RBG passed

Surely McConnell will respect her wishes, this being an election year and all?

Bush v. Gore here we come
We really should listen to the expertise of a constitutional scholar.

I one hundred percent agree with President Obama.

Obama said, "When there is a vacancy on the SCOTUS, the President is to nominate someone, the Senate is to consider that nomination... There's no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off-years. That's not in the Constitution text."

 
None of them ever mentioned this rule about controlling party.

"“I believe the American people deserve to have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice, and the best way to ensure that happens is to have the Senate consider a nomination made by the next President." Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)

“The next Court appointment should be made by the newly-elected president.” Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.)

“It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)

"One of my proudest moments was when I looked at Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.'" Sen Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

“If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

“We will see what the people say this fall and our next president, regardless of party, will be making that nomination.”Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa)

“The next President must nominate successor that upholds constitution, founding principles.”Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.)
They evolved and have changed their minds.
 
Merrick Garland says hi. Obama could've pushed his confirmation through during recess.


and you'll be wrong, per usual


No SCOTUS appointment during election year, it's the McConnell rule
McConnell will probably change the McConnell rule.
 
It seems y'all recess appointment folks may have stopped reading your constitution too soon:

Article II, Section 2, Clause 3, commonly known as the Recess Appointment Clause, provides that, The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Well, Biden disagrees with you. You should take it up with him.

Biden in 2016: "I would go forward with the confirmation process as chairman. Even a few months before a presidential election... just as the Constitution requires."

 
EiSuDrJX0AAyARG
 
But if Republicans insist on filling Ginsburg's seat with some Federalist Society drone, it totally changes the calculus, both for Biden and for the most right-wing Democratic senators. A 6-3 Republican majority on the Supreme Court would be much more likely to thwart Democratic policy initiatives than a narrow 5-4 majority in which Chief Justice John Roberts could still exert some moderating influence. A President Biden and his Senate, no matter how thin the majority, would come under enormous pressure to respond in kind to the GOP's ruthlessness. And the bloc of centrist Democratic senators would then have a much more compelling story to tell their constituents when they vote to add four or more justices to the Supreme Court.

After all, nothing in the Constitution prevents court-packing, just as nothing in our founding document prevented McConnell from blocking Garland's nomination. The effort to install a hard-right justice in Ginsburg's place would, if anything, lay bare the essence of the generational right-wing project to conquer the judiciary. It's not about principles, or election year exceptions, or fair play. It's about the exercise of raw power, and the determination to use as much of it as the legal order allows.

Do you think Democrats wouldn't expand the Court if McConnell and the Republicans insist on reneging on their own nonsense precedent from 2016? Think again. It wasn't long after the news broke before Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) announced on Twitter that, "Mitch McConnell set the precedent. No Supreme Court vacancies filled in an election year. If he violates it, when Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress, we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court." Mark my words: this will be the Democratic Party's official line by the end of the weekend. The rage and fear will be so widespread that it will reach the party's cautious leadership, including Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D- New York), who has already come out against replacing Ginsburg before the election. They will present Mitch McConnell with a choice: You can plunge this country further into crisis by trying to fill this seat, but if you do it and then lose in November, there will be absolute hell to pay.

This is a fluid and fast-moving situation, but the bottom line is this: If Democrats hold firm and threaten massive escalation, they can stop McConnell from doing his worst here. If they fail, they can still win in November, and then remake the judiciary. While that might seem like cold comfort to those rightly afflicted by Ginsburg's death, it is better than despair. There's enough of that going around already.

https://theweek.com/articles/938534/why-democrats-shouldnt-panic-about-rbgs-death

These kind of threats however, imo will swing the undecided vote towards Trump even more so.

Here's the thing, Trump is out there giving two hour rock concerts. I watched the video of last night's rally. He was not even using the prompter, it was two hours of Trump being Trump. He was in rare form.

There is not a damn thing wrong with that man's brain. He was dropping names of people he's dealt with in the last 3 years, calling out folks in the audience by name, describing in detail different events he was privy to. And yeah he does the adhd thing where he goes off on a tangent to make a joke, but he came back to the original point every time, even after several minutes.

His energy level was off the charts. And the crowd loved it. They fed each other. Whether one likes what he says or not, or they think its bs, that's not the point...

Here's the point. Actually two points.

One, anyone with an open mind, ie an undecided voter will watch both candidates. They are going to see a high energy Trump out there orating and joking for 2 hours energizing a crowd with enthusiasm... vs an opponent who barely fills a high school gym whose audience has to stand in these large circles painted on the floor while Joe can barely remember what state he's in or any other damn thing. Trump is ad-lib'ing like George Carlin in his prime.. and Joe is squinting to see the prompter to know what his answer should be.

So with that in mind, point #2. These undecided voters are not extremists. The things going on within the Democrat Party are scary af in many ways. They are going to put two and two together and see Joe as... basically... a brain dead puppet. Result: pinch your nose and vote for Trump because at least we know what we've got. Not so with Joe. Maybe 10 years ago, but not now.

So just like everything else and just like Treefrog has pointed out a million times... be careful. In my opinion however, even without this latest development, the stuff I wrote above would be the case anyway. Fence voters might have voted for a more lucid Joe, but I don't think they're gonna vote for the person I'm seeing. Yeah he rode a bike. Bfd. He's in good shape physically for sure, but there's so much more to it than that.

The Joe I'm seeing is not up for the job. That will scare swing voters because it leaves a very high degree of uncertainty and they sure as hell don't want a party that allows court houses to burn and wants to let hoodlums run rampant.

The DNC has put up the wrong candidate.
If Trump continues to go hard with his rallies in these battleground states... Joes gonna lose.

I'm just calling it like I see it and I keep a very open mind and take it all in.
My game is predicting future events.
 
Back
Top