Ginsburg

Oh, and his official nicknames are Cocaine Mitch, or just from the past few days, the Apex Predator. Forget the Iron Throne made of old swords, Mitch sits on a throne made from the skulls of his political enemies.

 

Bill went on Arsenio with his sax. He was just so cool and dreamy.

 

"The Congress will push me to raise taxes and I'll say, how high do you want them!"

That, plus banning firearm importation by Executive order, and putting Souter on the SC, left less than than a full belly of fire in us conservatives in 92.

If I went to sleep in 88 like Rip Van Winkle and woke up in 92 to see that the President raised taxes, banned guns, and put a leftist on the Supreme Court, I'd have thought Dukakis rode the tank right into the Oval Office.

 

Incoming! Need immediate CBAH (Counter Battery Anti-Harpy) fire!

 

Quick rhetorical question. What does the constitution say? That should be the answer on both sides.

 

The constitution says the President nominates a person for a court seat, with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Doesn't say anything about timing, or rules for if a nominee is voted on or not.

 

Who has the votes is the better question.

 

Like the song. Sorry the Dude was gender neutral.

 

I don’t get the turncoats because if their seat is in jeopardy I do not believe how they support the SCOTUS nomination will make a bit of difference in their race. Maybe for some they really do believe it’s wrong but I struggle with that, after all they’re politicians and their lips are moving.

 

The misspelling of Ginsburg gets under my skin every time I see this thread

/pedantry

 

Trump Fires Off Giant Pink Glitter Cannon To Reveal Gender Of SCOTUS Nominee

 

He mostly took them from Bush and it's accurate to say Bush would have won but for Perot. There was bad blood between those two camps.

And just think of how different the world and US would be if not for Bill Clinton? Probably no 9/11, and all that followed. Thanks H. Ross.

 

You would make for a horrible liberal Supreme Court Justice

 

Many things get under your skin.

 

I think that it's complicated who it helps. I think it helps Trump, because of how the Democrats will react and treat the nominee. What really costs Democrats blue collar votes in the upper Midwest (and previously the South)? It was being unable to contain the God-hatred and in the urge to ridicule Christians. As the party has become more and more associated with and beholden to smug, urban secularists, they've had a really hard time restraining themselves.

If the nominee is Barrett or Lagoa, they will disrespect them in the confirmation hearings for being devout Catholics. (Diane Feinstein already did that to Barrett in her previous confirmation hearing.) They can't make much of a sexual harassment or assault claim stick like they tried with Kavanaugh, because Barrett and Lagoa are women (and people just don't buy chick-on-dude sexual harassment claims anywhere near as readily for patently obvious reasons), so dismissing them as dumb, religious zealots will be the only tool in their shed. I think it's also noteworthy who's on the Judiciary Committee. For the most part, it isn't social moderates who are good at showing restraint when it comes to God-bashing. It's hardcore social liberals who are vitriolic about it. They'll still complain about the process, but they've been hypocritical on that too, so that's of limited value. So their anti-Christian bigotry will be on full display. That's not what Joe Biden wants to see in his party when he's trying to attract a bunch of Catholic, blue collar voters in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania. So yes, I think it helps Trump.

Could it help the Republican Senate candidates? I think that's a mixed bag and depends on the specific races, and like I said previously, who knows what candidates in tight races will do? It's a high-risk move for everybody.

Maine is blue and pretty secular, so the anti-Christian bigotry won't bother a lot of their voters who weren't already in the GOP camp. It only elected Sue Collins because she was willing to break with the GOP on social issues pretty regularly, so they distinguished between her and the national party. Fewer and fewer voters are willing to do that, and she has probably reached the end of the line either way. This only aggravates that problem. I think the same is true for Cory Gardner in Colorado. They pretty much have to vote No, unless they already accept defeat.

I think it could help Thom Tillis and Joni Ernst. North Carolina is pretty religious, and Iowa has quite a few Catholics. I also think Gary Peters in Michigan needs to tread carefully. I think Martha McSally is a wildcard. There has obviously been a rise of secular suburbanites who got tired of being unemployed in Los Angeles living in Arizona, which is a big reason why the state has trended blue in recent years, but there is also a substantial Hispanic Catholic population. What will they think of a bunch of agnostic leftists crapping on someone for sharing their faith, especially if Lagoa (who's not only Catholic but Hispanic) is the pick? The point is that there is opportunity here.

 

Mini-things
-- pettifogger

 

Trump with all due respect --

"And we want to pay respect. We, it looks like, it looks like we will have, probably, services on Thursday or Friday, as I understand it. I think, in all due respect, we should wait until the services are over for Justice Ginsburg. And so we’re looking probably at Friday or maybe Saturday"​

 

So rude, boorish, and un-presidential!

 

I suspect the media will paint it as a delay tactic ti get the confirmation hearings to end closer to the election instead of saying it is respectful.

 

Maybe Graham knew what he was talking about

Mitt Romney formally says he will support moving forward on SCOTUS nominee this year.

 

Anything for some media whoring attention. I'll believe he'll vote yes when I see it.

 

He did not commit to that. Just that he will show up
But even just this this is more than I expected from him
I guess Mitch and Lindsey have already been on him hard

 

I get it, thus the attention seeking part. Ooooo, I'll be there. Everyone keep your eyes on me! *******.

 

More Mitt --

"I think there's some perception on the part of some writers and others that gee, what happened with Merrick Garland was unfair. I don't agree with that."​

 

I know the Republicans look like real hypocrites on this new SCOTUS nomination. I'd be inclined to wait until the election is decided (sometime in Dec; ha...) to allow the next President to make the choice. BUT, the Democrats would have to agree IN WRITING that they will waive all debate and interrogation and go straight to a floor vote.

If not, then carry on with it now...

 

Is there anyone you can call who can fix that?

 

Not sure why they look like hypocrites. Trump is up for reelection. Obama was lame duck. Big difference, and my understanding is the precedent has been that lame duck nominees are put off until after the election.

 

I posted a good article above with the complete history
Supreme Court & Republicans -- History Is on the Side of Republicans Filling a Vacancy in 2020 | National Review

History supports Republicans filling the seat. Doing so would not be in any way inconsistent with Senate Republicans’ holding open the seat vacated by Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016. The reason is simple, and was explained by Mitch McConnell at the time. Historically, throughout American history, when their party controls the Senate, presidents get to fill Supreme Court vacancies at any time — even in a presidential election year, even in a lame-duck session after the election, even after defeat. Historically, when the opposite party controls the Senate, the Senate gets to block Supreme Court nominees sent up in a presidential election year, and hold the seat open for the winner. Both of those precedents are settled by experience as old as the republic. Republicans should not create a brand-new precedent to deviate from them.​

 

Or my enforcement of the rules got under yours.