I don't think the Dems have any procedural way to stall or stop any SCOTUS nomination and approval now. Dingy Harry Reid killed that for them a long time ago.........(the law of unintended consequences strikes again)
This is going to be FUN to watch.
Let the liberal tears begin to flow. They are delicious.
Want to spend some non recoverable time watching the Left melt down. Go to the Friendly Atheist Block at Pathos.
...
Sounds as if Fromper ThaneOfDrones is hedging his bet on a lazy President Trump. Poor Fromper.
Was it not President Obama that sat on his hands as to a nomination? I may be incorrect here.
Fromper ThaneOfDrones • 8 hours ago
"Yup. The best we can hope for is that Trump's incompetence causes him to delay nominating a replacement long enough for Democrats to take back the Senate and block his nominee."
[This message has been edited by Tony Kania (edited 06-28-2018).]
I did not like some of the rulings he made, but at least he was some what nonpartisan. On the other hand Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sotomayor are 100% liberal incompetent POS. We would have been better off if they both left us and Kennedy stayed.
I did not like some of the rulings he made, but at least he was some what nonpartisan. On the other hand Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sotomayor are 100% liberal incompetent POS. We would have been better off if they both left us and Kennedy stayed.
"Notorious RBG" (Ginsburg), has had 2 bouts of cancer and one right coronary obstruction that required a stent. She's 85 years old.
In other words, she has one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel.....she's certainly NOT the picture of robust health.
There is a very good chance that President Trump may end up nominating, and seating, 4 new conservative Supreme Court Justices.
Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland on March 16, 2016
The Republican led Congress refused to vote on him stating that it should be up to the next President to make the nomination.
Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't that refusal a result of rule changes Harry Reed made while the Dems had control? Simple majority to get things passed they wanted... I'm thinking they have no one to blame but themselves.
Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it....
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 06-28-2018).]
Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't that refusal a result of rule changes Harry Reed made while the Dems had control? Simple majority to get things passed they wanted... I'm thinking they have no one to blame but themselves.
Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it....
Rams
I believe that "Dingy Harry" Reid changed the filibuster rules in an effort to shut out Republicans.
That was referred to as "The nuclear option", which is a parliamentary procedure that allows the United States Senate to override a rule – specifically the 60-vote rule to close debate – by a simple majority of 51 votes.
That opened the door for the new Republican led Congress to further amend the procedural rules to allow for simple majority votes on *both* cabinet appointments and Supreme Court appointments.
Trump does have the Republicans, but does he have their votes? With abortion and obama care and potentially other heart felt hot topic issues that can and will come up, I do not think anything is guaranteed. Lots of Republicans differ with Trump policies, and conservative views and could bock at such a permanent appointment. I think that obama and hillary would have jumped at a chance to offset the SCOTUS in favor of liberalism no matter how outnumbered conservatives would have been. So why should Trump or anyone else bend over to "keep a ballance"?
So... Justice Ginsberg is 85 years old. She's obviously getting near the end of her days. At what point does she decide that she's had enough, and retires and spends time with her grandkids? Half the time she's asleep.
Would be nice to see a strong Conservative take her place too... then we truly would have 6-3.
So... Justice Ginsberg is 85 years old. She's obviously getting near the end of her days. At what point does she decide that she's had enough, and retires and spends time with her grandkids? Half the time she's asleep.
Would be nice to see a strong Conservative take her place too... then we truly would have 6-3.
I'm sure that the lefties are probably surrounding her with paramedics 24/7 while furiously reviewing old tapes of "Weekend At Bernie's" and taking notes.
Originally posted by blackrams: Correct me if I am wrong .... Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it....
You are wrong Rams. Dirty Harry Reid's nuclear option did not include SCOTUS nominees. He just changed the rules a little but, and, he got what he asked for.
Yet, he didn't.
I think it still take 60 Senate votes to confirm a SCOTUS nominee. Dirty Harry Reid's actions, well, just let me say, "thank you Harry".
Good stuff,....VERY good stuff. After years of hatred towards conservatives, the liberals get to look in the mirror they have pointed at others. I hope they hate what they see. After all, it is what they have been doing.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 06-30-2018).]
You are wrong Rams. Dirty Harry Reid's nuclear option did not include SCOTUS nominees. He just changed the rules a little but, and, he got what he asked for.
Yet, he didn't.
I think it still take 60 Senate votes to confirm a SCOTUS nominee. Dirty Harry Reid's actions, well, just let me say, "thank you Harry".
Cliff,
I did not say the Dirty Harry rule change included SCOTUS. Read my post again. But, it now only takes a majority vote to confirm a SCOTUS jurist thanks to an additional change the Republicans made to Dirty Harry's "Nuclear Option".
IOWs, the Dems changed the rules to do away with the filibuster. The filibuster was the only tool the minority party had to stop the majority party from doing things they were against. Both parties used the filibuster since it's inception over the last four decades to prevent things they were vehemently against. BOTH parties! The Dems didn't like it that the Republicans were using the filibuster against them on three specific Appeals Court judges Obama was selecting so, they changed the rules. They had the votes. They were begged, advised, warned to not go there. They did it anyway. Now, they are reaping the harvest of the seeds they have sown.
Sympathy can be found in the dictionary between stuff and syrup. If they are looking for sympathy, I recommend they use a Websters.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 06-30-2018).]
Ok boys and girls. we are 7 days away from the President announcing his SCOTUS pick.
I'm going to jump out on a limb and make my prediction:
Amy Coney Barrett
Reasons:
1. She has already (recently) been nominated by President Trump to the 7th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals and was approved by the Senate @ 56 votes. That's 5 more votes than she will need to succeed as the SCOTUS nominee.
2. A woman. She defuses any "old white male" claims by the left and puts a conservative woman on the bench, (only the 2nd since Justice O'Connor, 1981).
3. She was a law clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia.
3. She is 46 years old, so she will be likely be on the bench for 30-40 years.
4. She isn't a Yale, Columbia or Harvard law school alum. She got her JD at Notre Dame which would make her sort of an "outsider" at the SCOTUS
5. There isn't any immediate controversy about her other than her Roman Catholic faith which Senate Dems tried to attack her on during her previous approval hearings. (The Dems were immediately and properly counterattacked for their obvious religious bigotry and attempt to create a "religious litmus test".) If Dems repeat that performance it will hurt them going into the November midterm elections.
........................................
What is your prediction?
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 07-02-2018).]
What's sad to me is that the Dems will wish death on any of us, up to and including President Trump.
The Right doesn't wish death on anyone really, we're the pro life side after all, but lord help us if just one person on the right said anything close to hoping that RBG dies. We'd hear about that for the next century.
And if nobody says it, the left will just make up that we said it. They aren't exactly the party of honesty after all.
