?

Funny how this comes out to make things even more unstable. 🤔


 

🤔

https://babylonbee.com/news/trump-nominates-himself-to-the-supreme-court?fbclid=IwAR1EzGj6bGhMCEKXRrENhXX-MlnHdhGOsLtgPbdQv-5PjcBzGcShilB_azg

Bold move cotton

Remember last year when it was reported that Ginsburg was deceased,  erroneously,  but then we didn't see or hear from her till now?

Funny how this comes out to make things even more unstable. 🤔


 

She was doing chemo for stage 4 metastatic pancreatic cancer -- just one in a long line of cancer diagnoses and pneumonia.  I'll give her a pass for not being well enough to be visible the last few months, but not for hanging onto her seat.

I believed she was unfit to be on the bench with the time she required for treatments and, honestly, her age.  The only reason I see she has given for not retiring when she could was that she hated Trump.

NPR reports that Ginsburg's granddaughter told them Ginsburg's most fervent final request is that ANOTHER PRESIDENT fill her vacated seat on the Supreme Court.

No more evidence is needed to see she was a TDS-sufferer, too, on top of all her other health issues.

Also, I highly doubt the nation will wait 4 more years for "another president" to be sworn in before filling her seat.  The Constitution requires it be filled as soon as circumstances allow.

Ginsburg herself was nominated by Slick Willy and Confirmed by a Democrat majority in the Senate in 1993 in less than the amount of time we have now before the general election.  So, it's not unprecedented that a President and Senate majority from the same party can confirm a Supreme Court Justice that quickly.

I wonder if the White House lawyers are researching all the close votes against Trump before the Supreme Court so they can appeal the rulings based on Ginsburg's animosity toward Trump?  If not, maybe they should.  She should have kept that "dying wish" to herself, because another president in 2020 is not a given (or in my mind a real possibility), and especially because she is supposed to be nonpartisan and unbiased as a Supreme Court judge.

I have nothing good to say about her and did not like her. Hope she fares better in paradise with the big “judge”. Good riddance....

Collins and murkowski Will not support a nominee apparently.

Remember last year when it was reported that Ginsberg was deceased,  erroneously,  but then we didn't see or hear from her till now?

But, there had been a few sightings, I thought?

Collins and murkowski Will not support a nominee apparently.

If my math is right, that still leaves 51 GOP Senators.  As long as they get a simple majority, they can call a confirmation vote.

I'm worried others are going to follow suit, like Romney.

There are 45 Dems and 3 Indies.

If my math is right, that still leaves 51 GOP Senators.  As long as they get a simple majority, they can call a confirmation vote.

I'm worried others are going to follow suit, like Romney.

There are 45 Dems and 3 Indies.

I would be fucken floored if Romney voted for trumps nominee

I would be fucken floored if Romney voted for trumps nominee

Kavanaugh was confirmed with a vote of 50 - 48.  Steve Daines of Montana was absent, and Lisa Murkowski voted "Present".  She didn't vote against Kavanaugh, but she did voice her opposition to the nomination.

One Dem broke ranks and voted with the Republicans:  Joe Manchin.  Everyone else voted straight down party lines.

I can see Romney trying to extort McConnell or Trump.  In exchange for his confirmation vote, he may want a committee position/chairmanship or other ransom to better his chances of reelection in 2 years.  He just entered office in 2019 after the midterms, so there's no track record of him voting with or against the GOP on critical issues.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I remember learning that, in case of a tie in the Senate, the VP, Pence, get's to cast the tie breaking vote as President of the Senate.

So, if the total looks something like 49-49, with 2 members not voting or voting "Present", Pence will be able to get the confirmation passed.

I believe the cloture rules require a simple majority, meaning the nominee needs to get 50 votes in the sSenate, no matter who those Senators are.  49 with a tie or 50 should be the target number of votes to get a confirmation.

Kavanaugh was confirmed with a vote of 50 - 48.  Steve Daines of Montana was absent, and Lisa Murkowski voted "Present".  She didn't vote against Kavanaugh, but she did voice her opposition to the nomination.

One Dem broke ranks and voted with the Republicans:  Joe Manchin.  Everyone else voted straight down party lines.

I can see Romney trying to extort McConnell or Trump.  In exchange for his confirmation vote, he may want a committee position/chairmanship or other ransom to better his chances of reelection in 2 years.  He just entered office in 2019 after the midterms, so there's no track record of him voting with or against the GOP on critical issues.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I remember learning that, in case of a tie in the Senate, the VP, Pence, get's to cast the tie breaking vote as President of the Senate.

So, if the total looks something like 49-49, with 2 members not voting or voting "Present", Pence will be able to get the confirmation passed.

you are correct, sir