Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed away

[FLVOL_79]

Republicans will lose senate and the presidency if they do. And Dems will eliminate filibuster and pack the courts.

Trumps re election doesn't matter if they get a third Supreme Court pick..that's been the plan for several years now anyways. Dims about to be set back decades. ENJOY!

 

[FLVOL_79]

Given that McConnell blocked Obama's nominee in MARCH of 2016 since it was an election year, the precedent was established then. Given that we're in SEPTEMBER of an election year, precedent - established by McConnell himself - is for the Senate to not hold confirmation hearings so close to an election.

McConnell MARCH, 2016:

"It seems clear President Obama made this nomination not, not with the intent of seeing the nominee confirmed, but in order to politicize it for purposes of the election," McConnell said.

"I believe the overwhelming view of the Republican Conference in the Senate is that this nomination should not be filled, this vacancy should not be filled by this lame duck president," McConnell said.

"The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let's give them a voice. Let's let the American people decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be," McConnell said.

# # #

If Trump and McConnell try to ramrod a SCOTUS appointment, they're setting our country up for riots of historic magnitude.

"Elections have consequences" - Barack Hussein Obama.

 

[Ten_Titans]

It’s amusing to watch you two talk about what SHOULD and SHOULD NOT be done by the party you e spend 4 years running down and trashing .

That has been the Democrat strategy for 20 years at this point. The same man who bemoans Trump for his rhetoric accused the most boring milktoast candidate of all time of wanting to put black people back in chains.

Whatever you want to say about Trump, the reason he won... The only reason he won, is he decided to stop being the Washington Generals to whatever the liberal politicians and media were doing. For all the idiotic crap he says, that is reason number 1 he catches so much ****. He won't just complain a little bit and then go away like McCain and Romney. That attitude has to continue after he's gone.

So anyway, who cares what the Dems say. It isn't like they play by the same rules. They are going to get rid of the filibuster 5 seconds after they get the senate back. Anything they say about respect for the other side or the system at large is just a lie.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Trumps re election doesn't matter if they get a third Supreme Court pick..that's been the plan for several years now anyways. Dims about to be set back decades. ENJOY!

If Democrats also take back the Senate, there is the possibility that they will pack the Supreme Court.

Google "How Democrats Could Pack the Supreme Court in 2021". You will see several articles which explain this option very well, but there is one in particular from Politico that you should read. This is possible.

 

[BreatheUT]

Lol. I used to make lots of money bartending when I was a bar manager, I know where " eye contact " levels.

Fyi...I have nothing against bartenders. Just wanna be bartenders with faux economics expertise and no historical knowledge besides a few talking points and a learn as you go apprentice serving as a congressperson but the progressives have a bunch of unqualified people in the house with only SJW experience.

 

[BowlBrother85]

I'll have to say that political leanings aside, I'd rather look at (and probably listen) to Gideon. At least with her, it won't take long to figure out for sure that she will toe the party line. Collins has been like a snake in the grass - never to be trusted.

I would rather listen to the greatest hits of Barbara Streisand than listen to Susan Collins talk. She sounds like she is doing a Katherine Hepburn impression... while drunk out of her mind.

 

[37L1]

I would rather listen to the greatest hits of Barbara Streisand than listen to Susan Collins talk. She sounds like she is doing a Katherine Hepburn impression... while drunk out of her mind.

You sure you aren't confused and you're listening to Nancy Pelosi?

 

[Electric Orange]

 

[MontyPython]

And then when the GOP takes control they do the same thing. Then in 25 years, as it ping pongs from one party to the other, we can have 80 Supreme Court justices. Awesome! Great plan.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. The socially liberal majority here in the US won't stand for a 6-3 SCOTUS that would flip stuff like Roe v. Wade.

Look, if Graham and McConnell were honorable, honest people who lived by their words, we wouldn't have any issue here whatsoever because there would be no nomination process.

But, in the grand scheme, this situation could really energize the majority to throw jerks like Trump and Graham out of office.

 

[headhunter15]

AOC is a true idiot.

 

[FLVOL_79]

If Democrats also take back the Senate, there is the possibility that they will pack the Supreme Court.

Google "How Democrats Could Pack the Supreme Court in 2021". You will see several articles which explain this option very well, but there is one in particular from Politico that you should read. This is possible.

Its possible, but won't happen. Zero worries about that. Yall should have focused on curing pancreatic cancer..

 

[FLVOL_79]

Desperate times call for desperate measures. The socially liberal majority here in the US won't stand for a 6-3 SCOTUS that would flip stuff like Roe v. Wade.

Look, if Graham and McConnell were honorable, honest people who lived by their words, we wouldn't have any issue here whatsoever because there would be no nomination process.

But, in the grand scheme, this situation could really energize the majority to throw jerks like Trump and Graham out of office.

Lol..roe vs wade isn't getting flipped. Jesus..yall scared AF over nothing...


Well..not nothing, but you can still get your abortions..trust me..all part of the plan.

 

[bnhunt]

It has a lot to do with hypocrisy. The fact that Garland didn't get a vote is not lost on anyone. Read what Susan Collins wrote... she even alludes to "fairly and consistently". She is talking about the hypocrisy of Senate Republicans and their handling of Merrick Garland's nomination.

It is absolute hypocrisy. Are the reds on here trying to spin it otherwise or just owning it since it's their orange-haired hero doing it?

 

[VolunteerHillbilly]

Desperate times call for desperate measures. The socially liberal majority here in the US won't stand for a 6-3 SCOTUS that would flip stuff like Roe v. Wade.

Look, if Graham and McConnell were honorable, honest people who lived by their words, we wouldn't have any issue here whatsoever because there would be no nomination process.

But, in the grand scheme, this situation could really energize the majority to throw jerks like Trump and Graham out of office.

I doubt any court is going to overturn Roe, or even Obergfell. The biggest changes would probably center around the commerce clause (what can Congress regulate) and delegation (what types of regulations can government agencies adopt and enforce without a specific corresponding law having been passed by the legislative branch). Probably the only progressive cause that would be dead on arrival is reinterpreting the 2A.

 

[bnhunt]

This has absolutely nothing to do with him appointing another SCOTUS , so now tell me why he shouldn’t ?

What every Republican senator has said about filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year
"McConnell acted differently in 2016. Justice Antonin Scalia died more than eight months before that year's presidential election and McConnell said the Senate should not vote on President Barack Obama's nominee because voters should be given a say by way of choosing the next president."

 

[VolunteerHillbilly]

It is absolute hypocrisy. Are the reds on here trying to spin it otherwise or just owning it since it's their orange-haired hero doing it?

It's hard ball politics. RBG should've resigned in 2015. Her own people begged her to do it and she refused. Thank you RBG.

 

[bnhunt]

AOC is a true idiot.

Except for 2016, right?

 

[Rickyvol77]

What every Republican senator has said about filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year
"McConnell acted differently in 2016. Justice Antonin Scalia died more than eight months before that year's presidential election and McConnell said the Senate should not vote on President Barack Obama's nominee because voters should be given a say by way of choosing the next president."

Might want to check what Schumer, RBG, and a whole slew of Dems said then too

 

[VolunteerHillbilly]

What every Republican senator has said about filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year
"McConnell acted differently in 2016. Justice Antonin Scalia died more than eight months before that year's presidential election and McConnell said the Senate should not vote on President Barack Obama's nominee because voters should be given a say by way of choosing the next president."

Guess you won't be voting for Biden?

"I know there is an argument that no nominee should be voted on in the last year of a presidency. But there is nothing in the Constitution — or our history — to support this view," Biden wrote in March 2016, demanding Senate Republicans review Garland's nomination.

Newsweek

 

[newyorkvol]

Except for 2016, right?

Agree with waiting like 2016, but not because of the AOC video reason that it was RBG “dying wish.” That was what Fleischer was referring to...that RBG’s dying wish doesn’t really matter constitutionally.

 

[VolunteerHillbilly]

Agree with waiting like 2016, but not because of the AOC video reason that it was RBG “dying wish.” That was what Fleischer was referring to...that RBG’s dying wish doesn’t really matter constitutionally.

if she cared that much, she would've resigned when her party was in control of nominations and confirmations. she gambled that she could live into next year and that the election will produce different balance of power.

 

[newyorkvol]

February 24, 2016: The American Constitution Society organized a lettersigned by 33 constitutional law scholars urging "the President to nominate as soon as reasonably possible an individual to fill the vacancy existing on the Court and the Senate to hold hearings and vote on the nominee."

March 25, 2016: President Obama authored an editorial in The Baltimore Sunin which he said,[136]
“
I understand that we're in the midst of an especially volatile political season. But at a time when our politics are so polarized, we should treat a process of this magnitude — the appointment of a Supreme Court justice — with the seriousness it deserves.
I've done my constitutional duty. Now it's up to each senator to fulfill his or hers. All I'm asking is simply for the Senate to act fairly. To act with the level-headedness and foresight required in our exercise in self-government. And to give Judge Garland — by all accounts an outstanding individual, someone with more experience on the federal bench than any Supreme Court nominee in history — the respect he has earned. Give him a hearing. Give him a vote.
To deny it would indicate a process for nominating and confirming judges that is beyond repair. It would make it increasingly impossible for any president, Republican or Democrat, to carry out his or her constitutional function. To go down that path would jeopardize our system of justice, hurt our democracy and betray the vision of our founding. [26]

 

[37L1]

February 24, 2016: The American Constitution Society organized a lettersigned by 33 constitutional law scholars urging "the President to nominate as soon as reasonably possible an individual to fill the vacancy existing on the Court and the Senate to hold hearings and vote on the nominee."

March 25, 2016: President Obama authored an editorial in The Baltimore Sunin which he said,[136]
“
I understand that we're in the midst of an especially volatile political season. But at a time when our politics are so polarized, we should treat a process of this magnitude — the appointment of a Supreme Court justice — with the seriousness it deserves.
I've done my constitutional duty. Now it's up to each senator to fulfill his or hers. All I'm asking is simply for the Senate to act fairly. To act with the level-headedness and foresight required in our exercise in self-government. And to give Judge Garland — by all accounts an outstanding individual, someone with more experience on the federal bench than any Supreme Court nominee in history — the respect he has earned. Give him a hearing. Give him a vote.
To deny it would indicate a process for nominating and confirming judges that is beyond repair. It would make it increasingly impossible for any president, Republican or Democrat, to carry out his or her constitutional function. To go down that path would jeopardize our system of justice, hurt our democracy and betray the vision of our founding. [26]

But that's different.

 

[newyorkvol]

if she cared that much, she would've resigned when her party was in control of nominations and confirmations. she gambled that she could live into next year and that the election will produce different balance of power.

I think she, like many others, never envisioned a HRC loss.

 

[USAFgolferVol]

This has absolutely nothing to do with him appointing another SCOTUS , so now tell me why he shouldn’t ?

He can appoint one, but there's no way the Senate should hold confirmation hearings before the election