• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

nominating a SC post-election defeat

Would it be right for Trump to get his SC pick post election defeat?

  • I'm right leaning and yes it would be right

    Votes: 6 30.0%
  • I'm right-leaning and it would be wrong

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm centrist and it would be right

    Votes: 1 5.0%
  • I'm centrist and it would be wrong

    Votes: 7 35.0%
  • I'm left leaning and it would be right

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm left leaning and it would be wrong

    Votes: 6 30.0%

  • Total voters
    20

Aristaeus

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2014
Messages
6,544
Reaction score
3,126
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
If the senate don't or can't affirm a SC pick prior to the election and Trump loses, should he still get to choose, and the senate confirm, a new SC justice in his lame-duck period despite Biden being President elect?
 

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
53,813
Reaction score
10,864
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
If the senate don't or can't affirm a SC pick prior to the election and Trump loses, should he still get to choose, and the senate confirm, a new SC justice in his lame-duck period despite Biden being President elect?
Tough choice. After thinking long and hard, I can't vote. I wish you had had an "other" choice. If Trump makes his pick soon and the process has already started but the vote doesn't actually happen until after the election (win or lose) then I think it would be OK. And, that is likely the way it is going to go down. Personally, I think there is a huge distinction between now and 2016 as Obama was at the end of his second term and could not be president again. Here Trump is only in his first term and could be elected to a second term. Now, if he doesn't actually nominate anyone until after the election then I think that would be wrong, but I would still be OK with it. Since the constitution allows it and the Senate could do it, it can't technically be wrong. I just talked myself into voting that it would not be wrong.
 

Aristaeus

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2014
Messages
6,544
Reaction score
3,126
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Tough choice. After thinking long and hard, I can't vote. I wish you had had an "other" choice. If Trump makes his pick soon and the process has already started but the vote doesn't actually happen until after the election (win or lose) then I think it would be OK. And, that is likely the way it is going to go down. Personally, I think there is a huge distinction between now and 2016 as Obama was at the end of his second term and could not be president again. Here Trump is only in his first term and could be elected to a second term. Now, if he doesn't actually nominate anyone until after the election then I think that would be wrong, but I would still be OK with it. Since the constitution allows it and the Senate could do it, it can't technically be wrong. I just talked myself into voting that it would not be wrong.

If Trump loses, then it's the exact same scenario as being at the end of a 2nd term as he won't be President again. I take it you think Obama being denied a SC pick was also wrong since the constitution allowed him?
 

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
53,813
Reaction score
10,864
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
If Trump loses, then it's the exact same scenario as being at the end of a 2nd term as he won't be President again. I take it you think Obama being denied a SC pick was also wrong since the constitution allowed him?
But, we're not there now. The election hasn't happened. So, that gives the Senate the green light to take up the president's nominee. Trump hasn't lost yet and may not. In 2016 we absolutely knew 100% That Obama was not going to be president the following year.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
90,039
Reaction score
38,882
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If the senate don't or can't affirm a SC pick prior to the election and Trump loses, should he still get to choose, and the senate confirm, a new SC justice in his lame-duck period despite Biden being President elect?
Lean doesn't matter...the Constitution matters...and the answer, according to the Constitution, is "Yes".
 

Aunt Antifa

Vaccinated-American
Banned
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
27,199
Reaction score
14,221
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
If the senate don't or can't affirm a SC pick prior to the election and Trump loses, should he still get to choose, and the senate confirm, a new SC justice in his lame-duck period despite Biden being President elect?

Of course he shouldn’t. This isn’t even up for argument.

But I‘m hoping he does! And I hope the GOP confirms.
 

Ethel2

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2020
Messages
13,611
Reaction score
6,754
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The jackass pushing through a nominee is the height of hypocrisy. Just four years ago the in a very similar situation McConnell refused to bring Obama's nominee up for a vote because his term was up in what-8 months? Now there are just a matter of WEEKS before the election and the right wants to bring a hurried nominee up for a vote. What's the rush? If the jackass is re-elected he can then feel free to appoint whoever he wishes. If he loses then the people have spoken-same logic McConnell used four years ago. This strategy won't work: the democrats are poised to take both the presidency AND the Senate. They will eliminate the filibuster and appoint two new left leaning justices, perpetuating the endless cycle of division in this country. Its so predicable.
 

Ethel2

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2020
Messages
13,611
Reaction score
6,754
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Lean doesn't matter...the Constitution matters...and the answer, according to the Constitution, is "Yes".

Just like four years ago?
 

Rexedgar

Yo-Semite!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
50,855
Reaction score
38,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trump says Merrick Garland is an outstanding judge, but Obama "didn't have the Senate," and "Mitch didn't want to do that," but "we have the Senate," so "there's a difference" - when you have the Senate, "you can sort of do what you want.” - Daniel Dale/Twitter
 

Ethel2

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2020
Messages
13,611
Reaction score
6,754
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Of course he shouldn’t. This isn’t even up for argument.

But I‘m hoping he does! And I hope the GOP confirms.

Just curious why you would want that.....its a bit inconsistent with your previous posts I think
 

Aunt Antifa

Vaccinated-American
Banned
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
27,199
Reaction score
14,221
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Just curious why you would want that.....its a bit inconsistent with your previous posts I think

The GOP should not be doing this. They should abide by their own word, regardless of how much they do not want to. It’s what would be best for their voters in the long run.

As I am not a GOP voter, all I can consider is the political calculus, and the scenario in front of us. The SC is broken. The nomination process is garbage. We need to rebuild. Reconfigure. Something other than what we are doing. The GOP ripping up the last of our norms on this speeds up that process. It’s becoming mainstream to discuss packing the court, for instance. This leads to conversations and hopefully action.

And politically this helps the Democrats. THe media is filled with clips of GOP senators lying to us 4 years ago. This is while their standard bearer gives himself an “A+” o covid as we cross 200k Americans dying. Every instance in which Americans are reminded, *as they’re voting*, that the GOP has allowed Trump to take a wrecking ball to our country is good stuff.
 

rickc

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Messages
8,231
Reaction score
4,402
Well if Trump and Mitch force through a Supreme Court justice

And the democrats win the house, senate and Whitehouse

Then the Supreme Court will have 13 justices. The 4 new ones appointed by biden
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
90,039
Reaction score
38,882
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Just like four years ago?
This didn't happen four years ago, so no.

However, what happened four years ago ALSO complied with the Constitution.
 

Ethel2

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2020
Messages
13,611
Reaction score
6,754
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
This didn't happen four years ago, so no.

However, what happened four years ago ALSO complied with the Constitution.

What happened four years ago is that a sitting president did his job and nominated a justice to the SC, but McConnell refused to bring him to a vote because the election was near (it was about 8 months away) and he (and the rest of the republican senators) wanted the next president to nominate the justice. Correct so far? Now with the election just 50 DAYS away he wants the nominee of a sitting president to be rushed to a vote even though he will likely lose the election. You really cannot see the hypocrisy?
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
90,039
Reaction score
38,882
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What happened four years ago is that a sitting president did his job and nominated a justice to the SC, but McConnell refused to bring him to a vote because the election was near (it was about 8 months away) and he (and the rest of the republican senators) wanted the next president to nominate the justice. Correct so far? Now with the election just 50 DAYS away he wants the nominee of a sitting president to be rushed to a vote even though he will likely lose the election. You really cannot see the hypocrisy?
Of course I see the hypocrisy...just as I see the hypocrisy of every Dem who said one thing back and 2016 and the complete opposite now.

But that's irrelevant to what I've been saying here...which is that what happened in 2016 and what is happening now is Constitutional.
 

joko104

Banned
Suspended
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
65,981
Reaction score
23,408
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It is unfortunate that very few people bother to research anything of history, constitution or law before spouting off "facts" the pull out of their ass or off the propaganda outlets of the MSM.

1. About 1/4th of Supreme Court Justices have been selected in a presidential election year - meaning this IS the norm since the president is elected every 4 years.

2. In fact, Supreme Court Justices have been nominated and confirmed by lame duck presidents historically.


Regardless, this is merely a question of power, not niceness. There is NOTHING nice, respectful or polite - nor about "norms" - in politics now. HATING POLICE is not a "norm." Cheering rioters is not a "norm." Destroying historic monuments in not the "norm." Impeaching a president solely on partisan lines knowing removal is impossible is unprecedented. All violations of "the norm" is by the Democratic Party.

If Republicans do not seat a Supreme Court Justice to replace Ginsburg they are truly chumps and idiots - weak and worthless - and would be betraying the Republicans who put them into office (so figure Mitt Romney will vote however Schumer wants him to).

Those who say it would be wrong are in the camp of those who either openly despise American history or are ignorant of it.
 

joko104

Banned
Suspended
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
65,981
Reaction score
23,408
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well if Trump and Mitch force through a Supreme Court justice

And the democrats win the house, senate and Whitehouse

Then the Supreme Court will have 13 justices. The 4 new ones appointed by biden

So if the Republicans win the White House and Congress, then Trump should be given the power to select 4 more too, right? Why not 40 more?
 

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
12,228
Reaction score
4,458
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Constitutionally, Trump is well within his rights to nominate and McConnell is well within his rights to hold a vote to confirm.

Politically, if this was any Democratic President and Chuck Schumer, (or any Democrat Senator who was Majority Leader) every single opponent to Trump appointing another Justice would have unlimited reasons why the nomination of their Party's choosing should go through.

Historically, there is precedent for Trump to nominate and for McConnell to bring it to a vote to confirm.

Everyone knows this, if anyone denies it, they're just lying.

The old bag couldn't hang on long enough. It be like that sometimes. Elections have consequences.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
87,007
Reaction score
57,208
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
It's well within their power to push through a candidate quickly. It likely behooves them to do so since it's not looking good for Trump or the GOP at this point for the election. However, McConnell will show how huge a hypocrite he is after spending so much effort blocking Obama and then turning around to push as quickly as possible Trump's choice.
 

jaypatriot

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Messages
9,320
Reaction score
2,982
Location
Southern OR
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It's well within their power to push through a candidate quickly. It likely behooves them to do so since it's not looking good for Trump or the GOP at this point for the election. However, McConnell will show how huge a hypocrite he is after spending so much effort blocking Obama and then turning around to push as quickly as possible Trump's choice.


OH NO!! I don't believe it. A politician actually appearing to be hypocritical by saying one thing one year and then doing something the opposite the next. I thought all politicians on the national scene were supposed to be upstanding and honest - just like Saint Obama of four years ago.
 

Overitall

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
29,677
Reaction score
17,409
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Of course he shouldn’t. This isn’t even up for argument.

But I‘m hoping he does! And I hope the GOP confirms.
And yet you will. ;)

Why do you hope he does? You looking forward to the Dems impeaching him over this.
 

Overitall

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
29,677
Reaction score
17,409
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
It's well within their power to push through a candidate quickly. It likely behooves them to do so since it's not looking good for Trump or the GOP at this point for the election. However, McConnell will show how huge a hypocrite he is after spending so much effort blocking Obama and then turning around to push as quickly as possible Trump's choice.
Did not the Democrats cry foul when McConnell blocked Obama’s nominee? I see hypocrisy on both sides. You don’t?
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
87,007
Reaction score
57,208
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
OH NO!! I don't believe it. A politician actually appearing to be hypocritical by saying one thing one year and then doing something the opposite the next. I thought all politicians on the national scene were supposed to be upstanding and honest - just like Saint Obama of four years ago.

Not surprising at all, it just shows the lack of integrity of the right.
 

Aunt Antifa

Vaccinated-American
Banned
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
27,199
Reaction score
14,221
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
And yet you will. ;)

Why do you hope he does? You looking forward to the Dems impeaching him over this.

We are a few weeks from an election and the GOP is putting abortion and healthcare on the ballot. Ramming through a far right wing anti-choice Trump judge is just what we needed to for the final push. MIght have tipped the senate for good.

And now that Trump has stated this morning that he wants a judge in to make rulings on the election, that judge will need to rescuse herself from any decisions.

Good times.
 

ClaraD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
26,972
Reaction score
10,324
Location
Somewhere in South Florida
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Well if Trump and Mitch force through a Supreme Court justice

And the democrats win the house, senate and Whitehouse

Then the Supreme Court will have 13 justices. The 4 new ones appointed by biden
I rather like the idea of reducing the Supreme Court by 2...we get rid of the seat that Ginsburg held, retiring it in her name and get rid of the seat Kavanaugh holds...then we establish to change that number we need to have at least 60 votes in the Senate....and that any nominee regardless of the president has to pass with 60 votes...no filibuster, just an up or down 60 vote majority.
 
Top Bottom