If trump were re-elected and Democrats take the Senate, they should block any Supreme Court appointments for four years

[Craig234]

It's a very unlikely scenario. But reasons:

1. This is exactly what McConnell threated to do had Hillary been elected. It's time for some accountability, by having Republicans receive the abuse they threatened and planned.

2. They owe the American people a Supreme Court seat (at least). This gets it.

3. It recognizes that the only nominees Republicans make to the court are radical ideologues who will not do the job adequately, and will declare war on the constitution. This is needed for their 'advise and consent' role until Republicans will return to nominating legitimate Justices.

4. It's time to put a stop to the unlimited Republican abuses of power, and this is the only way they understand.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

It's a very unlikely scenario. But reasons:

1. This is exactly what McConnell threated to do had Hillary been elected. It's time for some accountability, by having Republicans receive the abuse they threatened and planned.

2. They owe the American people a Supreme Court seat (at least). This gets it.

3. It's time to put a stop to the unlimited Republican abuses of power, and this is the only way they understand.

No, their first order of business is to finish the job started last year and remove him from office. We have proof he committed genocide against the American people. He is a legitimate threat to our national security.

Then we can see about how Mike Pence wishes to proceed (although depending on what he knew and when, he may need to be removed and charged.)

 

[Craig234]

No, their first order of business is to finish the job started last year and remove him from office. We have proof he committed genocide against the American people. He is a legitimate threat to our national security.

Of COURSE that would be justified, but it takes 67 votes, and Democrats will not have that.

 

[X Factor]

No, their first order of business is to finish the job started last year and remove him from office. We have proof he committed genocide against the American people. He is a legitimate threat to our national security.

Then we can see about how Mike Pence wishes to proceed (although depending on what he knew and when, he may need to be removed and charged.)

He, actually, did not commit genocide. That’s retarded.

 

[Yakshi]

He keeps killing Americans, and his supporters continue not to mind.

Instead, despite all of the possible things Trump could have done to decrease the death toll, his followers, when they aren't washing his balls for him, like to throw up their hands and ask, "What could Trump really have done? Be specific."

Then when all of the things that he should have done are explained to them in great detail, their response is: "Bu-bu-bu-but what could Trump really have done? Be specific."

Such human trash should never be recognized. And soon, we can ignore them for the rest of their miserable lifetimes.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

He, actually, did not commit genocide. That’s retarded.

Yup, even a retard can listen to the Woodward tapes and come to the conclusion Trump committed genocide.

 

[X Factor]

Yup, even a retard can listen to the Woodward tapes and come to the conclusion Trump committed genocide.

I won’t disagree with that. That is pretty much what it would require to come to that conclusion.

 

[Yakshi]

To willingly contribute so much to the deaths of 200,000 just because he didn't want to look bad. That's one fragile ****ing ego.

 

[Craig234]

He, actually, did not commit genocide. That’s retarded.

He did not commit genocide. He only neglected his duties to instead do what he thought would help him politically, killing hundreds of thousands of Americans, just one more way he's the worst American politician in history. That's bad enough.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Hard to imagine that a Trump reelection will also include losing the Senate to the Democrats, but let's assume the narrative - can you name a current Supreme Court Justice who is close to death or considering resigning in the next four years? Seems to me, Ginsburg was the last Justice in this current decade plus who was likely to leave the court. Bless her heart and RIP, she held on as long as she could for just that reason. But even though she and others on the Supreme Court believed they could substitute their opinions for the decisions of the President and Congress, in this matter they have no role.

As for President Trump being responsible for a genocide as it relates to COVID-19, that's just irrational emotion - the standard approach to most issues by the modern day liberal/progressive. For the majority of people who contract COVID now and since March/April, they have no one to blame but themselves - their own actions and negligence, or the actions and negligence of those close to them, are the cause of their illness. But then again, the average liberal/progressive believes that all outcomes individuals experience must be as a result of government action or inaction. Personal responsibility is a foreign concept to the average liberal/progressive.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

I won’t disagree with that. That is pretty much what it would require to come to that conclusion.

Can you imagine how ****ing beyond retarded someone has to be to *not* believe it too? I mean..lol, right?

 

[X Factor]

He did not commit genocide. He only neglected his duties to instead do what he thought would help him politically, killing hundreds of thousands of Americans, just one more way he's the worst American politician in history. That's bad enough.

No, really didn’t.

 

[Yakshi]

Notice how Trump's supporters alternate nonsensically between saying, "He did all that he could do," and "But really, what could he have done? Be specific."

The federal government is uniquely qualified to handle a pandemic. Instead, he opted to let fifty governors compete with one another.

Trump failed. He bears most of the responsibility for our death toll being as high as it is.

And the strangest part? He still isn't doing what he needs to do to mitigate the death toll.

He's Dorothy in a field clicking his heels and wish-wish-wishing the badness away, and his idiotic followers are too busy pointing at him and saying, "What a fine job he's doing!" or else, "Really, be specific. What else can he do aside from clicking his heels in a field?"

 

[Court Jester]

Donald Trump has promised to name a replacement, and McConnell has promised to put the nomination to a vote. These are political promises made, they aren't necessarily what either of these men believe will end in a replacement being filled before the election. So I don't see why the left is going ape sh** right now? Part of that is exactly what Trump wants the left to do. Better to wait and see if McConnell has the votes for a confirmation--- which I personally believe he won't have. If they couldn't get enough Republicans to overturn Obamacare when they had both houses of congress, I don't see them having the courage to risk the political backlash of forcing a supreme court replacment less than two months before the election. And I see even less chance of that happening in the event Trump loses in November and/or the Dems retaking control of the senate in a lame duck appointment before next January.

The problem with threatening "nuclear options" is that it is mostly bluster. When it comes down to counting votes for that, people tend to back off and consider their own political skin in the longer terms. Dems should be more angry at Harry Reid for when he altered the rules during Democratic control of the Senate to allow for a simple majority to confirm judicial nominees-- a process which took away the checks and balances expected to create political compromises between the two parties. And when the tables turned then the Republicans used the same rule to get Gorsach across the finish line in the Senate... a "tit for tat" that now most Democrats fail to see or remember. But now presented with similar power to roll over the potential will of the American voters the Republicans are holding the cards, but quite frankly I don't believe there will be the votes to pull it off. It could be close, but what does it gain the Republicans to get the nominee confirmed before the election and then the political backlash at the ballot box result in losing control of the Senate come next January---even if Trump wins the election.

Just because you have a nuclear weapon, doesn't mean you should use it.

 

[Yakshi]

Trump will seat a Justice. Democrats will nuke the legislative filibuster. Then they will expand the Court and, over time, erase a dozen or so of the lousier conservative decisions over the last two decades--Second Amendment, voting rights, Citizens United, etc.

Be afraid. Buy your guns now.

 

[Craig234]

No, really didn’t.

Didn't what? When you respond to a post saying he didn't do one thing, and did another, be clear what you are talking about.

 

[Craig234]

Trump will seat a Justice. Democrats will nuke the legislative filibuster. Then they will expand the Court and, over time, erase a dozen or so of the lousier conservative decisions over the last two decades--Second Amendment, voting rights, Citizens United, etc.

I did not want it to have to be done that way, but Republicans have justified it with their corruption and abuse of power.

 

[Lutherf]

It's a very unlikely scenario. But reasons:

1. This is exactly what McConnell threated to do had Hillary been elected. It's time for some accountability, by having Republicans receive the abuse they threatened and planned.

2. They owe the American people a Supreme Court seat (at least). This gets it.

3. It recognizes that the only nominees Republicans make to the court are radical ideologues who will not do the job adequately, and will declare war on the constitution. This is needed for their 'advise and consent' role until Republicans will return to nominating legitimate Justices.

4. It's time to put a stop to the unlimited Republican abuses of power, and this is the only way they understand.

Well, some in their base have suggested "burning it all down" if they don't win so that kind of petulance and "party before nation" attitude is kind of expected of them at this point.

 

[CaughtInThe]

if the Ds take the Senate Trump is very likely to be impeached again and removed from office.

 

[Yakshi]

Well, some in their base have suggested "burning it all down" if they don't win so that kind of petulance and "party before nation" attitude is kind of expected of them at this point.

I agree that Trump should stop all of that talk. He's the president. He should stop saying things to delegitimize the election.

I'm happy to see a sensible post from you.

I just lost a bet.

 

[Craig234]

Well, some in their base have suggested "burning it all down" if they don't win so that kind of petulance and "party before nation" attitude is kind of expected of them at this point.

Who are you talking about? It should be Republicans. I've never seen a Democrat say that.

 

[Craig234]

I just lost a bet.

Don't pay up yet, he might have been talking about Democrats.

 

[Craig234]

if the Ds take the Senate Trump is very likely to be impeached again and removed from office.

Impeached yes, removed probably not, that takes 67 votes.

 

[SCrider]

It's a very unlikely scenario. But reasons:

1. This is exactly what McConnell threated to do had Hillary been elected. It's time for some accountability, by having Republicans receive the abuse they threatened and planned.

2. They owe the American people a Supreme Court seat (at least). This gets it.

3. It recognizes that the only nominees Republicans make to the court are radical ideologues who will not do the job adequately, and will declare war on the constitution. This is needed for their 'advise and consent' role until Republicans will return to nominating legitimate Justices.

4. It's time to put a stop to the unlimited Republican abuses of power, and this is the only way they understand.

Make him a lame duck for all 4 years. The cons here should be fine with it, right? Whats good for the goose and all that....

 

[Craig234]

Make him a lame duck for all 4 years. The cons here should be fine with it, right? Whats good for the goose and all that....

Exactly. That was their plan, let them lie in the bed they made.