RIP RBG.

Trump will nominate within days/hours
McConnell has until the election to confirm
maybe longer if they hold Senate

SC gonna be a 6-3 Con majority
can't see a way for Dems to stop it

time to buy shares in a coat hanger Co

RIP RBG
a life of service
well done
 
J_F said:
Trump will nominate within days/hours
McConnell has until the election to confirm
maybe longer if they hold Senate

SC gonna be a 6-3 Con majority
can't see a way for Dems to stop it

time to buy shares in a coat hanger Co

RIP RBG
a life of service
well done
Click to expand...
Hypocrisy abounds.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: J_F
J_F said:
Trump will nominate within days/hours
McConnell has until the election to confirm
maybe longer if they hold Senate

SC gonna be a 6-3 Con majority
can't see a way for Dems to stop it

time to buy shares in a coat hanger Co

RIP RBG
a life of service
well done
Click to expand...

they may not be able to stop it, but if they get Trump turfed there’s a chance to add 4 justices to the court.
 
jc100 said:
It’s **** show time.

Hopefully the Dems will pull a Merrick Garland since that now is accepted behaviour.
Click to expand...
Again I see the need for a civics lesson, here it goes:

There is no conceivable way to stop the Republicans from appointing a replacement. The President nominates a Supreme Court Judge, the Senate Judiciary committee holds hearings and interviews then forwards a thumbs up or thumbs down recommendation to the Senate. A majority vote in the Senate confirms or rejects the nomination. If confirmed, the Pres may appoint the judge - for life.

Dems do not have a "Merrick Garland" type opportunity, as they do not control the Senate. The only hope they have is for 3 or more Republican Senators to vote against party lines -- not gonna happen on this type of vote, there's no way a Republican is risking the appointment of a Dem Judge.
By the way, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president's Supreme Court nominee in an election year in the last 140 years - Merrick Garland is recent, not unique.
 
While I respect Ginsberg's tenacity she should have retired when Obama could have hopefully plugged in a replacement. Not that the senate would accept the nomination. I wonder who Putin will nominate.
 
Mad Mike said:
Again I see the need for a civics lesson, here it goes:

There is no conceivable way to stop the Republicans from appointing a replacement. The President nominates a Supreme Court Judge, the Senate Judiciary committee holds hearings and interviews then forwards a thumbs up or thumbs down recommendation to the Senate. A majority vote in the Senate confirms or rejects the nomination. If confirmed, the Pres may appoint the judge - for life.

Dems do not have a "Merrick Garland" type opportunity, as they do not control the Senate. The only hope they have is for 3 or more Republican Senators to vote against party lines -- not gonna happen on this type of vote, there's no way a Republican is risking the appointment of a Dem Judge.
By the way, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president's Supreme Court nominee in an election year in the last 140 years - Merrick Garland is recent, not unique.
Click to expand...

As long as Trump is in charge there are no rules that won't get broken. Don't expect any of them to be broken in favour of Biden, the Democrats or American public.

Did Trump mumble something about picking Cruz?
 
nobbie48 said:
As long as Trump is in charge there are no rules that won't get broken. Don't expect any of them to be broken in favour of Biden, the Democrats or American public.

Did Trump mumble something about picking Cruz?
Click to expand...

There is no rules being broken. The senate is Republican majority. Also if he Nominates a sitting senator the senate does not need to hold hearings/interviews, it goes straight to a vote on the floor. So technically, he could nominate Cruz on monday and the senate could vote on tuesday and its a done deal with ZERO laws broken before RBGs funeral. Cruz has stated in the past that he has no desire for the scotus position but hey a politician is a politician. I doubt Trump will go this route though, he has plenty of time to nominate and have a scotus appointed before the election.



nobbie48 said:
While I respect Ginsberg's tenacity she should have retired when Obama could have hopefully plugged in a replacement. Not that the senate would accept the nomination. I wonder who Putin will nominate.
Click to expand...

She was holding out, wanting to be replaced by the first female president Hillary. When that didnt happen the poor lady suffered and held out as long as she could. But your right, she should have retired during Obamas terms.
 
[QUOTE="DownUnder, post: 2702133, member: 28043"



She was holding out, wanting to be replaced by the first female president Hillary. When that didnt happen the poor lady suffered and held out as long as she could. But your right, she should have retired during Obamas terms.
[/QUOTE]
She wanted to outlast Trump and almost made it. Pancreatic cancer, especially with the old is hard to beat. I lost my mother to it, about four months from diagnosis to final goodbye.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom