Posted on 09/18/2020 4:50:45 PM PDT by dragnet2
Dead
Wow, massive battle to try to fill the opening before election and if it fails, we have a 8 person supreme court to deal with all the election lawsuits that will be coming so the possibilty of deadlock is real.
This is insane
Satan does not create. Only God Almighty does.
........................................
Have you always been so stupid? Satan, also known as the Devil, has been creating sinners ever since he himself was cast into hell. God doesn’t create sinners, son, that’s Satan’s job!
With all those smart phones it's a safe bet at least a good percentage of the audience knew during the rally. I was waiting for those in the audience to yell out the news about Ginsberg.
History Is on the Side of Republicans Filling a Supreme Court Vacancy in 2020
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/history-is-on-the-side-of-republicans-filling-a-supreme-court-vacancy-in-2020/
I’d like to nominate Pigmeat Markham -
Order in da court! Order in da court! Here come da Judge!
Actually, it really doesn’t matter.
What we need here is a revolution. Throw out every POS in every office, in every court, in every legislature at the federal, state, and local level. No more lawyers - they’re chocking this country. Do it right this time. First law: Corruption in elected office or civil service is punishable by death. Then see how many want to run for office
I hope that Trump will wait for the usual mourning period (about a week) and nominate someone. In Feb. of 2016, I hoped that Obama would nominate someone. I thought that the Senate wouldn’t have confirmed a liberal, since it was controlled by Republicans.
Yes, it would look crass to name someone before she’s buried.
Forget about the usual political decor and holding off for sake of politeness and mourning the dead... the real reason Trump needs to hold off naming a SCOTUS judge immediately is the GOP's batting average has been so awful in vetting good conservatives.
We're talking about a LIFETIME appointment, the Trump administration needs to thoroughly research their candidates and think long and hard before putting any name forward to public scrutiny, not immediately jump to throw someone out there at the earliest opportunity.
Too many useful idiots on "our side" think ANY judge with a "R" next to their name who CLAIMS his/her "judicial philosophy" is "originalist" will magically be awesome on the bench and always vote the way we want.
History has shown that strategy is a complete failure, but probably a bunch of dopes on FR would STILL drink that kool-aid tomorrow if Trump picked some crappy obscure career federal judge/political hack and told us the guy is "originalist" and therefore will be an awesome judge.
I will probably get flamed for this on FR, but realistically I do not think the Senate is going to confirm ANY judge until AFTER the election. If I'm wrong, I'll be pleasantly surprised.
>> In Feb. of 2016, I hoped that Obama would nominate someone. I thought that the Senate wouldn’t have confirmed a liberal, since it was controlled by Republicans. <<
Obama's fatal mistake was also with WHO he named, rather than the fact he did it in an election year.
I was 90% certain Obama would play political games with that appointment, and name some judge that would be very difficult for GOP Senators to oppose without suffering political repercussions for it. The two obvious strageies were:
1) Name a radical marxist federal judge who is nominally "Republican" on paper (ideally for Obama, a Reagan or Bush judge that had "evolved" on the bench and gone hard left), so he could claim it was a "bipartisan consensus appointment" with widespread support across political lines, and paint the GOP Senators who opposed it as radical extremists "who would destroy the career of a promising young member of their own party just to get back at me", blah blah blah.
2) Name some "historic first" minority to SCOTUS (I believe betting money was on some Indian-American who would have been the first Hindu SCOTUS judge), so he could paint the GOP senators who opposed it as being motivated purely by racism, homophobia, and bigotry, they loathe the idea of more "brown people" in power, and will hold it up until they get a straight white male, blah blah blah.
When Obama named another bland, pasty-white, ivy-league liberal Jewish judge to SCOTUS, he had zero momentum and it was dead in the water. That made it EASY for the GOP Senators to simply ignore the nominee and wait a few months until Obama was no longer President. They had zero to lose in doing so. Whoever advised Obama to name Merrick Garland gave him terrible advice.
We dodged a real bullet with that one.
Shouldn’t everyone on the “list” have been vetted already? Isn’t that the point of the list?
They want 9 in place for a possible contested election, insurance against John Roberts flipping.
I don’t think it would have made a bit of difference if Obama had nominated a “minority” or fake “Republican”, McConnel’s balls were in place. Reportedly Bama reached out to Brian Sandoval but Sandoval said no and the left lost their shit over it.
The rebuttal:
This nomination will be mostly about politics and less about naming a serious originalist. Due to the timing.
1. The presumption is that it’s a one-time shot. If the timing of this were January, a failed nomination can be followed up with another nominee. Not so with this nominee. Thus, I think POTUS will be inclined to nominate someone who is “more likely to be confirmed.”
2. The choice of nominee could be the difference between winning the election and losing. It’s inevitable that the nominee will be “political” with a eye to the election.
Conclusion: the “wrong nominee” who is a strong originalist who fails could mean (1) we don’t end up with an originalist ... that (2) we get a Biden judge, and (3) a Biden presidency.
0 for 3 !!!
The only question is how many Republicans can be swayed by the rhetoric, rioting, etc.
If Mitch can keep the troops together, the president will be able to name the best originalist available, politics be damned (although he did virtually make it a lock today that the nominee will be female).
This seat has been flipping back and forth for over a century. The Communist conspirators did a lousy job of hanging onto it.
GOP Hughes 1910-16
DEM Clarke 1916-22
GOP Sutherland 1922-38
DEM Reed 1938-57
GOP Whittaker 1957-62
DEM White 1962-1993, opposed Roe
DEM Ginsburg 1993-2020
The Dems hurt themselves in the ‘18 Senate races by their actions and votes against Kavanaugh. Nelson of FLA lost his seat because of it. So if they want to repeat the process to a more damaging degree, that’s great.
Byron White should’ve retired 2 years earlier so the seat could’ve been kept in non-moonbat hands. One seat was the difference between the evil Obergefell abomination being properly shot down.
That was indeed the point of his last “list” ...supposedly they had already been vetted and Trump wouldn’t have put them on there if they we’re good picks. Of course, that turned out not to be the case. Even Trump admits his original “list” turned out to be a dud, that’s why he drew up a new one. Of course, if the same advisors were in charge of both, I have my doubts.
Word is White stayed on because he saw the seat as Dem. And he considered himself a Dem. Worked for RFK at Justice.
The proper nominee should help GOP in MT IA CO AL MICH. Senate races.
Not sure who that is. I’m not sold on Barrett.
That would rule out someone like Amy Coney Barrett then. But supposedly Trump was "saving" a Ginsburg vacancy just for her?
According to numerous FReepers, Trump "had to" nominate squishy useless Anthony Kennedy clerk Neil Gorsuch for Scalia's seat because he was somehow the "only confirmable nominee", but Trump CAN nominate an unabashedly solidly pro-life, ultra-Catholic nominee to replace a liberal icon during an election year, and the Senate will just roll over and immediately rubber stamp her! Super easy, barely an inconvenience. Susan Collins refused to vote for Kavanaugh until he promised her Roe v. Wade is super duper settled law, but I guess she'll have a Come-to-Jesus moment and eagerly vote to replace Ginsburg with a hardcore pro-lifer.
Using that logic, I simply don't have the stamina to walk two blocks down the street to Jimmy John's, but I should have no problems winning the Gold Medal at the Olympics decathlon!
I know some FReepers seem to sincerely hold those beliefs. If anyone from the Trump administration actually does, I'd wonder what stuff they've been smoking.
Talk about cognitive dissidence.
Larsen ... Iowa, Mich
Sykes ... Wisc
Margaret Ryan
3 on the list. Which will perform best in hearings?
Peters, Mich. & Greenfield of IA. Get them on record as opposing Larsen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.