RGB Replacement ASAP!

[TreeFrogTrader]

Perhaps you can tell us which scotus candidates were put forward for senate confirmation by a president but denied a vote then.

As I said yesterday, the painful irony for Merrick Garland is that if Joe wins he is not going to nominate him either.

The dems make this all about evening the score for Merrick Garland but if they win and take the Senate too and therefore have total ability to rectify this alleged wrong- they won't.

Having said that, I have also said a couple times in the past that the Senate's treatment of Merrick Garland by the republicans was very shabby. If they were not going to give him a hearing they should have at least passed a resolution thanking him for his service to the country and the judiciary and for his willingness to be considered for the Court with the personal and professional demands that that process requires.

Very shabby. But no entitlement to a hearing unless it is so voted by the Senate or its committees, which it was not.

 

[El OchoCinco]

Okay fine.

But let's state that a little differently then, shall we?

We should rephrase that to say: "Although Joe has flat out stated that he will not release his list of potential nominees before the election, he has seven weeks to flip flop on this after his handlers tell him what he wants to do."

That is Joe and the DNC's decision and the people can use that to decide who to vote for right?

Again let the people make the decision via the election.

I don't care what Biden's campaign strategy is on this as I am not in charge of creating it, he makes his decision and the people decide what to do.

I agree with McConnell that with less than 55 days or so, let the people make their decision based all the facts presented.

You are welcome to declare that Biden is not giving you any information but that is not a reason to say the judge should be appointed right now, it is just a reason to not vote for Biden.

 

[El OchoCinco]

McConnell isn’t going to do any of that. He will get Trump’s nominee through.

Bashing McConnell and these other hypocrites in the media and on the campaign trail is a worthwhile endeavor but don’t kid yourself this court is going 6-3 before January 20, 2021.

The bigger issue is Biden focusing on winning the election....just whining about Trump and ignoring any problems is what cost HRC the election among other things.

He can simply make a case that Trump can appoint the judge if he wins but to rush it through now with so many other issues would be a disservice to the court for a lifetime appointment. Waiting 2 more months does not cost anything. McC was willing to wait when the seat was open in FEB of an election year. This is mid-September a week before the first debates....

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

You are welcome to declare that Biden is not giving you any information but that is not a reason to say the judge should be appointed right now, it is just a reason to not vote for Biden.

It is not a reason either to suggest that is wrong or misguided for Trump to announce his pick before the election. Trump prefers to be transparent before the election and Joe does not. Each can play their cards as they wish.

We know that Joe is not going to do anything right off on anything. He is known to be...well.....err....sleepy.

 

[Snarkhund]

Cite me the rule then..... you are claiming that something has not happened in years (it obviously happened before). Also Mitch McConnell created his own rule and it has no legal authority. All of this is just procedure but you would not know that with you non legal background.

It is quite simple....let us follow the rule the McConnel stated that in an election year let us wait until after the election to let the people decide how they want this to go. I agree with this and did in 2016 as well.

Not sure what folks you are referring to, I am simply stating the policy of the GOP.

If you support Trump and believe he is going to win then what is the problem?

Again you simply will not look at the historical perspective and I literally don't care.

When the Senate and President hail from opposing parties a SCOTUS nomination in the late term of that President is not given consideration. Its a fact on the ground since 1860 when your family was likely still shoveling shit in some foreign hovel.

You can hiss and spit and carry on but everyone thinks its hilarious that Dems are freaking and making threats. If you retain the House, win the Senate and win the Presidency then you might be able to put a leftist on the Supreme Court. This distraction and the howling from the left is going to hurt your candidate. Don't you folks want to win?

 

[El OchoCinco]

It is not a reason either to suggest that is wrong or misguided for Trump to announce his pick before the election. Trump prefers to be transparent before the election and Joe does not. Each can play their cards as they wish.

We know that Joe is not going to do anything right off on anything. He is known to be...well.....err....sleepy.

Announcing a pick is not the same as rushing one through... no one said he could not announce and he already has.

But rushing it through to get the nom before the election is what he is proposing.

 

[El OchoCinco]

Again you simply will not look at the historical perspective and I literally don't care.

When the Senate and President hail from opposing parties a SCOTUS nomination in the late term of that President is not given consideration. Its a fact on the ground since 1860 when your family was likely still shoveling shit in some foreign hovel.

You can hiss and spit and carry on but everyone thinks its hilarious that Dems are freaking and making threats. If you retain the House, win the Senate and win the Presidency then you might be able to put a leftist on the Supreme Court. This distraction and the howling from the left is going to hurt your candidate. Don't you folks want to win?

I dont have a candidate as last I checked I am not getting a check from either campaign to work for them.

You want to have a discussion by simply labelling me from a party or side and then crying about how bad that side is. I don't really give a shit.

Also why are you so focused on what my family was doing in 1860? I don't even know what the fuck they were doing but thanks for the Ancestry.com lesson ( I assume yours were owning slaves maybe?).

I don't see any threats, just simply telling McC and Rubio and Cruz to honor their word and let the people decide.

A leftist would never pass Senate confirmation so it seesm GOP is panicking claiming a flaming leftist liberal judge would be appointed and approved by the Senate.

Now you sound silly with hyperbole and panic....unless you are claiming the Dems will win control of the Senate and Trump will lose so you are really scared?

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

McC was willing to wait when the seat was open in FEB of an election year. This is mid-September a week before the first debates....

The constitution does not say that the senate must have a hearing and vote on a nominee. It says the president shall nominate with the advice and consent of the senate. In other words, he has to have a nominee who has been approved by the senate. He was not able to produce one in his last year- that's all. Not holding a hearing and doing nothing is just another way of the president ending out with no nominee who has been approved. Entirely constitutional.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Announcing a pick is not the same as rushing one through... no one said he could not announce and he already has.

But rushing it through to get the nom before the election is what he is proposing.

I think I covered that in one of the previous posts wherein I said there is difference between announcing and having confirmation hearings with different implications. You apparently missed that.

Anyway, the heavy duty objections- politically anyway- should be and will be around attempts to actually confirm before the election. But there should be no objections to nominating and starting the review process. That is a good and transparent thing to do regardless of whether their is a confirmation attempt before or after the election.

 

[UsualName]

The bigger issue is Biden focusing on winning the election....just whining about Trump and ignoring any problems is what cost HRC the election among other things.

He can simply make a case that Trump can appoint the judge if he wins but to rush it through now with so many other issues would be a disservice to the court for a lifetime appointment. Waiting 2 more months does not cost anything. McC was willing to wait when the seat was open in FEB of an election year. This is mid-September a week before the first debates....

People aren’t ready for how radical a conservative Supreme Court will intrude on their lives and rights, most conservatives don’t realize it either.

As to Biden focusing in on winning, yes he should and, yes, he should bash trump and senate Republicans for being hypocrites and running a scam on the American people - because that’s what they did.

Now is his strategy going to be to engage in a futile fight to stop the nomination and appointment or is it best to level with the American people and tell them the only way to protect them from a radical zealous and money favoring court is a democrat presidency and senate. My vote is for the latter.

Engaging in a Kavanaugh 10x fight will only resolve conservatives and take away from the true danger now facing America, a super majority conservative Supreme Court.