Ruth Bader Ginsberg has pancreatic cancer

[Wacka]

54 minutes ago, spartacus said:

saw this on another site regarding the audacity of Trump, breaking precedent, to nominate a SC replacement in an election year.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/supreme-court-why-no-justice-has-beenconfirmed-in-the-fall-of-a-presidential-election-year/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=top-stories&utm_term=second

 

 

So, in the history of our United States:

-There have been 29 times in which a vacancy came up during an election year.

Of those 29 times, the sitting president has nominated a replacement 29 times.  That's batting 1000 for us sports fans playing at home. Every single time, the sitting president has made a nomination.

1. In 19 cases, the president’s party held the Senate;

a. 17 of the 19 vacancies were filled, the exceptions being the bipartisan filibuster against Lyndon Johnson’s nominees in 1968 and George Washington’s withdrawal and resubmission in the next Congress of a nominee who was ineligible to be confirmed (he’d voted to create the Court, and the Constitution made him wait until there was a new Congress seated).

b.  Nine of those 17 were confirmed before the election, and eight after. Three were confirmed in lame duck post-election sessions even though the president had just lost reelection.

 

2. In ten cases, the party opposing the president held the Senate;

a. only one of the ten got a nominee confirmed before the election,

b. two were confirmed after the election when the president’s party won the election, and

c. one (Dwight Eisenhower’s nomination of William Brennan) was a pre-election recess appointment that was confirmed by the new Senate in the new year after Eisenhower was reelected.

. 

 

So, it's not really unprecedented at all.

Pretty much standard practice that Pres makes nomination in ALL cases and likely that Senate confirms if of same party as Pres. 

It's unprecedented if you don't know history.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

Tie the act of evil directly to the main inquisitor, Kamala Harris. Juxtapose that with her comments on Biden and believing he’s a violent sexual predator and later on, her giddiness as she laughed off supporting the alleged victim of the violent sexual assault when asked in the dopey tonight show.  
 

I think it’s rare to have a candidate you can rightly portray as overtly hostile, hypocritical and apathetic to the plight of survivors of violent assault in one fell swoop. 

[Dr. Who]

2 minutes ago, Wacka said:

It's unprecedented if you don't know history.

Ignorance is the engine that runs the totalitarian cancel culture. And what they think they know isn't so.

[Deranged Rhino]

17 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Plus, she may have wanted to mentor/indoctrinate Sotomayer and Kagan.  It makes you wonder what Thomas and Alito will do as they're no spring chickens.

 

I think if (when) Trump gets a second term, two more likely retire. He could end up picking 4-5 when he's all said and done. That would be... crazy.

[B-Man]

45 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I think if (when) Trump gets a second term, two more likely retire. He could end up picking 4-5 when he's all said and done. That would be... crazy.

 

 

Thomas and Breyer.

 

 

 

[Nanker]

6 hours ago, Crayola64 said:

I think you misread my post, I said why not wait until the lame duck session if it comes to that.  If he wins, you’re gravy.  If he loses, just confirm your nominee and incur the “wrath.”  It’s not like you wouldn’t get equal wrath by confirming before the election

 

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I think if (when) Trump gets a second term, two more likely retire. He could end up picking 4-5 when he's all said and done. That would be... crazy.

If he does win and the Republicans hold the Senate I wonder if he would pack the court with two more conservative justices since the Dems threaten to add two more liberals. 
 

Be careful what you wish for. The Dems are once again overplaying their hand. 

[Deranged Rhino]

7 minutes ago, Nanker said:

 

If he does win and the Republicans hold the Senate I wonder if he would pack the court with two more conservative justices since the Dems threaten to add two more liberals. 
 

Be careful what you wish for. The Dems are once again overplaying their hand. 

I hope they don’t go that road personally, but the meltdown would be hilarious.  

[Dragoon]

9 is the number. No more, no less. 9. I mean seriously...40 years from now are we going to have a 327-328 decision? 
 

9 is the number. 

[Numark3]

45 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

I hope they don’t go that road personally, but the meltdown would be hilarious.  

it’s just foolish because as hilarious as the meltdown would be, it would be duplicated by Dems in the future.  And we really don’t want court packing for the Supreme Court....

36 minutes ago, Dragoon said:

9 is the number. No more, no less. 9. I mean seriously...40 years from now are we going to have a 327-328 decision? 
 

9 is the number. 

should be!  But I think one of the parties will go down that slippery slope sooner than later unfortunately 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

44 minutes ago, Dragoon said:

9 is the number. No more, no less. 9. I mean seriously...40 years from now are we going to have a 327-328 decision? 
 

9 is the number. 

 

...unfortunately nothing prevents the SC from being expanded if the votes are there.....so if the Dems win, rest assured they will scheme to gain a liberal majority IMO......

[Numark3]

1 minute ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...unfortunately nothing prevents the SC from being expanded if the votes are there.....so if the Dems win, rest assured they will scheme to gain a liberal majority IMO......

UNLESS you all listen to me

 

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

1 minute ago, Crayola64 said:

UNLESS you all listen to me

 

 

 

 

...so define your "slippery slope" and who goes first.........

[SectionC3]

1 hour ago, Nanker said:

 

If he does win and the Republicans hold the Senate I wonder if he would pack the court with two more conservative justices since the Dems threaten to add two more liberals. 
 

Be careful what you wish for. The Dems are once again overplaying their hand. 

Ask the house. 

[Buffalo_Gal]

6 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...unfortunately nothing prevents the SC from being expanded if the votes are there.....so if the Dems win, rest assured they will scheme to gain a liberal majority IMO......

So, I am curious... is there anything to prevent them from passing rules that put back the judicial filibuster with some sort of addendum that it takes 60 to get rid of it in the future, do the same with any other filibusters, and the same for not expanding the courts?   And, could it be done in December IF the Republicans lose the Senate? 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

Just now, Buffalo_Gal said:

So, I am curious... is there anything to prevent them from passing rules that put back the judicial filibuster with some sort of addendum that it takes 60 to get rid of it in the future, do the same with any other filibusters, and the same for not expanding the courts?   And, could it be done in December IF the Republicans lose the Senate? 

 

 

...an EXCELLENT question BG......hopefully the FAR more informed like DR, Hedge or Bman know the answer......I'd bet a simple majority won't work but have no clue......

[Numark3]

6 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

 

...so define your "slippery slope" and who goes first.........

I say republicans don’t confirm during election.

 

then if trump wins, you confirm WITHOUT giving the dems the ammo they (may) need to pack the court.  
 

if trump loses, you confirm.  You will get the wrath of dems and give them the ammo to pack the court, but that would happen if you confirmed before the election.

 

I like my idea!

3 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

So, I am curious... is there anything to prevent them from passing rules that put back the judicial filibuster with some sort of addendum that it takes 60 to get rid of it in the future, do the same with any other filibusters, and the same for not expanding the courts?   And, could it be done in December IF the Republicans lose the Senate? 

I don’t believe there is any ability for a rule/law to prevent the ability of congress to amend a rule/law?  I could be really wrong on that though 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

14 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

I say republicans don’t confirm during election.

 

then if trump wins, you confirm WITHOUT giving the dems the ammo they (may) need to pack the court.  
 

if trump loses, you confirm.  You will get the wrath of dems and give them the ammo to pack the court, but that would happen if you confirmed before the election.

 

I like my idea!

I don’t believe there is any ability for a rule/law to prevent the ability of congress to amend a rule/law?  I could be really wrong on that though 

 

 

...because of the immediate, whiny stench about preelection confirmation, starting with none other than Chuck "The Schmuck" Schumer ("Amy is NOT mainstream"), followed by threats of violence, etc, Trump will now stick it "in their craw" PERIOD......hope so.....3 1/2 years of TDS, hatred, foment, vitriol et al ALL at the expense of the country.....535 has been lawyerly, has been, private sector unemployable frauds pontificating about "doing the people's business"?......seriously?.....this is worse than "I promise, I will call you tomorrow"......

Edited September 22, 2020 by OldTimeAFLGuy

[Dragoon]

36 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...unfortunately nothing prevents the SC from being expanded if the votes are there.....so if the Dems win, rest assured they will scheme to gain a liberal majority IMO......

November is gonna be a red wave (fingers crossed). Maybe that can be legislated...keeping the court at 9. Go further than 9 and you’re really watering it down. 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

1 minute ago, Dragoon said:

November is gonna be a red wave (fingers crossed). Maybe that can be legislated...keeping the court at 9. Go further than 9 and you’re really watering it down. 

 

...hope you're right....but one angle that comes to mind is that there are 12 Circuit Court of Appeals in the US.....wouldn't surprise me if they said SC seats should equate to 12.....false justification? damn right.....9 seats have been working just fine unless you want to manipulate the SC composition "in the best interest of the Country" which I am CERTAIN is the Dems ONLY concern (COUGH).....

[TakeYouToTasker]

Romney has decided to side with Republicans, and supports voting on Trumps nominee.  They have the votes.