I thought republicans said nominations shouldn't be made so close to a presidential election.

The People rejected the Democrats in 2014, when the
Democrats lost the Senate Majority. Remember "Elections have consequences" Obama said that. The consequence of losing the Senate is that you lose the opportunity to confirm SCOTUS nominations. These rules were designed to put a check on power. If Democrats had both the Senate and the Executive branch trust and believe they would have confirmed and Left Wing nut to the Supreme Court.
Obviously politicians can't outright say that because it's off-putting but that's politics.

I wonder what the democrats reaction would be if Trump nominates a liberal to the seat.

  Uncle Trump

I wonder what the democrats reaction would be if Trump nominates a liberal to the seat.

  Uncle Trump

I have a little scenario playing on my evil mind .....

1.  Trump nominates a super-Leftist Liberal (AOC?  Omar?).

2.  That totally diffuses the issue of SCOTUS nominations in an election year.  No calls of hypocrisy, etc.

3.  McConnell doesn't call a vote in Oct, but promises he will the day after the election.

4.  McConnell drops the other shoe by calling a vote as promised which fails to pass (GOP in the Senate down votes the Liberal nominee).

5.  Trump wins and nominates his preferred candidate.

Total misdirection.

The downside is Trump will have to rely on the 8 justices to come to proper decisions if/when the election results make their way to SCOTUS.  That's the wildcard.

I believe Cruz does a very good job of explaining the situation, the past history of such circumstances, and why it's important to FILL THE SEAT.

Also, I had forgotten how much I despise that little worm Stephanopolous.

I believe Cruz does a very good job of explaining the situation, the past history of such circumstances, and why it's important to FILL THE SEAT.

Also, I had forgotten how much I despise that little worm Stephanopolous.

Why do you have to insult actual worms?   

Why do you have to insult actual worms?   

My belated and sincere apologies to nematodes and annelids everywhere.

 

I believe Cruz does a very good job of explaining the situation, the past history of such circumstances, and why it's important to FILL THE SEAT.

Also, I had forgotten how much I despise that little worm Stephanopolous.

Meh, I like Cruz but he didn’t really answer the question. It’s obvious that Cruz (not all republicans) backed himself into a corner by making those statements and the only reason his stance changed is because the republicans hold the votes.

It also pains me to say it but shitnopolous does make a good point that now all of a sudden an even court could be a constitutional crisis but it wasn’t back in 2016.

Meh, I like Cruz but he didn’t really answer the question. It’s obvious that Cruz (not all republicans) backed himself into a corner by making those statements and the only reason his stance changed is because the republicans hold the votes.

It also pains me to say it but shitnopolous does make a good point that now all of a sudden an even court could be a constitutional crisis but it wasn’t back in 2016.

The Constitutional Crisis now lies in the possibility that the election process and results have a good chance of going before the Supreme Court several times to ensure the rules are being followed.

In 2016, nobody really thought Trump had a good chance of beating Hildabeast -- including the GOP majority in the US Senate.

The Dems are engaging in all manner of rules changes and tactics to ensure they have an opportunity to manipulate the vote count.  They want 100% mail-in voting using stale, unkept voter roles to send out millions of ballots.  They changed the Pennsylvania rules to allow ballots that arrive 3 days late with no postmark to be included.  They now accept ballots with mismatched signatures and with no effort to contact the voter to verify the ballot reflects their votes.

Add to that the "ballot harvesting" in which political activists drive around collecting ballots from homes.  There is a NY Post article in which a self-professed fraud used ballot harvesting to collect ballots, steam open the signed exterior envelopes, and insert completed ballots of their own before resealing and dropping them off to be counted.

Ballot harvesting inserts unknown, unvetted and unsupervised people into the vote retrieval process.  They are not postal service employees, poll workers or even political campaign employees.  They are from groups like Media Matters (formerly ACORN) and other activist groups who will do anything to ensure the other party loses.

All that in addition to the request for recounts and injunctions to stop those recounts being fought in the courts.

Of all the election seasons in which the results will be influenced by decisions from the Supreme Court, this year has the best odds of it happening.  We need a full bench of 9 judges to make sure their rulings are not compromised by a 4-4 split decision..

According to the Left, Trump has represented a Constitutional Crisis since he won the Presidency.  They've played that card so often, a REAL Constitutional Crisis is not going to get as much attention as it should (Please review The Boy Who Cried 'Wolf!' ).

And so it begins ....

An awful lot of ballots can be ""discovered" and "corrected" in 6 days....

The debate/discussion in the thread on whether or not the WH should nominate ahead of the election is good, but think it misses a big point.  Which is the initiative.  Whether or not the WH does nominate or not, I think is a big deal.  However, I think the bigger deal is that those opposed to the WH (TDSers, Never Trumpers, etc) have ABSOFRICKLOUTELY no choice.  Zero, nada, ziltch on what comes next.  I think that in itself is quite powerful.  I also think that Trump is mostly (loose on the mostly) approaching with a level of strategic "smartness". 

The word is out that apparently the WH will name the replacement end of the week, after the funeral services for RBG.  That's almost a whole week of a whole lot of folks strategizing about something in a reactionary way.  Is Trump smart?  Maybe, maybe not.  But I do think the WH in general is playing this well. 

I don't think the "constitutional crisis" folks we be able to wait until Christmas, uh, winter solstice to get this gift for the young person in their life. They'll need immediate training time since the adults will be carrying out such activities if 1. Trump nominates someone this year, 2. the senate judiciary committee holds hearings this year, 3. the senate votes on the nominee this year and 4. the senate consents to the nominee.

Fisher-Price Releases 'My First Peaceful Protest' Playset With House You Can Actually Burn Down
September 21st, 2020



EAST AURORA, NY—The toy geniuses at Fisher-Price have announced a brand new toy made just for leftist parents and their kids: the My First Peaceful Protest playset. The kid-size clubhouse will come with several varieties of spray paint so kids can tag the tiny building with their own empowering slogans. It will also be made out of cardboard, allowing the cute little tikes to burn the whole thing down if their demands are not met.

"Here at Fisher-Price, we are steadfastly committed to social justice," said toy designer Camden Flufferton. "We need to teach our kids what democracy looks like, and there's no better example of democracy in action than violent vandalism and arson. We hope this new playset will serve as an inspiration for parents wanting to teach their kids how to threaten citizens with violence whenever their demands are not met."

The set will also come with toy televisions, cell phones, jewelry, and clothing, allowing kids to simulate looting before they torch the entire set. The set will be available in stores for $399 because of capitalism.

Experts are questioning the wisdom of this move by Fisher-Price, mainly because people in the target market don't typically have any kids. "We know we'll probably only sell, like, 3 of these," said Flufferton, "but selling them isn't the point. We just need you to know we're on the right side of history."

The People rejected the Democrats in 2014, when the
Democrats lost the Senate Majority. Remember "Elections have consequences" Obama said that. The consequence of losing the Senate is that you lose the opportunity to confirm SCOTUS nominations. These rules were designed to put a check on power. If Democrats had both the Senate and the Executive branch trust and believe they would have confirmed and Left Wing nut to the Supreme Court.
Obviously politicians can't outright say that because it's off-putting but that's politics.

Merick Garland wasn't a left wing nut, he was rather a centrist/moderate. He just wasn't very pro-gun.

When Obama picked a nominee congress had a job to do. They should have held their hearings and voted him down if they really didn't want him. But no, they made up a BS argument to justify stalling. That's the type of big government bureaucracy and abuse I dislike no matter which side does it. They are elected to do a job and they refused to. This is the same type of abuse when out local legislature is hearing a gun law and blocks in person testimony. Can they do it? Yes. Is it legal? Yes, but it is officials delinquent in their jobs.

Why hold a vote to only down vote the nominee? What a waste of tax dollars that would be. No opposing party has ever voted for an opposing presidents nominee since 1880. There’s nothing dirty about that nor is it hypocrisy on any party it’s just politics. Like Obama so smugly said “elections have consequences.”

Why let us submit testimony on new firearms laws if they are just going to block in person testimony and vote without regard to what the written testimony was? Are we wrong to complain when our legislature does that to us?

Why do it though? Because it is their job and because instead of just being honest about it they made us a BS argument that is now coming back to haunt them. If they were not going to hold any hearings then simply say they want to postpone the hearing until after the election in case a republican gets elected.

Why let us submit testimony on new firearms laws if they are just going to block in person testimony and vote without regard to what the written testimony was? Are we wrong to complain when our legislature does that to us?

Why do it though? Because it is their job and because instead of just being honest about it they made us a BS argument that is now coming back to haunt them. If they were not going to hold any hearings then simply say they want to postpone the hearing until after the election in case a republican gets elected.

Your analogy is an apples to orange comparison. However I do agree that they should’ve just said they were stalling.

Conservative America should not be beholden to Mitch’s games. Like you said the republican senate had a job to do in 2016, and they have a job to do now.

Merick Garland wasn't a left wing nut, he was rather a centrist/moderate. He just wasn't very pro-gun.

When Obama picked a nominee congress had a job to do. They should have held their hearings and voted him down if they really didn't want him. But no, they made up a BS argument to justify stalling. That's the type of big government bureaucracy and abuse I dislike no matter which side does it. They are elected to do a job and they refused to. This is the same type of abuse when out local legislature is hearing a gun law and blocks in person testimony. Can they do it? Yes. Is it legal? Yes, but it is officials delinquent in their jobs.

Bullshit. 

Congress (or more accurately, the Senate) did their job.  The Senate's job is to act as a check on the actions of the Executive branch and the house.  The GOP gained a majority in the Senate 2 years after Obama was elected and immediately after the ACA was CRAMED DOWN THE NATION'S THROAT without a single Republican voting "yes".

The Senate has INCREASED that majority every 2 years since.

Since the Senate is a stop-gap between the desires of the President and the desires of the people, it's logical to assume that if the Senate was wrong by not confirming Garland, and again wrong for confirming Kavanaugh in a midterm election year, the Senate would have a Democrat majority by now.

People put too much stock in who sits in the Oval Office and forgets that the Senate exists to keep the President from taking us down a radical road with the brakes off.

So, long story short, who runs the Senate says much more about how the majority of voters want the government to be run than the man (and party) elected President.

I guarantee you the Democrats would have no qualms about nominating an RBG replacement tomorrow if Hidabeast was in office.

"Elections have consequences."  -- Pres. Obama

The arguments from the Democrats are purely procedural.  The justifications of the Republicans are idealogical.  The decisions made the next few months will guide the nation's actions for decades.  That's what the Democrats are terrified of, not "precedent", "rules" or "accusations of hypocrisy."

The Democrats are all hypocrites, especially Biden.

Joe Biden is accused of hypocrisy after a 2016 op-ed emerged in which he slammed Republicans for holding up a
Supreme Court appointment, stating that it is the 'constitutional duty' of a president to nominate if a vacancy becomes
available. 

He made the comments in a March 2016 op-ed with the New York Times, in which he added that he was 'surprised
and saddened' to hear Republican senators say they would not longer accept a nomination because it was an election
year. 

His words resurfaced this week after he blasted President Donald Trump for moving to nominate a candidate to fill the
vacancy left by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday.

Biden claimed that the nomination should wait until after the election in 44 days.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8752197/Joe-Biden-said-2016-presidents-constitutional-duty-SCOTUS-seat.html

Dems -- always wanting to change the rules because they lost.  Biden said in 2016 FILL THAT SCOTUS SEAT NOW -- IT'S YoUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY!!  This week he's saying DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT DOING THAT BEFORE THE ELECTION!!

These are the same people wanting to tear down the Electoral College because they lost in 2016, and will probably lose again in 2020. 

If the Senate fails to take advantage of the vacancy now, Republican voters will absolutely punish them.  I think they know that.

Your analogy is an apples to orange comparison. However I do agree that they should’ve just said they were stalling.

Conservative America should not be beholden to Mitch’s games. Like you said the republican senate had a job to do in 2016, and they have a job to do now.

The same people crying that Garland deserved a confirmation hearing and vote are now OUTRAGED that we are going to try and hold a confirmation hearing and vote.

No principles involved in their screeches.  Just sour grapes. 

Remember when Harry Reid changed Senate rules on cloture to get 3 (that's THREE) of Obama's nominees confirmed to appellate courts?  McConnell warned him that setting such a precedent was a bad idea, and that the Democrats would one day wish they'd never gone down that road.

They are now having to sleep in the bed they made for themselves.

I have no sympathy for them.  These crumbs tried to impeach a President IN AN ELECTION YEAR and WITH NO ACTUAL CRIMES ALLEGED. 

So far, everything the Dems have done the last 12 years have backfired on them. 

Breaks my heart.....     

I read this morning that McConnell is saying he has the votes to pass a nominee. I say FILL THE SEAT!!!

The two women that Trump says he is considering look to be good candidates. I just despise identity politics and watching Trump pick from only 2 women smacks of this.

RBG was a SCOTUS justice. She was supposed to be devoid of political views and actions. Even tho the left would constantly hold her up as a political tool. She did nothing to stop this. I read (I cannot verify the validity of the following) that she had not been performing her justice duties since May. And that she had known all along that she was dying. So the fact that she did not resign in May and allow the process to take its course just shows she had such hatred towards Trump that she couldn’t allow herself to do the right thing. This is backed up by the statement her daughter made as RGB’s dying wish. If that isn’t being a political hack I don’t know what is.

Mitt Romney declared he will support a vote before the election.  That gave Mitch the votes he needed. 

Mitt Romney declared he will support a vote before the election.  That gave Mitch the votes he needed.

Good.  I hope they go about and get it done.

I'm not the sharpest knife in the cupboard but what happened in 2016 is not the same as to what is happening now.  Even I can understand that.

The Democrats would be doing the exact same thing if they held the senate majority and the president was a democrat.

Get it done and God Bless America.

So the fact that she did not resign in May and allow the process to take its course just shows she had such hatred towards Trump that she couldn’t allow herself to do the right thing. This is backed up by the statement her daughter made as RGB’s dying wish. If that isn’t being a political hack I don’t know what is.

The shocking displays of hatred toward her by liberals for not retiring during the Øbowel regime and then dying during Trump were testament that she was just a political tool.

Copied from some Twit post I believe:


"fµck you Ruth Bader Ginsburg"

fµck you for not retiring under Obama

fµck you for dying under Trump

fµck you

fµck you

fµck you"

Such empathy, that they always claim conservatives are devoid of.