agreed, sky1981. if biden pisses on a fire hydrant i will vote for him. thats the eboue guarantee and you can take it to the bank.
RBG passes away | Trump to nominate replacement soon
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
God bless her, may she rest in peace. She tried to continue working for so long, even when she was ill.
Don't Senate terms end on January 3rd?
What absolute shit news to wake up to.
Trump and McConnell will 100% get their pick through and it will be a disaster.
Trump and McConnell will 100% get their pick through and it will be a disaster.
Hahahaha
Almost, Raoul.
Ah man the US is even more fecked now. RIP.
You cant vote though, owing to your past and the fact you're Irish.
ill commit fraud for sleepy joe
The Dems are too cowardly to pack the court.
Sad but even sadder that it was so close to the election. Still, she should have bowed out when Obama had a chance to replace her with someone to his liking. The repubs don’t care that they fcuked Garland and Obama. They’re going full tilt now.
They definitely used to be, but circumstances must surely have changed now? I mean, If they still aren't willing to use every trick in the book now despite all the ratfeckery from the GOP the US almost deserves to cease to exist as a country.
Hilarious "democratic" system that in the year 2020 still appoints people for life.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Has Died! Huge Ramifications Explained!
RIP.
They'll 100% push an appointment through before the election which will be the fastest appointment since Ruth Bader Ginsburg (42 days).
We'll be seeing a lot of this over the next coming days:
They'll push it through with no issues at all.
They'll 100% push an appointment through before the election which will be the fastest appointment since Ruth Bader Ginsburg (42 days).
We'll be seeing a lot of this over the next coming days:
They'll push it through with no issues at all.
Rest in peace.
Democrats and "liberal" judges need to learn from this. She should have stepped down and been replaced under Obama (I'm sure that conversation has been had in this thread without reading all the posts) to secure her legacy, now everything is up for grabs.
Democrats and "liberal" judges need to learn from this. She should have stepped down and been replaced under Obama (I'm sure that conversation has been had in this thread without reading all the posts) to secure her legacy, now everything is up for grabs.
Kinda sums up the situation that that was a 96-3 vote, and this could be a VP tiebreaker in the lame duck. Not a healthy democracy.RIP.
They'll 100% push an appointment through before the election which will be the fastest appointment since Ruth Bader Ginsburg (42 days).
We'll be seeing a lot of this over the next coming days:
They'll push it through with no issues at all.
No one is even pretending that this doesn't get filled by Trump. I bet it gets filled next week if it is legally possible. Giving Trump the win he needs during such negative news.
It will be hard for Trump to successfully fill it imo. There are a slew of Republican Senators who have already said they prefer waiting until after the inauguration and Mark Kelly could be sworn in as early as 30 November, which would deprive them of yet another vote.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
They always cave. They voted in Kavanaugh who quite likely was a rapist. Just think about that for a second. They didn't even bother with an investigation. We are talking about people with no conscious or morals.
Sorry to hear that RBG has passed, I wished she had retired a year or so ago and gone on to enjoy her retirement for a decade at least. However, I won't pretend that I am not happy to have the opportunity to put another Conservative on the Supreme Court.
Ultimately, its about political expediency and retaining power. If more than 3 Republicans don't want to do it (there are currently more than 3) then it likely won't happen. If the public kick up enough of a fuss and Trump sees it as hurting more than helping his reelection, he may also have second thoughts. If Republicans sense that forcing this through would result in a Dem President and Congress and 4 new supreme court justice jobs created by the Dems, then they may also think twice.
On the other hand, getting a 'good' conservative on the SC might influence the US more in the long term than getting a Senate majority next term, or even a Republican president. The Republicans might choose to play the long game: push through the nomination they really want, take the loss in November, and then be back with a vengeance next time they are in power. And in the meantime, the SC will already be hearing cases with its conservative majority - which will also help prevent the kind of electoral measures that'd help the Democrats.
It’s definitely gonna happen now
It’s definitely gonna happen now
My track record of the opposite happening is impeccable.The long game would be to retain the Senate imo, since that would be the only check on a Dem President's ability to ram his agenda through - then attempt to win back the house during the mid terms and the WH in 2024.
The short game would be ramming a SCOTUS nominee through at the last second, then losing the Presidency and Senate and having the Dems create 4 new SCOTUS positions (moving the total from 9 to 13) and making them all Dem friendly. That would ostensibly change the courts for a lifetime and risk all the policies Republicans care about from the Supreme Court (Abortion, Campaign Finance, Corporate Friendly policies) from advancing forever.
But what's the guarantee that the Dems will do that? It would be very divisive and that really sounds nothing like Biden to me.
But yes, that'd be hard to counter any time soon; you'd need a majority in both chambers and the presidency to get it done, right?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
That is the ultimate dream.
Or until don junior wins in 2024 and makes 1000 qanon supporters justices (think judge dread with added crazy)
Depends on who you ask. It is still an undemocratic institution that routinely screws over minorities and is also an obstacle to serious criminal justice reform.
Last edited:
The number of justices was originally tied to the number of circuit courts. Granted, the justices are no longer assigned to circuit courts (as they no longer exist) and the function of the circuits are different, but there are 13 circuits today. Surely, it would make sense for the number of justices to changed to reflect that?
Then again, the abolition of the circuit courts and the changes to the circuits also mean that the reasoning behind limiting it to nine justices is no longer relevant, and there's really no reasons for the Dems not to stack the Supreme Court. As further justification they can point out that two thirds of the SC being conservative is a poor reflection of the US as a whole, and that changes clearly need to be made.
Ideally, the changes would be to depoliticize the entirety of the American judiciary system, but that's never going to happen.
So I see that Trump, without delay, has pushed for the nomination to go ahead, piece of shit.
Am I right that 3 GOB senators have come out saying they’ll block it? Any thoughts as to the likelihood of a 4th coming out and joining this position?
Am I right that 3 GOB senators have come out saying they’ll block it? Any thoughts as to the likelihood of a 4th coming out and joining this position?
Are you quoting someone here?
No just my opinion.
It's sad for Ginsburg and what she stood for that her death is now all about the politics of nominations. It would have been all about her had she died next year.
To confirm this: I don't think you can blame the Republicans in particular for moving to have the seat filled. Yes, the hypocrisy is real, but the Democrats probably would have done exactly the same had the positions been reversed in 2016 and now. That's just the current state of US politics. Blame both sides for creating this climate, and the constitution for its politicization of US justice.
To confirm this: I don't think you can blame the Republicans in particular for moving to have the seat filled. Yes, the hypocrisy is real, but the Democrats probably would have done exactly the same had the positions been reversed in 2016 and now. That's just the current state of US politics. Blame both sides for creating this climate, and the constitution for its politicization of US justice.
The idea of a bunch of old white men deciding what a woman should or should not do with her own body is absolutely repugnant.
@berbatrick who is the more ruthless politician, Shah or McConnell ?
Of course the Democrats would fill the seat. There has been 29 Supreme Court vacancies in either an election year or the time between Election Day and Inauguration and the sitting President has nominated someone to fill the seat every time. 22 of 44 Presidents have had to make that decision and they all have tried to fill the seat.
As any challenge would go through the supreme Court and we don't know as yet who replaces rbg, however, im still pretty sure that Clarance Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor & Eleana kagan are not old white men
- Status