nominating a SC post-election defeat

[ClaraD]

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.

don't forget they are also putting civil rights and the 14th amendment on the ballot.

 

[Ethel2]

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.

Healthcare and Roe v Wade is not really going to be an issue IMO. If the hypocrites on the right go through with this in January when Biden and the dems hold office they will simply appoint more judges. Simple. Cases take a long time to get to the SC. By they we will have at least two more radical left judges on it.

 

[Overitall]

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.

I admit the abortion issue is a strong one. The last I checked the majority of religious individuals (at least your evangelical ones) don’t vote. This might bring them out of their hidey holes this year. Too bad for the Democrats if they do.

Absent that ninth judge we might be in for chaos should this election take the course of Bush vs Gore. I prefer a clear decision over a constant “what if”.

 

[jmotivator]

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?

In both cases the Democrats were demanding that the Republicans set aside their own power out of what they believe to be "fairness".. something that the Democrat's have done exactly zero times in their history.

Nothing hypocritical about it. Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another, in the case of the SC appointment there are 4 years in between where opinions can change. Is someone a "hypocrite" when they change their mind? No. In the case of Graham, for example, he alerted the Democrats at the Kavanaugh hearing that he is not interested in being fair with those clowns anymore. The reason you get Republicans giving Democrats the middle finger is because they are sick of the Democrat's nonsense.

Death bed wish... get real.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

I admit the abortion issue is a strong one. The last I checked the majority of religious individuals (at least your evangelical ones) don’t vote. This might bring them out of their hidey holes this year. Too bad for the Democrats if they do.

Absent that ninth judge we might be in for chaos should this election take the course of Bush vs Gore. I prefer a clear decision over a constant “what if”.

Nearly 80% of the country believes Roe should remain legal.

You might, but the GOP didn’t care 4 years ago.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Healthcare and Roe v Wade is not really going to be an issue IMO. If the hypocrites on the right go through with this in January when Biden and the dems hold office they will simply appoint more judges. Simple. Cases take a long time to get to the SC. By they we will have at least two more radical left judges on it.

I don’t agree with this even a little. We are right now in the middle of a pandemic and you think healthcare isn’t a needle mover?

 

[Overitall]

Nearly 80% of the country believes Roe should remain legal.

You might, but the GOP didn’t care 4 years ago.

I’ve never had much confidence in polls. If they’re worth paying attention to they didn’t help Hillary much in 2016.

I don’t know how often this needs repeated but elections have consequences. That’s a reality that’s true no matter what party is holding power. I suppose that explains why we have election. The voters decide who should represent us. If I’m not mistaken the polls (ya know, the thing you like looking at) stated that one of the main reasons Trump got elected was because of SC picks.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

I’ve never had much confidence in polls. If they’re worth paying attention to they didn’t help Hillary much in 2016.

I don’t know how often this needs repeated but elections have consequences. That’s a reality that’s true no matter what party is holding power. I suppose that explains why we have election. The voters decide who should represent us. If I’m not mistaken the polls (ya know, the thing you like looking at) stated that one of the main reasons Trump got elected was because of SC picks.

I don’t know why polling from 4 years ago on a presidential election is a comp for the country’s feelings about Roe.

Please explain?

 

[joko104]

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.

They are all pathological liars and Hypocrite are their middle names.

 

[Ethel2]

I don’t agree with this even a little. We are right now in the middle of a pandemic and you think healthcare isn’t a needle mover?

You misunderstood. Of course its a needle mover. I think that that its going to be irrelevant if the jackass and his lackey McConnell rush through a SC justice because I firmly believe that Biden will win and that the democrats will also take the Senate. If that happens one of the first things on the agenda will be to nominate and approve two new SC justices who will make whoever the jackass nominates irrelevant. JMO.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

You misunderstood. Of course its a needle mover. I think that that its going to be irrelevant if the jackass and his lackey McConnell rush through a SC justice because I firmly believe that Biden will win and that the democrats will also take the Senate. If that happens one of the first things on the agenda will be to nominate and approve two new SC justices who will make whoever the jackass nominates irrelevant. JMO.

Got it. High five.

 

[Helix]

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?

Republicans are completely hypocritical on this issue.

 

[Overitall]

I don’t know why polling from 4 years ago on a presidential election is a comp for the country’s feelings about Roe.

Please explain?

Poll results can be manipulated.

 

[Aristaeus]

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.

There is no hypocrisy from the Dems. Dems argument that a sitting President should have a SC vote close to an election has been rendered moot due to the GOP setting new precedence in 2016.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Poll results can be manipulated.

That is virtually true of any metric we use. It’s a meaningless dismissal. One could argue that because it’s overwhelmingly against a position you hold, you have your own bias against the numbers. Your bias isn’t valid. The numbers are.

 

[jonny5]

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?

Im not left, right or center, but the answer is yes its right. Its the Presidents job to fill vacancies. And the Senates jobs to consider those nominees and decide. As well as the Senates jobs to choose how they go about doing that. Partisan politics doesnt really matter. Or rather it only matters becuases that the world we choose to live in. The spirit of the constitution did not factor in partisanship. So it doesnt matter when the vacancy happens.

 

[Ethel2]

In both cases the Democrats were demanding that the Republicans set aside their own power out of what they believe to be "fairness".. something that the Democrat's have done exactly zero times in their history.

Nothing hypocritical about it. Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another, in the case of the SC appointment there are 4 years in between where opinions can change. Is someone a "hypocrite" when they change their mind? No. In the case of Graham, for example, he alerted the Democrats at the Kavanaugh hearing that he is not interested in being fair with those clowns anymore. The reason you get Republicans giving Democrats the middle finger is because they are sick of the Democrat's nonsense.

Death bed wish... get real.

Here's the way its supposed to work: the president nominates a candidate and the Senate votes on him or her, thumbs up or thumbs down. That changed four years ago when McConnell refused to allow Obama's nominee to be brought to the Senate floor, citing as a reason "the people should have a right to choose; the election is too close" or something to that effect. Now the election is even closer and what the people want is no longer relevant. That is the height of hypocrisy. Quotes from a variety of then sitting republican senators, including Graham who said "yes, you can use my words against me should vacancy occur in the last year of a presidency" four years ago clearly showed that the rules have changed. Now that the shoe is on the other foot nearly all of them are backtracking. Perhaps some of them will come to their senses and apply the new rules consistently.,

 

[jonny5]

There is no hypocrisy from the Dems. Dems argument that a sitting President should have a SC vote close to an election has been rendered moot due to the GOP setting new precedence in 2016.

The hypocrisy was Obama nominating someone on his way out, Democrats supporting this, and now crying about Trump nominating someone on his way out (they think). Yes, GOP are hypocrites too. The real problem here is everyone not admitting theyre all hypocrites.

 

[jonny5]

Here's the way its supposed to work: the president nominates a candidate and the Senate votes on him or her, thumbs up or thumbs down. That changed four years ago when McConnell refused to allow Obama's nominee to be brought to the Senate floor, citing as a reason "the people should have a right to choose; the election is too close" or something to that effect. Now the election is even closer and what the people want is no longer relevant. That is the height of hypocrisy. Quotes from a variety of then sitting republican senators, including Graham who said "yes, you can use my words against me should vacancy occur in the last year of a presidency" four years ago clearly showed that the rules have changed. Now that the shoe is on the other foot nearly all of them are backtracking. Perhaps some of them will come to their senses and apply the new rules consistently.,

That not how it works. It works however the Senate decides it works. There is no requirement to vote.

 

[Overitall]

That is virtually true of any metric we use. It’s a meaningless dismissal. One could argue that because it’s overwhelmingly against a position you hold, you have your own bias against the numbers. Your bias isn’t valid. The numbers are.

How’s this for numbers?

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/07/7301...bortion-legal-but-they-also-want-restrictions
“More than half (53%) of Americans say they would definitely not vote for a candidate who would appoint judges to the Supreme Court who would limit or overturn Roe.”

That’s a bit shy of 80%.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

How’s this for numbers?

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/07/7301...bortion-legal-but-they-also-want-restrictions
“More than half (53%) of Americans say they would definitely not vote for a candidate who would appoint judges to the Supreme Court who would limit or overturn Roe.”

That’s a bit shy of 80%.

Oh? What else does that poll show? Are you sure there is no question that polls near 80% in that poll? I don’’t think you’re sure.

 

[Overitall]

Oh? What else does that poll show? Are you sure there is no question that polls near 80% in that poll? I don’’t think you’re sure.

Oh, are you backtracking off that 80% number now? There are nuances in the numbers. If you digested the article you would see that. That’s why I say I don’t trust polls. Americans are fickle. One day they vote one way and then the next another. Me, I’ll just wait until the fat lady sings.

 

[CLAX1911]

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?

I'm not sure if they still can confirm him if Donald Trump is out of office. I would think yes because they started having hearings and so forth so the process had already started.

As far as them not confirming Obama's nomination well that's their choice to make. If Democrats wanted Obama's nominations confirmed they should have voted more vigorously for their senators. It was a Republican Senate so that's the way it is.

 

[Mycroft]

There is no hypocrisy from the Dems. Dems argument that a sitting President should have a SC vote close to an election has been rendered moot due to the GOP setting new precedence in 2016.

Sorry, but the hypocritical nature of the Senate Republicans does NOT excuse the hypocritical nature of the Democrats.

 

[Robertinfremont]

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.

Trump will nominate and McConnell will confirm.