RIP

[Jacuzzme]

[00 gauge]

No the Republicans have a majority in the Senate, Trump should find someone who will totally piss the liberals off, (especially Pelosi) and ram the nomination through ..... so Trump should find a mean son of a bitch with tons of arrogance - you know, maybe someone who believes "white lives matter", because now it's payback time for the impeachment hearings .....

[Grace Preston]

Originally Posted by 00 gauge

No the Republicans have a majority in the Senate, Trump should find someone who will totally piss the liberals off, (especially Pelosi) and ram the nomination through ..... so Trump should find a mean son of a bitch with tons of arrogance - you know, maybe someone who believes "white lives matter", because now it's payback time for the impeachment hearings .....

Ooh-- I agree-- someone that appears completely illogical. That should help the push to flip the Senate.



You do realize, of course, that there are more R seats that are already considered "at risk".. than D seats, right? That's going to play into all this as well. If Trump (and the Senate) is smart.. they're going to push someone who wouldn't garner too much flack overall-- while still being conservative. They aren't going to go for the hard core nutjob.

[Grace Preston]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Amy Coney Barrett.

And... it would continue a trend.


Every current Justice.... is either Jewish or Roman Catholic (one now identifies as Episcopalian but was raised Catholic-- and Epis... is essentially "Catholic Lite")


Overall-- I wouldn't necessarily mind this one.

[the_real_Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

we'll have to at this point. too short of a time frame to get a nominee confirmed and let's face it the Democrats will hold it up on purpose. this is a plus to vote for Trump same as it was in 2016 when voters distrusted Clinton to fill vacancies. given the far leftists now controlling Biden, voters again will consider voting for Biden as risking a far left radical being appointed.

I disagree and history is on my side. All these number of day are averages. Some took much longer and some were much shorter. Many of the early judges (but not the first) only took a day or two to be confirmed.

[the_real_Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by matchingmole

If the Senate believes TRump will win...they will take their time...if they try to rush a nominee through...they think Biden will win.

Playground philosophy from Mitt Romney?
You don't take chances. Do everything like the clock is ticking.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

I disagree and history is on my side. All these number of day are averages. Some took much longer and some were much shorter. Many of the early judges (but not the first) only took a day or two to be confirmed.

i have since changed my stance

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

and President Donald Trump should exercise his constitutional right as the sitting president to appoint a new justice to the supreme court.


the stupidest thing G Bush did was cave in to the Democrats. Trump will not.

I'm all in. Trump should double down and appoint a justice as is his Constitutional right

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

we'll have to at this point. too short of a time frame to get a nominee confirmed and let's face it the Democrats will hold it up on purpose.....

There's time. There're the votes.

A full court will be needed post-election.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

So which first? Range time or buy popcorn? Sure hope my range has a popcorn concession. With luck, The Corn Moon will smile upon us with a bountiful Corn Harvest. Oh, and have a nice day ;-)

[Jacuzzme]

You do realize, of course, that there are more R seats that are already considered "at risk".. than D seats, right? That's going to play into all this as well. If Trump (and the Senate) is smart.. they're going to push someone who wouldn't garner too much flack overall-- while still being conservative. They aren't going to go for the hard core nutjob.

On the other hand, nominating someone wishy-washy won’t drive turnout like a strong conservative would.

[Grace Preston]

Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

On the other hand, nominating someone wishy-washy won’t drive turnout like a strong conservative would.

You can find a strong conservative without choosing a nutjob. The name that has already been floated falls exactly in line.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

There's time. There're the votes.

A full court will be needed post-election.

Ted Cruz was discussing that last evening on a clip I saw.

Having been involved directly in the Supreme Court decision for Bush v. Gore, he was discussing the potential Constitutional crisis with a split court if the election is contested.

[CG2014]

She has been a living corpse for the past 10 years and she couldn't wait 6 more months to die?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CG2014

She has been a living corpse for the past 10 years and she couldn't wait 6 more months to die?

Customarily it's not our choice with one exception.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by eccielover

Ted Cruz was discussing that last evening on a clip I saw.

.... the potential Constitutional crisis with a split court if the election is contested.

There were some early discussions about the violence that a nomination would stir by the Loons who have been vandalizing, burning, and looting the past several months .... and it would be worse.

IMO that's not an argument against a nomination, hearings, and vote, but THE PERFECT ARGUMENT FOR THE PROCESS TO BE FOLLOWED.

Otherwise this country will be run by mob rule.