Thought I would take this discussion out of the RBG thread

Who might succeed Justice Ginsburg? Trump's short list begins with these five women (and one man)
USA TODAY
Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
,USA TODAY•September 19, 2020


WASHINGTON – The line to succeed the late Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court likely starts with these federal appeals court judges:

Amy Coney Barrett

A finalist for Trump's second high court nomination, which ultimately went to Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, Barrett, 48, is a favorite of religious conservatives.

Barrett rocketed to the top of Trump's list of potential nominees after her 2017 confirmation hearing for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, when Democrats cited her deep Catholic faith not as an advantage but an obstacle. She was confirmed, 55-43.

"If you're asking whether I take my faith seriously and I'm a faithful Catholic, I am," Barrett responded during that hearing, "although I would stress that my personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear in the discharge of my duties as a judge."

She has written that Supreme Court precedents are not sacrosanct, which liberals have interpreted as a threat to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide.

RBG's opinions and dissents: From VMI to Voting Rights Act

In a 2013 Texas Law Review article exploring when the Supreme Court should overturn past decisions, Barrett wrote that she agrees "with those who say that a justice’s duty is to the Constitution, and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it.”

She also wrote that the public’s response to controversial cases like Roe v. Wade “reflects public rejection” of the idea that legal precedent “can declare a permanent victor in a divisive constitutional struggle.”

A former member of the University of Notre Dame’s “Faculty for Life,” Barrett signed a 2015 letter to Catholic bishops that affirmed the “teachings of the Church as truth.” Among those teachings: the “value of human life from conception to natural death” and marriage-family values “founded on the indissoluble commitment of a man and a woman.”

Barrett wrote in 2017 that Chief Justice John Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning in order to save it. Roberts creatively interpreted as a tax the law’s penalty on those who don’t buy insurance, allowing the court to uphold the constitutionality of the law, she said.

The Indiana resident is the mother of seven children, including two from Haiti and one with special needs. She spent two decades as a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, from which she holds her bachelor's and law degrees. She also clerked for Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.

Joan Larsen

Federal appeals court Judge Joan Larsen

Like Barrett, Larsen, 51, spent much of her career as a professor, at the University of Michigan Law School.

She was appointed to the Michigan Supreme Court in 2015, elected to that court the following year, and nominated by Trump to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in 2017. She was confirmed by a 60-38 vote that November.

Larsen graduated from the University of Northern Iowa and Northwestern University School of Law, where she was first in her class. She clerked for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

"We have differing views on law, politics and religion," she wrote in The New York Times about Scalia's former law clerks three days after his death in 2016. "But I have yet to meet a Scalia clerk who was not grateful to the man who taught us, shaped us, and launched us into our lives in the law."

Larsen was a deputy assistant U.S. attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel under President George W. Bush from 2002-2003.

Defending the doctrine of originalism, or strict adherence to the Constitution, Larsen wrote in a 2010 law review article that originalists do not oppose change.

"Originalism typically is quite comfortable with change; its only enemy is change imposed by judges," she wrote. "An originalist’s Constitution can thus easily keep up with the times. Judges are just not licensed to be the engines of change."

Britt Grant

Federal appeals court Judge Britt Grant

The youngest frontrunner for Ginsburg's seat, Grant, 42, shares a close friendship with Kavanaugh, for whom she clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Grant, a former Georgia Supreme Court justice and solicitor general, was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in April 2018 and confirmed 52-46 three months later.

While waiting for his own confirmation hearing, Kavanaugh conducted her swearing-in, lauding her as a "fair and even-handed" judge. Grant returned the favor, vowing that she would "strive to live up to Judge Kavanaugh’s example of integrity, stability and commitment to the rule of law."

A graduate of Wake Forest University and Stanford Law School, where she was president of the conservative Federalist Society chapter, Grant previously worked briefly in George W. Bush's administration and for former Georgia governor Nathan Deal.

Barbara Lagoa

Federal appeals court Judge Barbara Lagoa

Federal appeals court Judge Barbara Lagoa, 52, was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit last year. A Cuban American from the swing state of Florida, she could help Trump in two ways politically.

Lagoa is considered a protégé of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a close Trump ally. In 2019, he appointed Lagoa to the Florida Supreme Court, making her the first Cuban American woman to serve there.

Lagoa was in the majority last week when/the 11th Circuit ruled 6-4 that hundreds of thousands of Florida felons who have served their time cannot vote this fall or in the future unless they pay fees and fines owed to the state.

The decision along strict ideological lines, with all five of Trump's judges in the majority, could have a major impact on the presidential race because of Florida's history of razor-thin margins. In 2000, George W. Bush won the White House with a 537-vote victory margin there.

"Florida’s felon re-enfranchisement scheme is constitutional," Lagoa wrote in a 20-page concurrence. "It falls to the citizens of the state of Florida and their elected state legislators, not to federal judges, to make any additional changes to it."

Allison Eid

Federal appeals court Judge Allison Eid

Trump's choice of Neil Gorsuch as his first Supreme Court nominee in 2017 opened the door for Eid, 55, who succeeded him on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

A former law clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas, Eid, a Coloradan like Gorsuch, graduated from Stanford University and the University of Chicago Law School. She later taught at the University of Colorado Law School.

After serving briefly as Colorado's solicitor general and for a decade on the state Supreme Court, Eid made Trump's original list of potential high court nominees in 2016. She was nominated the following year to the Tenth Circuit and confirmed, 56-41, in November.

Amul Thapar

Federal appeals court Judge Amul Thapar

When Trump embarked in 2017 on what would become the nomination and confirmation of more than 200 federal judges, Gorsuch came first. Then came Thapar.

A Kentucky protégé of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Thapar (pronounced uh-MALL Thuh-PAR), 51, would be the first Indian American to reach the nation's highest court. He was confirmed to his current post on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit by a 52-44 vote in May 2017.

A former Kentucky judge and U.S. attorney with vast trial court experience – a rarity on the Supreme Court – Thapar was born in Detroit to Indian immigrants and grew up in Toledo, Ohio with his maternal grandfather, who fought with Mahatma Ghandi for India’s independence.

Thapar’s father, Raj, has said the family urged Amul to become a physician but he had only one dream – to become a justice on the Supreme Court.

He studied economics and philosophy at Boston College before earning his law degree at the University of California-Berkeley. He converted to Catholicism upon getting married and has three children.

On the appeals court, Thapar has voted to uphold Ohio's method of lethal injection for executions, as well as a Michigan county's practice of opening government meetings with Christian prayers.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/might-succeed-justice-ginsburg-trumps-001508738.html

Don't fill it!

Not before the election and after only the winner should pick.

Fill it.

Do it, republicans. Fill that vacancy. Trump says he’s gonna announce the pick next week.

Do it. And hold the hearings, republicans.

Please.

Yes, do it. Do it with a speed that’s never been seen before. Do it without Senate hearings, just a straight up or down vote and be done with it.

I have a lot of popcorn.

Everything at stake in the upcoming Supreme Court battle
Mike Bebernes
Mike BebernesEditor
Yahoo News 360Sat, September 19, 2020, 6:23 PM EDT
“The 360” shows you diverse perspectives on the day’s top stories and debates.

0:03 0:46

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

What's Happening:

The announcement of the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday sent a shock wave through the political world. Lawmakers, journalists and members of the public flooded social media with testimonies of what the longtime champion for equal rights had done for the country.

The conversation looking back on Ginsburg’s legacy was quickly accompanied by a forward-looking discussion about what her passing will mean for the future of America’s top court. Within hours, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that the Senate would hold a vote on a nominee put forward by President Trump — a reversal of his controversial stance that left a Supreme Court seat vacant during the final year of Barack Obama’s presidency.

There are significant political and logistical hurdles that McConnell must clear to confirm Trump’s nominee with just 45 days left until the election. But there’s little Democrats can do to halt the process if Republicans, who hold a majority in the Senate, remain united. The nomination process will be a major flash point in the election, perhaps even more heated than the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. GOP leaders appear to be willing to invite that controversy if it means putting another conservative justice on the Supreme Court.


Why There’s Debate:

Replacing Ginsburg, one of the court’s four liberal justices, with a conservative in the vein of Kavanaugh or Trump’s other appointee, Neil Gorsuch, would represent one of the most significant ideological shifts on the Supreme Court in decades, legal experts say. Before Ginsburg’s death, the balance of power was split between the court’s four liberal justices and four staunch conservatives, with Chief Justice John Roberts — a conservative in his own right — often serving as the decisive swing vote.

A 6-3 majority creates space for conservatives to be much more aggressive in enacting their constitutional beliefs. This shift could have major implications for a long list of issues, including abortion, voting rights, health care, LGBTQ rights, gun rights and environmental policy. The newly appointed justice may also play a crucial role if the upcoming election is contested. A reliable bloc of conservative justices, who are appointed for life, could make it impossible for Democrats to enact their policy goals for decades to come.

Beyond the political implications, the vacancy created by Ginsburg’s death could lead to fundamental changes for the Supreme Court itself. Republicans rushing to confirm a third Trump justice could further erode the public’s faith in one of America’s most important institutions and create a crisis of legitimacy for the court, some experts argue. Some Democrats have signaled that they would respond by “packing” the court by adding several more justices to offset the influence of Trump’s appointees if they gain control of the Senate next year.

What's Next:

Trump has yet to indicate who he will nominate to fill Ginsburg’s seat or when that might happen. Once a nominee is named, the Senate can begin hearings ahead of a confirmation vote. The process doesn’t need to be completed before the election on Nov. 3. Even if Trump loses to Joe Biden and Democrats take back the Senate, Republicans will still have until Inauguration Day on Jan. 20 to confirm Trump’s nominee. The Supreme Court will carry on with eight justices until a new justice is confirmed.

Perspectives:

This is one of the most important Supreme Court vacancies in modern U.S. history

“Should Trump pick Ginsburg’s replacement, however, the ideological shift rightward it represents would likely be the largest for a single Supreme Court seat since the conservative Clarence Thomas succeeded the liberal Thurgood Marshall nearly three decades ago.” — Russell Berman, Atlantic

A 6-3 conservative majority could rewrite laws on a long list of major issues

“The impact of this particular vacancy could ripple far beyond what takes place on Capitol Hill. The issues that surround the vacancy encompass the broader culture war that divides red and blue America, from abortion to marriage equality to health care to the very structure of government.” — Dan Balz, Washington Post

The balance of the court would shift to the right for a generation

“Ginsburg’s death has set up nothing short of a historic war for the future of the court – and American life under the law. Donald Trump and Republicans in the Senate are determined to replace Ginsburg with a conservative justice. Their doing so could decisively tilt the ideological balance of the court for a generation and would probably constitute the most lasting legacy of the Trump presidency.” — Tom McCarthy, Guardian

Democrats could retaliate by adding several seats to the court

“If the Democrats are unable to block Trump’s nominee, there is but one choice should Joe Biden win the White House and the Democrats take back a majority in the Senate: pack the Supreme Court.” — Elie Mystal, Nation

Another conservative justice would bring stability to the rule of law

“For all the Democrats’ hysteria about the purportedly imminent reversal of Roe v. Wade (that never happens) every time a conservative is appointed, the fact is that Republican judicial nominees are forces of stability who favor judicial restraint, enabling Americans to determine democratically how they wish to live. By contrast, the public rightly sees Democratic judicial nominees as forces of radical change, imposed by judicial fiat at the expense of democratic self-determination.” — Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review

A conservative majority will make it impossible for Democrats to enact their policies

“Even if Democrats were to control the White House and both chambers of Congress, there is no element of any progressive wish list that this Court will allow to stand. A solid 6-3 Republican majority … would gum up the works of government for a generation, at the very least.” — Jay Willis, The Appeal

The integrity of one of the country’s most important institutions is on the line

“If Trump and Republicans replace Ginsburg it will destroy the remaining public legitimacy of the Supreme Court. Full stop.” — Jonathan V. Last, Bulwark

The Affordable Care Act could soon be repealed

“The last time the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of Obamacare, it affirmed it 5 to 4. This time, without Ginsburg, the outcome will be much less certain.” — Al Tompkins, Tampa Bay Times

A disputed election could lead to a constitutional crisis

“And imagine the horror should the presidential election result in a dispute, Bush v. Gore-style, that goes to the Supreme Court, with a brand-new justice, confirmed under these circumstances, casting the tiebreaking vote. It’s hard to say that American democracy could recover.” — Joshua A. Douglas, CNN

Protections for abortion rights could be repealed

“If a new justice, as part of a 6-3 conservative majority, leads to Roe’s overturning, abortion will return to being a state issue and at least half of all states will probably ban it outright. Another dozen will likely put additional restrictions on it. Millions of women will find it all but impossible to get abortions if this happens.” — Kevin Drum, Mother Jones

Environmental protections could be significantly rolled back

“Federal agencies are where the experts in the government are. They’re the ones who write all the actual rules and regulations that help keep the air clean, the water clean, help keep food safety. … If the conservatives figure out a way to really limit the power of federal agencies, then you would see a real sea change in how American government works and, you know, a real … a kind of constitutional move toward deregulation.” — New York Times writer Emily Bazelon to Slate



https://www.yahoo.com/news/everything-at-stake-in-the-upcoming-supreme-court-battle-222302832.html

Updates from the North Carolina Trump rally...



7:10 PM: Trump says the Supreme Court was a central issue in 2016 and even in the 2018 midterm elections. He says Democrats are worried that his supporters are more excited than they were four years ago.

Trump says North Carolina should end its shutdown and he says, like in Michigan and Pennsylvania, it’s all political.

7:08 PM: Trump says there has been 29 times when there was a vacancy during an election year or prior to inauguration and every single time the sitting president made a nomination. Trump says nobody said “let’s not fill that seat.”

7:07 PM: Trump now says Article II of the Constitution says the president shall nominate justices of the Supreme Court.

Crowd chants: “Fill that seat!”

“And that’s what we’re going to do,” Trump says. “Fill that seat.”

7:05 PM: Trump says we need to save our country from the “radical-left crazies.” Trump says the nation mourns the loss of a “legal giant” Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Trump talks about her “courageous battle with cancer.” Trump says she was an “inspiration” to a “tremendous” number of people and “all Americans” whether you agreed with her. Trump says his thoughts and prayers are with her family.

https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/09/19/live-updates-trump-holds-north-carolina-rally-6/

Screw Trump and his trogs.

Another great example of "higher emotional intelligence."

Trump should nominate someone. They can start the vetting process but I don’t think there is enough time to properly vet before the election. If Trump wins, things will already set in motion. If he loses the Republicans should do nothing. Joe should get to nominate his own judge.

I would have no issue with that. But do you really think it will go down that way? If Biden wins, I have no doubt the repubes are going to do everything they can to force a candidate through the process.

They will get my family, need to buy a gun, I'm voting for an ass even though I don't like him I think he will protect me. Can you see the pattern?

That also seems reasonable to me. You could argue about whether (with 35 new senators coming in) -- the old senate or new senate should take the final vote or not.

However, it is mathematically pretty unlikely that Trump wins and democrats win the senate, so that is probably not a situation to worry about a ton.

I guess I am a little slow.

Moscow Mitch stopped Obama in 2016 on the basis that - even though Scalia passed in February - the next POTUS should select.

We're now less than 2 full months from the election ... what's changed? Other than despicable human scum like Moscow Mitch and Graham not wanting what's right for the country at large?

I mean I don't expect any different behavior from the party of Trump - but I'm interested in the justification.

The appointment can take place anytime before Jan 20th if President Trump doesn't win. It doesn't have to be by the election.

I think that is what Pdawg said "if Trump wins they can continue with his nominee.. if Biden wins he should be allowed to appoint somebody"

at least that is how i read it.

It was the despicable human scum, Pelosi, Schiff, Nader and their minion scum who impeached an innocent man. You could start with blaming them, or you can blame Harry Reid, the scum that made it possible. Without his nuclear option, you’d have the filibuster in place. You want to blame someone, blame sleazy libs in general. It’s a big target, you can’t miss.

Lindsey Graham Backpedals After Saying ‘Use My Words Against Me’ on Supreme Court Vacancies

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/lindsey-graham-backpedals-saying-words-183103615.html

Dems, if y’all win control of government, end the filibuster and ram through all progressive legislation. The Republican Party won’t live up to their OWN precedent?

Fine.

Change the topic why don't you?

Impeached an innocent man? That's YOUR version ... it does not jive with the facts. It does not jive with Republicans saying that Trump probably committed impeachable offenses but they'd let the voters decide.

"Sleazy Libs" .... coming from a Trump supporter. That's funny.

Back to the topic. POS Moscow Mitch and the hypocrite scumbag Graham.

That's the problem with politics today. "Vote for me....I'm less sleazy."

Sure. I don't disagree - but it's a reality. And we are talking Trump here.

Better at hiding how sleazy anyways.

Imma try to keep this based on campaign strategy....

This is a tough on for the GOP, especially since Mitch already has two defectors.

Murkowski and Collins both cane out objecting to voting on a judge this election season.

Collins is the one right now at most risk of losing her seat.

Two potential holdouts would be Romney of Utah, and Gardner of Colorado.

Polls already out with voters saying whoever wins should nominate the judge. And fund raising for Dems have gone through the roof after Ginsburg’s passing due to the republicans trying to rush through a nominee.

So what do republicans do? Push through a nominee and all but guarantee that the senate goes to democratic control? Or wait, play defense, and hope that decision helps maintain their control in the senate?

If you're likely to lose a bunch of seats/the majority anyways, trying to push through the nomination makes sense "politically"/"partisan-ly". Supreme Court Justices don't have term limits, and can "help" in multiple future elections/decisions.

And that's one of the many things I hate about partisan politics. It's too often more about trying to hamstring your opponent than doing what's best for the country... not that they'd know what was best if there was a literal modern equivalent of God giving the ten commandments.

He should nominate a Black woman to pander to the left voters cause the scumbag lefties do it all the time and it works like a charm for them. It would be fun to watch how the MSM and the dem leaders grapple with that.
J\C.

The Best move for Trump to the voters would be to say, He is going to fill it, after the Election results but before the new congress and or January Innaugragion,

The Problem is: The Election results are going to drag out over time, and the window between November and January is too small.

I tell you one thing, if it were the Democrats in charge right now, I wouldn't want some partisan who'd already nominated 2, to nominate a 3rd,

But on the other hand, 40 years ago it wasn't as much of a problem until the democrats starting using the Supreme Court as Judge, Jury, executioner, Lawmaker, Interpreter, Potentate, and rule against the many votes of states' constituencies like the case of homosexual marriage.

The Democrats use the Courts to ram things down against the will of the people,
The Republicans use the courts to interpret and try and uphold the Constitution.

You must not have seen the Clarence Thomas hearing years ago. You know the dems already declare any person of color that isn't a democrat to be an "uncle tom" or worse.

I remember that quite well and so do they and the pure systemic racism that oozed from the dems especially bird brained Biden ,but we are the racist what a joke the libs are.

They'd just give her the Condoleeza Rice treatment, including those loveley cartoon charicatures that get accepted and chuckled at....freedom of the press, you know.

Clarice Feldman from the American Thinker wrote this:



There are 53 Republican Senators and 47 Democrats. In case of a tie, the Vice President may cast his vote. Senator Susan Collins says she will vote no. Senator Lisa Murkowski has said she will not vote for a Supreme Court Justice before the election. Rumor has it that Mitt Romney would vote against a replacement, something his spokesperson vehemently denied. Even assuming they all bail, Manchin, who voted for Kavanaugh, indicates thst he'll vote yes, and there’s at least one other Democratic senator in a tight race who might jump ship on this (Doug Jones of Alabama).

The President has made clear some time ago that he’d move ahead with any replacement, observing honestly that a Democratic president would. Those who want to deny him another seat on the Court will bring up what’s called “the Biden rule” arguing that traditionally no president should do this in an election year. Unfortunately for them, as recently as four years ago, when Obama tried this with Merrick Garland, Biden said there was no such rule.

Biden said that statement, taken out of context, glosses over his main gripe from the time -- that Bush nominated Thomas, an "extreme candidate," in 1991 without consulting his committee just four days after Justice Thurgood Marshall retired.

There are a number of candidates on the President’s short list. I put my money on Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative Catholic mother of seven (including two children adopted from Haiti and one with Down Syndrome) who presently sits on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. At the American Spectator, Robert Stacy McCain persuasively argues for her appointment. He notes that there has not been a Republican woman on the Court since Sandra Day O’ Connor; she’s not from the Ivy League, graduates of which load the court “who come from a very insular, elitist perspective that does not reflect the experience of ordinary Americans”; and she’s from the middle of the country, not the coasts. During Barrett’s confirmation hearings to the Court of Appeals, Senator Dianne Feinstein famously slammed observant Catholics “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that people have fought for years in this country.”

Democrats have to risk alienating Catholics and traditional women concerned with family issues if they repeat this.

Barrett has said that women shouldn’t be pigeonholed into specific roles based on other “dogma” on the issue; rather, the individual circumstances should govern and nobody should assail their choices out of some feminist or traditionalist perspective. That’s a healthy viewpoint the majority of American women, and particularly middle-class or upper-middle-class women in the suburbs, will find wisdom in.

Which is a trap the Democrats could easily fall into, seeing as though so many of them have taken on the perspective that women who choose family over a career are somehow selling themselves short or are traitors to their sex and seeing as though the Left is insistent on forcing women to adopt more and more unrealistic ideals for themselves, at an increasing cost to the happiness of women in America. Nobody would accuse Amy Barrett of that, but to paint her as barefoot and pregnant because she has seven kids, including two adoptees from Haiti and one with Down Syndrome, will be an unmitigated disaster in front of suburban women far more likely to see her as a hero.

You guys want to alienate the rest of the Catholics you haven’t pissed off? You want to drive away those suburban white chicks you’re competitive with because of Trump’s mean tweets, the ones you had a brief flirtation with in the 2018 midterms but who are ignoring your texts thanks to the “mostly-peaceful” riots just a few miles away from where they do yoga a couple of days a week? Go make a run at Kavanaughing Amy Barrett. Let’s see how well that works for you.

I’d advise any senator on the fence to listen to Ted Cruz, who argues we can’t afford to have a vacancy on the court and resultant 4-4 ties with election disputes already underway and likely to continue. An unresolved election is dangerous to the world and could well lead to civil war here.

Yea......trying to push through a pro-life judge by hiding behind the fact that it will be a woman is not gonna fly with the majority of women.

There is no risk because that demographic was already gonna vote trump anyway. There is minimum risk to Dems, and a very high risk to republicans.

But hey, go ahead. Watching republicans get creamed in the election after rushing through a judge will be amazing.

We can't be sure we will know who won the election by January 20. It will still be in the courts.

Don't forget watching a Dem POTUS add 6 new seats to the SCOTUS with 6 new justices will be fun too.

That's what Trump should do...add 6 new conservative justices when he wins in Nov!

I can't wait until we have more justices than senators. Maybe they can install stadium seating, socially distanced of course.

I just want the snack concession.

In Vers words....Another great example of "higher emotional intelligence."

You do understand that the Supreme Court's job is to rule what is Constitutional, not what is the "will of the people." Most people are idiots. Denying homosexual marriage was denying people equal rights under the Constitution. Even if 80% of Americans didn't want it does not change whether it is Constitutional or not.

Neither side is completely innocent when it comes to trying to use the courts to their own advantage, but don't act like denying human rights because it is the "will of the people" makes it Constitutional.

Here's the hypocrisy and lie involved. When Obama wished to appoint a SCOTUS judge, Republican senators and their voters said that, even 270 days until the election, that the voters should have say in the election as to who should appoint the next judge to the SCOTUS. Now, with 44 days until the election they say Trump should appoint the new judge. The same Mitch McConnell who said.....

Feb. 22, 2016: McConnell reaffirms his stance: "Of course it’s within the president’s authority to nominate a successor even in this very rare circumstance — remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago — but we also know that Article II, Section II of the Constitution grants the Senate the right to withhold its consent, as it deems necessary."

Feb. 23, 2016: “The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter after the American people finish making in November the decision they’ve already started making today."

March 16, 2016, with Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland, McConnell stood his ground: It is important for the Senate to "give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy" by waiting until the next president takes office. "The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration," McConnell said. "The next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice."

And he tells "Meet the Press": "The American people are about to weigh in on who is going to be the president. And that's the person, whoever that may be, who ought to be making this appointment."

Now that Trump is president it seems he's shifted to a different stance....

Sept. 18, 2020: With the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, McConnell said, "President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.

"Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary," he added. "Once again, we will keep our promise."

It's nothing more than a power grab. And as we can see on this very board, morals and ethics no longer mean anything to their supporters. They are being exposed for what they are. So they can stop acting like they hold any high ground. They gave that up almost four years ago and they support every scummy move they make to this very day.

Are you genuinely surprised at this? Both sides have flip-flopped numerous times on this issue as it suited them. Expecting politicians (and McConnel, no less) to suddenly start acting with ethics/morals seems silly, given their track record.

Uh, It is the Constitutional Duty of the President to nominate a Supreme Court Justice when there is a vacancy. Obama did it and Trump will too.

Problem with your twisted story is Obama was at the end of his 8 year term while Trump is only in the middle of his.

Senate said no to the outgoing President and will say yes to the midterm President.

He isn't a "Midterm" President until after he would be elected again. So as of today, he isn't. The Senate is a bunch of hypocrites is all that this is. Obama nominated a justice 8 MONTHS before the election and got denied. Trump will nominate, even if today, 6 WEEKS before the election and everything is hunky dory?

I know your side is trying to eliminate the Constitution but it hasn't happened yet.

The Constitution Still Stands.

So in 2016 the voters should have had a say. In 2020 the voters shouldn't have a say. Got it.

You wouldn't allow it to stand in 2016.

So glad you responded to my actual post. Name 1 way Democrats are trying to eliminate the Constitution by pointing out hypocrisy in the Senate? 1 example, please.

And FYI, I didn't vote for a Democrat last election. Haven't decided on this one either. But it won't be Trump.

The Constitution does not say anything about the voters having a say in this.

The Constitution does say it is the sitting Presidents DUTY to nominate a new justice to fill a vacancy.

It is still the United States Constitution and not the Pit constitution, yet.

Right, but you didn't complain when Obama nominated someone and the Senate just ignored it for 8 months. It was still the Constitution then too.

And this is the exact reason that they gave when they denied Obama.

Posted this in the other thread. The left has dug itself a hole with Kavanaugh that they absolutely cannot climb out of. They gambled and they lost and that loss is about to get doubled down on.

If I were a Democrat I would be so pissed at how their party has handled this Presidency. If they push this Nom through you can directly correlate the expediency to the Kavanaugh charade. I just cannot see Republicans thinking they owe even one shred of consideration to the ask that this gets delayed.

Yeah, that's it. It has nothing to do with them refusing to hold hearings on Obama's nominee in 2016 and wanting to push through Trump's in an election year. The fact that you pretend to be so deaf is a big part of the problem.

Uh, it wasn't me that decided anything, it was the Senate that decided Obama should not pick a Supreme at the end of an 8 year term.

Trump is only in his 4th year of an 8 year term and the Senate decided it will consider his nomination.

(The week after President Jimmy Carter lost his 1980 re-election bid, he announced the judicial nomination of a close ally of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Ted Kennedy. The nomination sailed through the Senate, which confirmed the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge 80-10 less than a month later, six weeks before Inauguration Day. That nominee, Stephen Breyer, now sits on the Supreme Court.)

2016, "Voters should have a say."

2020, "Voters should have no say."

Look who’s trigged.

Seeing this a lot right now, must be the New Fox talking point... BUT there is a huge flaw in this thinking because Presidential terms are 4 years not 8! 8 years assumes re election is automatic, ask Bush 1 and Jimmy Carter if that is true... Trump is in the last year of his term. McConnell is full of crap.

I hear you, the problem is like I said, when one side ignores their own hypocrisy for so long. The other side see's it as viable.


I expect cries for impeachment on nearly everything Biden does if President.

His term is still ongoing. Even if he loses, it is still his job until January. The job of the President, as it pertains to a Supreme Court vacancy, is to make an appointment. Period.

The Senate's job is to then hold confirmation hearings. Period.

Government needs to simply do their jobs and stop trying to work the system. Period.

An 8 year term, huh? Someone needs to research a little better.

“They lost the election in 2016, they lost the White House," "So, listen, if they win back those things, they’ll be able to confirm and nominate their own justices in the future, but, to say because they lost elections that now that they will break all of our Constitutional norms and standards, they’ll pack courts, they’ll conduct impeachment hearings to stop a president from carrying forward his Constitutionally authorized privileges and responsibilities. That’s insane.”

-Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo.

If the Senate didn't have these pesky rules that they set for themselves this would all be true, but those rules and their fair application is what is up for debate and scrutiny.

And what rule is this, and is it unwritten or is it codified?

If it is the latter, then they need to follow it. If it is the former, it's not a rule. Period.

I love this phrasing... the trolling level is off the charts...

Yet that wasn't what they were saying in 2016.

It's only the rule when they hold power.

Look - if the Democrats had won the argument in 2016 and appointed Garland - I'd wouldn't have much to complain about now in 2020.

But "the will of the senate" decided that Garland should not even be put through a nomination process (much less confirmed)....

Democrats can very consistently say "we believe (in theory) that the president should be able to make appointments while their term is still ongoing -- however, this isn't what the senate decided in 2016 - and we shouldn't change our established norms based on the whims of who is in charge."



I would be very careful with this argument:

+ 9 supreme court justices is not a written rule.

+ The embargo against adding "Northwest Washington D.C." "South East Washington D.C", "Trinidad, Washington D.C." all as individual US states is an unwritten rule.

+ Impeaching a president or supreme court justices purely for political differences is banned by precedent. It is not a written rule.

If we allow "unwritten rules" to be broken whenever a party with a presidency and the senate want it to be -- a lot of crazy **** is about to happen.

What rule? The Biden rule?

But you said that was not a rule in 2016.

Even Biden said it yesterday that it is nonsense.

So now you cry because people are agreeing with you?

I don't know who "They" are, nor do I care about what happened before. I am not playing Party Ping Pong. I'm stating what *I* believe in.... Do Your Damned Job(s).

Not sure. All I know is this is what the debate is all about. And Trump should NOT pick this nominee IS my personal opinion. But here is a link that might help to start answering your question Purp:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_nomination

I don't have questions. I have statements.

Unless there are clear and specific written rules prohibiting the appointment being part of their job, then it is part of their job.

There is no middle ground there, at all. There is no gray area.

I know. I guess we are voting for 8 years of Biden in November. I didn't know that. It will be good to just vote him in for 8 years and NOT have to worry about him being re elected in 4... 40 will like this.

this would be the dopest night club name, ever.

And I say do your job consistently. This isn't party ping pong. This is one party using two different standards based strictly on who the president is.

The same standard should be used by McConnell that he used in 2016. Now how is that party ping pong? The only one playing party ping pong here is the Republican senate.

And did you say this with Merrick Garland?

Yet things were totally gray in 2016 and I didn't hear your voice then.

Why promote the existence of such a double standard?

Ok, I'll bite and play into the two-party stupidity.... I'm pretty sure I had no stance one way or the other, vocally, but I'm very damned certain I would have been sick and annoyed at the parties playing their games like they are now. Feel free to search the board for all threads related to whomever the Hell is is Merrick Garland is.

I don't get into all of this tripe on the level you guys do, I simply don't care who the Supremes are because it's above my pay grade.... if it is a Dem President that gets to pick, then he gets to pick... and then it is up to the Senate to confirm or reject. Period. If it is the other way and it is an "R" doing the nominating, then guess what? Then he gets to nominate and the Senate is responsible for confirming or rejecting.

I expect the senate to apply the same standards to the process.

Come clean, you just read that post in the Constitution didn't you?

I expect them to do what the Hell we pay them to do.
I expect them to Show Up and Do Their Jobs.

I don't give a rat's ass which way their vote or confirmation goes... but, I sure as Hell expect them to hold that confirmation with due diligence if a nomination goes in.

And if Obama had not been denied his pick BECAUSE of an imminent election 9 months away I would probably feel the exact same way you do. But that did not happen and now the reasoning behind it not happening is the same reason this pick should not happen until the winner of the election is sworn in.

I expected the same thing in 2016 too. When that guy what's his name wasn't given his hearing.

If they're so sure Trump is going to be re-elected then there shouldn't be an issue with waiting for the election to process a nomination (like they did in 2016).

Hearing them talking about Trump's second term like it's automatic while talking about ramming a nomination through ASAP is hilarious to watch/read.

In an institution (like the Senate) which is held together by decades of customs rather than rules -- precedent is more important than efficiency.

i wish Trump would just announce the decision today, instead of waiting until friday.

the earlier, the better. lets get this party started already!

j/c
https://time.com/5324365/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-supreme-court/

Deals with filibuster reform. Article is from 2018 and discusses the replacement of Kennedy on the supreme court, and how just a simple majority vote as opposed to a senate vote of 60 or more came into play.

The filibuster reform was started, in 2013, by Harry Reid, democrat, to assist in bypassing the 60 vote rule.


Also, read this: https://swampland.time.com/2013/11/21/se...s/?iid=sr-link4

OK I kept my word and it's Monday. I hope and pray that Trump nominates and gets a conservative judge approved who is against abortion. That is the reason I voted for Trump. Come on Donny get off your fat ass and get it done. It's time to set things up to overturn Roe V wade

GM bro, you know I love you man. BUT SCREW THAT! If they try I hope women drag them into the streets and beat them with sticks.

I LMAO off when you act like all woman are for abortion. I know a hell of a lot of woman who are 110 percent against abortion. I hope those woman drag men who blow off abortion as if it were nothing into the streets and beat the hell out of them.

Tit for tat bro.

Maybe we could do without the beatings?

We could beat it into GMs head that overturning Roe v Wade won’t stop abortion. It’ll just stop safe abortions. He doesn’t care about women or their safety though. Or babies after their born unwanted. Just cell clumps and zygotes.

Who knows, someday they may be tearing down statues and banning books of those who once supported abortion.

I don't know a single woman in the world that is 'for' abortion. I know many that want to protect their 'choice' and they are equally from both sides of the aisle. AND I would take that beating to protect their right to choose.

I'm also pretty sure my mother, my wife, and my daughters will never need or seek an abortion. My granddaughters might be in a position one day where they may have to decide for themselves. they should not have that choice made for them by a bunch of strange old creepy white dudes.

You've got it all wrong, You've got it all wrong, but see, democrats so often don't get it.

Fix it this way, say it slowly.

In, 2020, the, voters, from, 2016, still, have, a, say.

And RBG, it doesn't really matter a Lick what she wanted for her seat, because it is the seat of the American People, not her or anybody's seat.

And Get this! As it's explained to me, RBG Had an Opportunity to retire during Obama's term, to ensure the vacancy she left would be filled by someone who believes the same nonsenseical rhetoric that side professes,
But she didn't take that opportunity.
She chose not to retire, during a favorable circumstance, in her eyes.

So now, we are All better off, because we have an Actual favorable circumstance, for the whole country.

edit: I see I need to re fix your very first line. Say,

IN, 2016, the, voters, for, the, senate, from, before, 2016, still, have, a, say.

That is funny because you want to complain about the Senate ignoring it for 8 months, so I'll ask you the question, aww screw it you know the answer.
That Senate that ignored, was a Senate, just like all the others, elected and set up by the constitution.

So just because that particular Senate didn't do what you wanted doesn't mean the constitution didn't apply, it means your side didn't have the senate.

j/c:

If it didn't matter who voted for that Senate, prior to 2016, and they should rubber stamp whomever,

Then Robert Bork would be a supreme court judge.

Going back to the Reagan years, the American people have been fed up with the democrat policies, Reagen didn't have a republican senate and had to put liberals on the court if he was going to,
it's one of the main reasons the Newt Ginrich, contract with American congress got elected.

So the 2016 Congress, which Obama had to deal with, has been a long time in the making, because the voters have been fed up.
Nobody would ask Obama what he would do, in order to, or how he would deal with a hostile congress?

I remember hearing people ask Reagen that many times,

So the democrats, can't just act like, just because the president is a democrat, that then, the senate would just have to rubber stamp whatever kind of INSANE, lesislate from the bench, find interpretations from international laws or laws in other countries, type of idealist that they'd appoint.

And the American People, seeing this for decades, and being FED UP! have Finaly, voted for a 2016 senate that wants to uphold American Values,

That's why what's her name is not a supreme court Judge, Garland.

This amounts to threats and blackmail from the side of democratic politicians, clearly seen.

There would not be impeachment hearings if RBG were still in the seat, so talk of them now, is threats and blackmail on the part of the democrats politicians.

So people need to clearly see what side is doing this stuff.

Alrighty then...let's go!





Graham: ‘We’ve Got the Votes to Confirm Justice Ginsburg’s Replacement Before the Election’ and ‘That’s What’s Coming’

Ian Hanchett

21 Sep 2020


On Monday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “Hannity,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) stated that Senate Republicans have “the votes to confirm Justice Ginsburg’s replacement before the election.” And said that the Senate Judiciary Committee will report the nomination so there can be a vote on the floor of the Senate on the nominee prior to the election and that Republicans will confirm Ginsburg’s replacement prior to the election. Graham also vowed that the nominee to replace Ginsburg on the Supreme Court will be supported by all the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Graham said, “We’ve got the votes to confirm Justice Ginsburg’s replacement before the election. We’re going to move forward in the committee. We’re going to report the nomination out of the committee to the floor of the United States Senate so we can vote before the election. That’s the constitutional process. After Kavanaugh, everything changed with me. They’re not going to intimidate me, Mitch McConnell or anybody else. … The nominee is going to be supported by every Republican in the Judiciary Committee, and we’ve got the votes to confirm the judge — the justice on the floor of the Senate before the election. And that’s what’s coming.”

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/09/...source=facebook

You might hear your doctor talk about different phases of pregnancy with specific medical terms like embryo and zygote. These describe your baby’s stages of development.

https://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/embryo-fetus-development

Your developing baby has already gone through a few name changes in the first few weeks of pregnancy. Generally, your baby will be called an embryo from conception until the eighth week of development. After the eighth week, the baby will be called a fetus until it’s born.

Notice how the Clinic calls the baby a "BABY" not a clump of cells.

Some people think that the cells of a very early embryo are too unspecialized or insufficiently unified for the embryo to count as an individual human being. The embryo, they say, is more akin to a mass or ball of cells.



From the zygote stage forward, however, the unborn human clearly exhibits the molecular composition and behavior characteristic of a self-integrated and self-directed organism rather than a mere collection of cells. That's why she can go on to develop the specialized tissues and organs that she does.



"From the moment of sperm-egg fusion," concludes embryologist Maureen L. Condic, a professor at the University of Utah School of Medicine, in a detailed scientific analysis, "a human zygote acts as a complete whole, with all the parts of the zygote interacting in an orchestrated fashion to generate the structures and relationships required for the zygote to continue developing towards its mature state."

https://www.mccl.org/post/2017/12/20/the...unborn-children

Blah blah blah. Take it out of the womb and start it in kindergarten then.

You never addressed the rest of my post. You care not about women that’ll be turned to back alley abortions. You care nothing about the children born into horrible situations where they are unwanted. You adopt none of these unwanted. You just want them born.

Graham: GOP has votes to confirm Trump's Supreme Court nominee before the election

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5175...re-the-election

"I've seen this move before. It's not going to work. ... We've got the votes to confirm Justice Ginsburg's replacement before the election. We're going to move forward in the committee. We're going to report the nomination out of the committee to the floor of the United States Senate so we can vote before the election," Graham told Fox News.

"We're going to have a process that you will be proud of. The nominee is going to be supported by every Republican in the Judiciary Committee. And we've got the votes to confirm the ... justice on the floor of the Senate before the election, and that's what is coming," he added.

_______

I want everyone to read this. Read the whole freaking article as well.

Do y’all know what was just stated? TRUMP HASNT EVEN NAMED THE NOMINEE YET, and graham and the GOP has already declared that they will push them through.

That means the vetting process will be a joke.

That means the hearing itself will be a joke.

The GOP has absolutely no intention of doing their jobs properly. The GOP for the last 4 years have packed THE WORST judges in the courts. For gods sake, they try to confirm judges who NEVER EVEN TRIED A CASE.

Please do it, Republicans. Please, do y’all can get absolutely slaughtered in the election. So freaking garbage.

Brett J. Talley, President Trump’s nominee to be a federal judge in Alabama, has never tried a case, was unanimously rated “not qualified” by the American Bar Assn.’s judicial rating committee, has practiced law for only three years and, as a blogger last year, displayed a degree of partisanship unusual for a judicial nominee, denouncing “Hillary Rotten Clinton” and pledging support for the National Rifle Assn.
On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee, on a party-line vote, approved him for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench.
Talley, 36, is part of what Trump has called the “untold story” of his success in filling the courts with young conservatives.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-judge-20171110-story.html

Atleast Democrats put people who are actually qualified for the job in positions of authority.

NEVER TRIED A FREAKING CASE, and got a lifetime appointment.

This is the kind of crap conservatives allow republicans to get away with.

I’m so sick of this crap. Freaking sick.

Sen. Mitt Romney said he would support a floor vote on President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court, essentially clinching consideration of Trump’s nominee this year despite the impending election.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/22...-nominee-419898

And there we go!

You like extra butter on your popcorn? I got plenty.

I'm not sure if the downfall of American Democracy is a fun thing to watch...

Well it’s happening anyway, so might as well make it an event.

That sounds -- incredibly American

If I were of retirement age I’d bail on this ’crap’hole country. The experiment in unfettered capitalism is over. The elite will finish grinding us to a pulp now. It was a nice ride I guess.

What you prefer I do? Move back to Germany?

All I can do is show up and vote, bro. But at the end of the day, I’m clearly not capable of changing anyone’s minds, at least not nearly enough to matter.

I’m gonna vote for Biden, but honestly I don’t think it will matter, cause I think trump might squeak out a win again.

So, might as well make it an event.

I feel you bro. I can’t even counter that with anything.

No, I wasn't criticizing you -- just acknowledging that that sounds about right.

Blah blah blah Just let women murder their kids up to five years of age then

I didn't answer because an answer wasn't warranted for those lies. Everybody knows I care about women, and children, I care about all people. While you support killing off human life.

Rush Limbaugh tosses out the idea of not holding a hearing,
or reports that somebody else suggested the idea,

Says the hearings are not constituionaly required,

The Republicans have the votes, just hold an up or down vote without judiciary committee hearings.

Who knows maybe they appoint a conservative who turns out to be a closet liberal, it has happened before.

How does giving people the choice to make their own decision, "promote" anything?

There's a difference between not dictating your own beliefs on someone else and supporting their actions.

In my family we have been faced with making this choice. In every situation we chose not to use abortion as an option. So that is what we believe and what we support. The actions taken prove this.

Yet everyone involved in making the decision of birth in those situations believe that is our choice and not what we feel we must inflict on everyone else.

Not that I care about who they are either but...They are ......”the Hypocrites” Who cited the Biden rule.

Wouldn't it be nice, (just daydreaming out loud here)
Wouldn't it be nice-

If the Republicans get their nominee, because Roe won't be revisited until then, and they have a look at a new case, and come up with a ruling that puts this issue to bed, once and.. I mean, Third and For All.

Daydreams, The Republicans get who they want, get the new case, and don't get the ruling they want.

It might have taken me 25+ years to get to the correct side of the abortion issue, but some time considering,
while considering a line from a movie, I think I found it, you may have read me post this before.

In the movie "Argo" the main character uses the line, to describe an xfil, -an attempt to smuggle ambassadors out of iran in 1980ish.

"X'fils are like abortions, you don't want, or want ta need one, but when you do, you want a professional."
(And for all my life I've been pro-life, I'm still pro life, even anti- coat hanger, death)
(So, I'm talking about Legality, Not, endorsement,
Sad conclusion, there will be abortions in the usa, legal or illegal,
the conclusion then is,
who does it, and I think, in America, we need it to be a professional)
That is, the most pro life, I can reconcile,


I'd like to see a ruling that confirms the right to choose, even set up non profits, but outlaws profiting monetarily off the procedure, because they use it to fund politics, reprehensible- imagine that, but that's what we have today.


I think, all these fears of re visiting Roe vs Wade, would end in an opinion, that would not, outright make abortion the felony it was,
This Country simply does not think the same as it did 60 years ago.

This might be the most sane thing I’ve seen you write on the board.
I feel the same way.
I’m not pro abortion. I’m pro choice. I’m pro staying out of other’s hard life choices.

GC. Senator Grassley and somebody else, Gardner, came out in support of the appointment process going forward before the election sometime 2 nights ago or last night.

Romney was going to wait until a senator lunch on Tuesday to weigh in.

It's Tuesday, it's after lunch, and Mitt Romney has come out in support of going ahead with the appointment process before the election.

Romney was waiting to see if he could remain popular by taking a read of the room first. He probably still wonders why he lost that election.

Lip service.

As I have said before, there are pills, condoms, iuds, hormone therapies, insertables, methods, creams, gels, sponges, surgeries, and many more methods to prevent a pregnancy, and a few to prevent implantation. I can even understand the use of abortion in the event of rape, incest, and severe medical defects. Why is this last option to be kept for those that want to be lazy and unprepared.

Changing a condom is far easier than changing a diaper.

"Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare" - Bill Clinton

BS Abortion is first, then they will go after all forms of birth control... what's next? Death panels? It's her body.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/...ot-three-years/

The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued in 2016 that the United States Senate should respect that a president’s constitutional power is for “four years, not three years,” when considering Supreme Court appointments.

Ginsburg, whose passing last week has created a standoff between Republicans and Democrats over who should fill her vacant Supreme Court post, was asked while giving an address to the Georgetown University Law Center if there were any “constitutional arguments that would prevent” a president from a filling a seat on the nation’s highest court during an election year. The question, in particular, was posed in the context of then-President Barack Obama nominating Circuit Court Judge Merrick Garland to replace Anton Scalia, a long-serving conservative jurist.

“As you know, the president has the authority to name appointees to the Supreme Court, but he has to do so with the advice and consent of the Senate,” Ginsburg responded. And if the Senate doesn’t act, as this current Senate is not acting, what can be done about it?”

The justice proceeded to argue that although there was likely no legal remedy to force the Senate Republicans to act on Garland’s nomination, she hoped “cooler heads will prevail” given the constitutional powers granted to the executive branch.

“The president is elected for four years, not three years,” she added. “So the power that he has in year three continues into year four, and maybe some members of the Senate will wake up and appreciate that that’s how it should be.”

Who has ever made an argument to get rid of birth control? Maybe some religions, but only the strictest, and those are very much a minority. Death panels? You are losing it.

The majority would rather people use birth control instead of using abortion as birth control, which the majority of dems seem to want. Ounce of prevention.

I did not have sexual relations with that woman. Also bill clinton. So? He didn't use a condom and left evidence behind.

jc

Clearly this has morphed into an abortion thread. So be it.

1st, let's all agree that abortion for rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother is a separate discussion altogether. For the most part we are really talking about purely elective abortions.

My 1st issue with these arguments from both sides is that people look at things too simplistically in what is really a very complex issue.

The pro life argument is that you are killing babies. The problem with this is that while you may believe that life begins at conception, the fact is that we do not know when life begins. A large number of eggs get fertilized but fail to become successfully implanted into a woman's uterus. At less than 20 weeks, if a woman goes into labor, the fetus will not survive. Is that life? Some will argue yes others will argue no. Fact is, we do not know. After 32 weeks the infant will most likely survive. I have no problem with definitively calling that life.

The pro choice argument is that it is a woman's body, it's her choice. Well that choice occurs when you decide to have unprotected sex. But a woman does not become pregnant by herself. Why does the guy not get a say in whether she has an abortion? If I were to get a GF pregnant and she didn't want the baby, I think I would. Where are the father's rights in all this? People forget this because most guys traditionally are not interested in being a single father. Logistically there is no way to guarantee the father's say. is, if the woman doesn't want you to know who the father is, she can always just say it was a 1 night stand with a stranger and that she doesn't know his name.

Then, at what point does the fetus become baby and deserve rights? Again, as stated above, we just don't have a definitive answer.


My 2nd issue in all this is that many who claim to be pro life are actually anti abortion. They are fanatic about stopping abortion but don't care if the resultant baby has a family, a home or an education. They don't want a gay couple to be able to adopt the baby. They don't care if hungry people get fed. They don't care if the sick get healthcare. They don't care if coronavirus kill hundreds of thousands of people because the majority who die are old or have pre-existing conditions. This is not pro life, it is just anti abortion. Pro life is just a catch phrase to tug at the heart strings.

My 3rd issue is that far too many women use abortion as their preferred means of birth control. I find that offensive.

At this point in time, my feelings are that abortion should be okay for rape, incest, or to prevent the mother from dying.
In additions I would allow abortion up to 22/23 weeks because at 22 weeks, there’s a 0-10% chance of survival; at 24 weeks the survival rate is 40-70%.
And I would place a limit on the number of abortions a woman can have. You can make a mistake. But you should learn from it. So you are allowed one.

I also feel that any new legislation should include adoption reform to make it easier for a baby to be adopted.


Now, if medical science makes advancement that moves viability to an earlier gestation then I would be in favor of adjusting the cutoff down. Additionally, if we ever prove when life begins then I would use that as a cutoff.

Just my 2 cents.
Feel free to have me for these thoughts and opinions, but be forewarned that I probably won't reply. These are my feelings and the point of this post is not to convince anybody of anything. These are my personal thoughts on the issue and all I hope for is that they are food for thought. That both sides will read this and it will inspire retrospection into your beliefs and provoke a deeper look at the issue that is more complicated than just killing babies vs a woman's body a woman's choice.

OK but just so you know that's how abortion starts

Oh really how about the rapist who thinks he should have a choice on raping a woman or not?
Maybe the Pedo who thinks he/she should have the right to have sex with children?
Maybe those who don't believe in speed limits? Maybe they should have the choice to ignore them and drive 80 MPH in a school zone?
Maybe we should have the right to smoke any place we want to (includng hospitals, churches, bars, and anywhere we damn well please.)

I thought you were going to go the other way and say that's the best form if birth control

j/c:

I am not a fan of getting into discussions about abortion and I won't do so, now.

However, I do want to get back to the Supreme Court Vacancy. As a resident of SC, I can tell you that Lindsay Graham has lost a lot of respect across the state in recent years. He's almost the definition of the corrupt politician.

I also want to ask why some people think it's wrong for the president to name a replacement for the Supreme Court when he is still in power? I get that either side will not like it, whether it be 2016, 2020, or any other election year, but it seems to me that the president should have that ability to govern for the full four years he/she is in office.

I agree - that is why Merrick Garland is on the SC.

I guess the situation we are in now - is that SC justices are only appointed when one party controls both the WH and the Senate. Any vacancy that results at any other time needs to wait until one party controls both.

It is if it's my lips

The Dems want to change the rules because they’re not winning.

Just a few things to think about. The 20 week survival idea is a huge falacy. A fetus' brain begins development around the 16th day after conception, and the face starts to develop. Heartbeats have been detected as early as the 5th week of pregnancy. By the 7th week, a fetus has arms, legs, face, heartbeat, and movement. Doctors are still trying to figure out when it feels pain, but it's far earlier than that 20 weeks.

The question has been, when does life begin, and does that life have rights? Plants, fungus, bacteria, and viruses grow and are considered life. On another planet, it would be a great discovery. Parasites are considered life, even if they can't survive without the host. Why not the human fetus? Is a human just too inconvenient?

As rgb said herself, a president serves for 4 years, not 3. He has a constitutional power and right to appoint a justice, just as the Senate has a right to confirm that appointment. There will not always be agreement, as was the case in 2016. If the Democrats had won the Senate in the past 4 years, I'm sure they'd pull the same stunt, and only moderate justices would have been appointed.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says that fetuses definitely do not feel pain until at least the third trimester (week 27)

https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html

Here is an important review paper on the topic:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/201429#

Do you happen to know - statistically - the effectiveness of all the different contraceptives? I've seen the Pill touted as anywhere from 99% to 91% effective. . . . Condoms - 85-90%.

What do you want to do with all the unwanted pregnancies that arise through people who were taking precautions.

I mean it's great to focus your argument on one small slice of the pie that is the irresponsible people or just plain dumb people who get pregnant .... but it doesn't actually work across the board.

Maybe those that are so anti abortion need to be eligible to foster care for these infants that they are so adamant need to come into our world when the real parents may not want them?

Ok. Studies from 2005 and 2016. Here's one from 2020.

https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-science-of-fetal-pain/

Unborn babies can feel pain by 20 weeks gestation or earlier

The old, uninformed notions that unborn and newborn babies cannot feel pain are refuted by a growing body of scientific evidence. The published scientific literature shows that unborn babies can experience pain at 20 weeks gestational age (20 weeks LMP, since Last Menstrual Period, the fetal age estimate used by most obstetricians) or earlier. Two common methods are used to measure the age of an unborn baby: Probable post-fertilization age (PPF, used by embryologists) measures the age of the unborn baby from the actual date of conception, while gestational age measures from the first day of the mother’s last menstrual period (LMP, approx. two weeks before conception). Medical practitioners have been using the latter method as standard medical practice for decades, and for the purpose of this paper ages refer to gestational age unless otherwise indicated.
A comprehensive review of the scientific literature[1] including neural development, psychology of pain sensation, and moral implications of fetal pain, concludes that unborn babies may experience pain as early as 12 weeks.
The review notes that neural connections from periphery to brain are functionally complete after 18 weeks.
“Nevertheless, we no longer view fetal pain (as a core, immediate, sensation) in a gestational window of 12–24 weeks as impossible based on the neuroscience.”
The review points out that a fetus may not experience pain in the same way as an adult, but does indeed experience pain as a real sensation, and that this pain experience has moral implications.
Significant because this unbiased review of the scientific evidence and agreement on existence of fetal pain, as early as 12 weeks and certainly after 18 weeks, comes from two highly credentialed medical professionals, one pro-choice.
“The two authors came together to write this paper through a shared sense that the neuroscientific data, especially more recent data, could not support a categorical rejection of fetal pain.”
Embryological development shows presence of pain sensory mechanisms and neurophysiology. The basic anatomical organization of the human nervous system is established by 6 weeks.[2] The earliest neurons in the cortical brain (the part responsible for thinking, memory, and other higher functions) are established starting at 6 weeks.[3] Nerve synapses for spinal reflex are in place by 10 weeks.[4] Sensory receptors for pain (nociception) develop first around the mouth at 7 weeks , and are present throughout the skin and mucosal surfaces by 20 weeks.[5] Connections between the spinal cord and the thalamus (which functions in pain perception in fetuses as well as in adults[6]) are relatively complete by 20 weeks.[7]
Contradicting the claim that the brain cortex is necessary to experience pain and suffering, decordate individuals as well as animals lacking higher cortical structures obviously do feel pain. In fact, the human brain cortex does not fully mature until approximately 25 years of age, yet infants, children, and teenagers obviously can experience pain.[8]
Fetal reactions provide evidence of pain response. The unborn baby reacts to noxious stimuli with avoidance reactions and stress responses. As early as 8 weeks the baby exhibits reflex movement during invasive procedures.[9] There is extensive evidence of a hormonal stress response by unborn babies as early as 18 weeks [10] including “increases in cortisol, beta-endorphin, and decreases in the pulsatility index of the fetal middle cerebral artery.”[11] Two independent studies in 2006 used brain scans of the sensory part of unborn babies’ brains, showing response to pain.[12] They found a “clear cortical response” and concluded there was “the potential for both higher-level pain processing and pain-induced plasticity in the human brain from a very early age.”
Ruth Grunau, a pediatric psychologist at the University of British Columbia, said, “We would seem to be holding an extraordinary standard if we didn’t infer pain from all those measures.”[13]
Brain responses & connections. In 2013 a study used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to study the brains of healthy human babies still within the womb, from 24-39 weeks . They found that functional neuronal connections sufficient to experience pain already exist by 24 weeks .[14]
Increased sensitivity to pain. In 2010 one group noted that “the earlier infants are delivered, the stronger their response to pain.”[15] This increased sensitivity is due to the fact that the neural mechanisms that inhibit pain sensations do not begin to develop until 34-36 weeks , and are not complete until a significant time after birth.[16] This means that unborn, as well as newborn and preterm, infants show “hyperresponsiveness” to pain.[17] Authors of a 2015 study used the fMRI technique to measure pain response in newborns (1-6 days old) vs. adults (23-36 years old), and found that “the infant pain experience closely resembles that seen in adults.” [18] Babies had 18 out of 20 brain regions respond like adults, yet they showed much greater sensitivity to pain, responding at a level four times as sensitive as adults.

Yours is from a Pro-Life thinktank, and mine is a summary report from the group that represents all US Gynecologists...

But Faux and Hannity told him all the doctors are wrong??!

Got those stats from the pp site?

Why is it that condoms are always considered effective at preventing sti's but not pregnancy? Could it possibly be some morons don't know how to properly use a condom? Most stats I've seen shows that improperly using a condom is the main cause of failure. Let's face it, not even abortion has been proven 100% effective.

Also, to push back at a point you made, maybe pro-abortion folks ought to be responsible for the clean up and disposal of discarded babies, not to mention the care of those women that suffer psychological or medical issues after an abortion.

Not pro abortion. Pro choice. How many times do we need to go over that?
I’ll ‘clean up and discard medical waste. I do it regularly for my job.
As to post abortion care for women. I’m all for it. Heck of a lot cheaper than having a kid in the foster care system for 18 years then the legal system for the rest of their adult lives.

Pro abortion. That choice to most of them means killing an unborn child. So, when you're cleaning up that "medical waste", will you actually look in the bags? At 7 weeks, there are arms, fingers, toes, legs, a face. Most of then are ripped apart by the vacuum they use. I've worked in a slaughterhouse and seen where meat comes from. It's rather gruesome for some people.

j/k

Republicans have to decide which SCOTUS appointee they stole.

In 2016 with eight months to go before the election, they said they should not hold hearing on a SCOTUS nominee because it was an election year and the voters of that presidential election should have a voice.

This time around they are saying with 40 days left they have time and will hold hearings in an election year. So they have changed their mind according to who is president.

In one of these two cases they lied about their beliefs in order to control the SCOTUS. In one of these cases they are using leverage to steal a SCOTUS seat. All you need to do is be honest enough to let us know which SCTUS seat they are stealing.

Unless it was Obama. Then suddenly they didn't. I never expect honesty from you.

What do you know about honesty?
RGB's final wishes?
What you and the Democrats desire?

Those are emotional responses to the Presidents Constitutional Duty to nominate a Supreme Court Justice and fill a vacancy.

Remember the Constitution???

ok 40.

don't hide on nov 3rd. i'll be here regardless. will you?

They blocked Garland during an election year because they said the voters should have a say in the 2016 elections. Now that Trump is president they say it doesn't matter that it's an election year. Maybe try that.

So you're saying that in 2016 the Republican led senate ignored the constitution?

Nope, I am saying the Democrats in the Senate are ignoring it now.

But when the Republican senate ignored it in 2016 it doesn't count? Like I said before, I never expect honesty from you.

He knows you are -- but what is he?

Honestly, the Senate is Constitutionally bound to advise and consent on the Presidents nomination to the Supreme Court.

The 2016 Republicans advised Obama not to make a pick and then did not consent to his pick.

The Democrats of today are crying foul and dismissing our Constitution because their feelings are hurt.

Big difference, honestly speaking.

I think the Dems should do anything and anything within their power to block it just like the Republicans did in 2016.

Advise and consent is concerning the hearings of the nominee. Not to tell the president not to appoint one. Is your real name Richard Cranium?

They have already made it clear they will go low and lower.

Not surprised you support that.

Following the example of the Republicans in 2016. They may have stolen one seat but don't give them two.

The new "Mitch's Rule" is that "if you have the presidency and senate, you do whatever you want."

Win in November - and then the world is your oyster.

They forgot all about the Lindsey Graham rule in four short years...

No, not the Mitch rule, its in the Constitution.

Remember the Constitution???

They forgot about it in 2016.

You may "Feel" that way but it isn't true.

The Senate of 2016 acted Constitutionally when they did not consent to Obama's pick.

Sure - just don't complain when the Democrats install 13 judges, or make DC, PR, and the Northern Mariana Islands US states.

It's in the Constitution.

They refused to even vote on his nomination. If they would have failed to consent it would have required a vote to do so.

Anyone else find it funny that the dems saying "remember the constitution" have whined for 4 years about the constitutional electoral college?

That's why our founding fathers made allowances for amendments to the constitution. So far it has been amended 27 times.

Gosh, really? I guess all that complaining about the popular vote is just pointless, huh?

I understand why you would think bringing awareness to the American people that a lot of people's votes do not carry the weight of some others would be complaining.

I mean if everyone knew all of the ramifications things might change. And then your side wouldn't be able to elect a president anymore.

Just more crying by the emotionally intelligent.

Until those population centers are completely destroyed by the democrats that run them. Just like a dem to forget that this country is not, and I repeat, not a democracy. It's a representative republic. It was specifically done to prevent mob rule from taking over the government, and to make lesser populated states matter in the elections. I'm fairly sure those states will never vote to make themselves irrelevant in a presidential election.

This goes back lon---nng before 2016, check the Clinton, and Grandpa Bush years, there is a long history of the democrats doing the same sort of thing
tit for tat, so don't claim some moral high ground, it's just not accurate.

The republicans used to cave, some of the events of the last 30 years have soured that because look where it got them.

j/c

In 2016, Republicans didn't play the "Biden rule" card because they believed in the rule. They played the "Biden rule" card to hamstring Biden/Democrats in future elections if they complained since going against it would make Biden a hypocrite. All the quotes I've seen from the political Money Mitch include usage of the word "this" which references a specific instance rather than a general rule.

I don't like the way they play the games in politics, but that's the way both sides play it.

I'm all for getting rid of the two party system and making them all run as independents and setting maximums on campaign spending. We could perhaps even give all candidates that can gather more than a minimum amount of signatures the same amount of funding to cut out the ability of lobbyists and special interest groups to buy influence. Clear out all these old guard partisans.

There is a lot of research that shows that any presidential system will directly collapse into a two party system.

If you want to get rid of two parties you have to work with a parliamentary system. There is a reason that when the US (and other western countries) help install new democracies, they use parliamentary systems. They are more stable and multifaceted.

OTOH, presidential systems are very good at reacting fast - and potentially better at responding to multilateral problems so long as there is "backroom give and take" to make concessions from both sides. Unfortunately, we've totally lost the ability to have any give and take, which is why the system is so unstable.

There is a separate issue which concerns how off-tilt the current party dynamics are compared to the average citizen -- but the two party system will persist even if the parties moved closer together or farther apart.

That research (your description of it at least) suggests, to me, that they haven't figured out the right presidential system yet, as far as one that won't fall into bickering sides.

I don't want a parliamentary system. I literally want no political parties (particularly on the funding side.) I'd probably also want to enact strict term limits (perhaps no consecutive terms along with a fixed maximum) to try to prevent de facto parties from forming over time. I want the focus to be on the issues; Not on which person is on which side and how voting against party will cut their ability to effectively campaign. Maybe do 6 year terms staggered every 2 years, so there is always some experience around (i.e, 2/3 not trying to figure out how things work on the job.)

I don't see the current people milking the system voting to change it, but as currently constructed/used in practice our system pretty much is awful.


Link

So, the republicans were wrong for holding it up in 2016....so they should be wrong again and hold this one up? Even RBG said it was the presidents duty to put forth a nominee. The term is 4 years, not 3.

I think it is more fundamental than that. At the end of the day you have to have up or down votes on what will happen. If you have three parties (on some continuum of viewpoints that, say, goes from 0 to 10) -- and those parties occupy positions 2,4, and 7. Then 7 will always win unless 2 and 4 basically merge to always work together. At this point, they are essentially 1 party, and they will formalize that relationship.

It is always in the best interest of any more minor party to combine with a major one (at least, if the goal is electoral power) -- you will get some minor parties like Greens or Libertarians, that are not particularly interested in gaining actual seats. But there will never be a serious 3rd party.



I just don't think it's possible. Most people don't want to think about all the issues -- and will take the easiest way out. That is what parties do - they simplify complex decisions into a few fundamental decisions that voters can make.

Even when all the issues are on the table - the majority of people still vote party line. That is the strength of the parties.


There are a couple small things you can do, which might reduce hyper-partisanship. One that I really like, but is rarely mentioned, is to have the US presidency be a single 6-year term with no re-election. Potentially the president should also formally renounce their party membership (though it would be impossible to do this in any way but in name).

For Trump’s faithful, the Supreme Court ‘game’ brings excitement as protests spark fear

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-pence-g...-161405934.html

imma need people to explain to me how we got americans trying to justify trump not sending people into "a panic", yet don't say a word about trump trying to send people into a panic over mail in voting.

200k deaths needs to be played down, but creating panic by claiming the election is rigged, thus needing a SC judge to break the hypothetical tie in a case is A-ok?

you guys DO REALIZE that trump is ACTIVELY claiming the election is already rigged, correct?

not implying, not suggesting, not speculating, not hyperbole, none of that.

he is directly claiming our elections are already rigged, just like these right wing authoritarian losers in Russia/eastern bloc do all the time.

straight out the dictator playbook.

All you have to do is win some elections.

I think some are missing the mark here. The issue is not with the President's ability to nominate in accordance with the Constitution, because that also happened in 2016.

The epicenter of the issue is whether the Senate will undergo confirmation hearings.

The Democrats are crying foul because the Republicans are doing an about-face of what they said in 2016. Lindsey Graham is prima facie evidence of that.

I personally prefer constructionist/originalist justices because I feel their rationale is less volatile and whimsical. However, if we look at the facts for what they are, the Democrats' qualms in this case have merit. The ends don't justify the means, IMO. If the Senate Republicans establish the precedent of not confirming in an election year, then be consistent. I think that's a fair ask.

It is certainly a fair ask but not a fair demand or threat.

Follow what the Constitution instructs and the problem goes away.

Bull. Twisted, distorted Bull.
A 4 to 4 decision will only complicate matters.

We need a full Supreme Court for these decisions and since when is the Supreme Court a Political organization?

They judge by the rule of law and our Constitution.

Justice Roberts has gone both ways on many occasions so suggesting it is a loaded court is foolish.

j/c

Here's the bottom line: Trump could nominate Jesus to the SCOTUS, and dems would be against it. Bank it.

Jesus could announce his return, but the republicans would deport him.

The libs would cross him up.

LOL...........I think your politics are whacked, but that was funny.

He wouldn't have to announce it as He could just walk across our Democrat open borders.

Now, that made me laugh.

Ha!

If there was a Jesus, and he did return, he could just 'lazarus' RBG for another 40 years and solve all of this.

I believe Kavanaugh and Gorsuch recently ruled opposite of what Trump wanted also.

Try telling the Left those facts, they won't hear you.

You wouldn't know a fact if it kicked you in the sack.

Murkowski loosens stance on Supreme Court nominee, says she may vote for Trump's pick
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/murkowski-supreme-court-nominee-may-vote-trumps-pick


Romney says he supports moving ahead with Trump Supreme Court nominee
https://www.foxnews.com/

The votes are there!
Long Live The Trump!

I've said this before about Trump, and he deserves credit for this:

The republican party needs him, not the other way around. for better or worse, he succeeded in completely grabbing the republican establishment by the balls. Trump has guys like Lindsey graham shoved so far up his ass, graham is digesting the mcdonald's he eats.

i don't think we've ever seen that in US history. the GOP just completely caved.

The GOP knows a winner when they see him after years of losers.

Trump’s potential Supreme Court nominee slammed Obama for trying to ‘dramatically flip the balance of power’

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-potential-supreme-court-nominee-203323221.html

Interesting. By her own logic......

No, the Republicans were within their constitutional rights to not confirm. They should have voted him down.

But what does the Constitution say about the timeline of the Senate confirmation?

If it doesn't say anything, then you look at the Senate to establish consistent precedent. They are not doing that.

Don't forget Ted Cruz as well. His caving is just as bad - if not worse - than Graham's.

And the Jesus comment was funny. I think it all depends on how He would pronounce his name.

"establish consistent precedent" is Dem speak for "We lost the election".

Follow the guidance of the Constitution.

J\C
The constitution allows the Pres. to nominate a person to fill a supreme ct. vacancy, and the senate can approve or disapprove the nomination so what does precedence have to do with any thing but if the shoe was one the other foot the fair minded libs would have have a puppet political hack supreme legislating from the bench lefty judge in there yesterday ....IMO

Correction...

The Constitution Demands the President fill any vacancy,

The Constitution calls it HIS DUTY.

I am unclear here. Are you referring to me as a democrat? Because I am not one. For the record, I even stated I preferred originalist/constructionist judges, so what I am saying here actually goes against what my personal desires for the type of judge that I appoint. But, much like Scalia in the flag-burning case, I prefer consistency and the rule of law over my personal desires.

You keep repeating "Follow the guidance of the Constitution," but my question to you - honest question - is what is the guidance of the Constitution when it comes to the timeline of Senate confirmation. The Constitution does state that the President "shall nominate" which happened in 2016 and will happen again in 2020 from the looks of things. I don't know of any Constitutional guidance on the timeline.

No, referring the statement in question is all.

I don't doubt that the Democrats would break with precedent in that hypothetical, just how the Republicans are, but that is a hypothetical in this case.

Of course the Senate has to approve or disapprove, but they did neither in 2016. They basically said, we need to wait until after the election, and now the same majority leader is saying, we absolutely will vote now.

It's fine if you are happy with the judge who would be appointed, like I probably will be, but let's call it what it is...hypocrisy.

In 2016 Obama was at the end of his Presidency, Trump is just beginning his second term.

No hypocrisy at all.

Noted

You're doing it wrong 40... when you troll you're supposed to add ridiculous emoticons...



I expect better of you.

That's an awfully big leap, IMO. Both were/are ending a term. It is also not concrete that Trump is beginning a second term.

In 2016, McConnell said "Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court."

So, the rationale was based on the fact the President who was elected by the people should have a say in the next SC Justice. That same rationale applies to the current year and election.

I didn't take what he said as trolling. I actually responded to his point, and enjoy the discussion. I'm not here to hit people over the head and try to change their beliefs. I do like to challenge people, admittedly, as much as I like to challenge myself.

"Just beginning his second term" has no meaning - politically, legally, philosophically...

That was McConnell's position (opinion) then and the latter is his position (opinion) now.

The Constitution demands the Senate Advice and Consent, nothing about having an opinion.

So yesterday Trump refused to say there would be a peaceful transfer of power... but today he says he will accept the ruling of the SCOTUS on the election results... after he stacks the court with Trumpian votes that is... smh

Trump says he would accept Supreme Court election ruling after declining to commit to peaceful transfer

President Trump on Thursday said he would accept a hypothetical Supreme Court ruling declaring Democratic nominee Joe Biden the winner in November's election, a small concession as Republicans rebuked his refusal a day earlier to commit to a peaceful transfer of power.

Trump appeared on Brian Kilmeade's Fox News Radio show, where the host sought to smooth over the president's comments late Wednesday, which caused an uproar.

"Oh that I would agree with," Trump said when Kilmeade suggested that Trump would accept a Supreme Court ruling declaring the outcome of a contested election. But the president immediately began casting doubt on the result.

"I think we have a long way before we get there. These ballots are a horror show," he added.

The president has for months claimed that the widespread use of mail ballots due to the coronavirus pandemic will result in a "rigged" and "fraudulent" election. He has taken particular issue with some states sending ballots directly to voters to expand access, though experts have highlighted that there is little historical evidence of meaningful fraud associated with voting by mail.

Experts have noted that any election disputes would have to go through lower courts and may not even reach the Supreme Court. But Trump has in recent days argued his forthcoming nominee for the court should be confirmed quickly so they can help decide a contested election.

Trump's repeated attacks on the integrity of the election have raised alarms among lawmakers and watchdogs. He escalated his rhetoric late Wednesday when asked if he would commit to a peaceful transfer of power.

“We’re going to have to see what happens, you know, but I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots. The ballots are a disaster,” Trump told reporters at a White House briefing.

Several Republicans on Thursday morning rejected Trump's comments, though they did not name the president in any of their criticism.

The president complained to Kilmeade that he was the victim of a double standard. He noted that Hillary Clinton, his opponent in 2016, has cautioned Biden not to concede on election night, suggesting that was similar to his refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power.

"If I say, 'Well I want the ballots to be fair,' they make a big deal out of it," Trump said. "It’s not right. It’s just the same old double standard."

https://thehill.com/homenews/administrat...on-ruling-after

If you had been paying attention last night instead of threatening people, you would have seen the Supreme Court is not a political entity, it is a Judicial entity based on the Constitution and the rule of law.

Justices have found for the Liberal side as well as the Conservative side of issues, regardless of their political beliefs.

Trumps appointments have ruled against his wishes on numerous occasions as has the Conservative Roberts.

I agree with your first sentence, but the sentence itself, combined with the state of affairs, directly correlates with the definition of hypocrisy.

I also agree with your second sentence, but the whole issue is the timing of said Advice and Consent. The Senate majority originally stated the "Advice and Consent" portion should take place after the election. Now they are doing an about-face.

Disagree, changing ones opinion over the years is not hypocrisy, it is growth.

Also, the Senate did advise President Obama to NOT make a nomination and when he did anyway, they did not consent.

I actually agree with 40 on this one. If anything, I think it is good that Trump has at least stated he would concede to the Supreme Court's decision. I think that is at least a step in the right direction.

I understand that you are inferring the issue that Trump will try to appoint someone who will find in his favor in that case, but what obligation would a SC judge have to do that once they are already appointed?

Didn't you say it was his duty though?

They should remain consistent rather than try to pull a fast one. If it was wrong to appoint a justice in 2016 because it was an election year, it's wrong now.

I know you understand this and couldn't possibly actually stand behind it.

I edited this to ask you something.

Did they do the wrong thing in 2016 and are doing the right thing now? Because Obama's term was four years as well. Or did they do the right thing in 2016 and are doing the wrong thing now?

Or is your actual question did they do the wrong thing to take advantage of the situation then and are doing the right thing o take advantage of the situation now?

The Presidents Constitutional Duty to nominate, yes.

Not only that, they would label him a liberal because he would tell them things like, "And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

He would be called out for promoting wealth distribution, free health care giving to anyone less fortunate than yourself.

Yes, Jesus is a liberal.

Unless his name was Obama. then the senate said to hell with the constitution. You applauded it then.

No, the Senate simply did not consent to his nominee.

They may not consent to Trump's nominee once you guys are done calling her everything but a white woman.

You act like we should accept minority rule via the courts and just trust a conservative judge to save us from conservative BS. riiiiiiiight... get a clue.

Boy you are in here with a heavy coat of 'whitewash'... If there is one thing I have learned it's to never trust a republican politician. The same goes for anyone Trump appoints.

Growth has nothing to do with a double standard to take advantage of the same situation.



Consent is based on a vote after conducting hearings. That never happened and you know it.

What is there really to discuss here or challenge? McConnell, Graham and others made in plain in 2016 that it was wrong to for them to hold hearings on a SCOTUS appointee during an election year in 2016 when a Democrat was president. They claimed the voters should have a say.

Now, four years later they advocate doing the exact opposite because a Republican is president. The only thing to discuss here is which SCOTUS appointee are they stealing. Did they steal the one from Obama in 2016 or are they stealing one now?

It can't be both.

None. They are supposed to go by the constitution, not party nor idealology.

They can say what they want. They should follow the law as written.

So where does the aw say they are forced to hold hearings on a certain timeline? Or are you trying to say they didn't follow the law as written in 2016?

Where does the law say that in 2016 you can use the rationale that the voters should have a say and not hold hearings on a nominee and then in 2020 say the opposite?

I, of course, agree with your rationale. I just feel, especially in light of today's environment, that continued discourse is more advantageous than line-drawing, even in scenarios where you may feel that the other side is being overly stubborn or obtuse.

It doesn't. Hearings for SC candidates is really fluff for the media. It gives most senators a chance to grandstand. Not a single SC appointee has ever given an example of how'd they rule on a future case.

They did follow the law. Delaying a confirmation vote is not consenting.

Last question, 1st amendment. If they can convince a president not to put forth a nominee, that's perfectly legal. They can say what they want. Honestly, name a politician that hasn't changed his position when it's convenient for him.

Actually what I posted had nothing to do with feelings. Those are the facts.

You support a double standard by this senate based purely on political motives to stack the SCOTUS. And actually I think you're proud of that.

Jc

For the life of me, I can’t not comprehend how people can defend no knock raids and civil forfeiture laws.

They are both inherently unconstitutional, violating Americans 4th amendment rights.

We have far too many people in this country not taking their rights seriously, and that BS transcends political ideology.

We got people who claim to hate big government arguing in favor of big government laws that allows law enforcement to bust down doors in the middle of the night unannounced.

That’s freaking stupid. Stop telling people you love the constitution when you support policies that pisses all over it.

I didn't say what you said had anything to do with feelings. I was providing rationale behind why I was facilitating a discussion.

I don't disagree with anything you just said. The Fourth Amendment protections have been eroding over and over again.

Back when I still practiced, I won a Motion to Suppress and damn near every other defense attorney I socialized with in that county acted as though I had solved cold fusion. That's not a promotion of my advocacy, but just an evaluation of where judges these days seem to be inclined.

Shouldn't be that way.

Will you eventually find a rationalization that matters?

I actually agree with you. The "no knock" warrant is a violation of the 4th and should not be allowed. If cops broke into my house unannounced, shots will be fired. I never thought Reagan's forfeiture laws were constitutional either.

I did. If it's good for Republicans, even if they lie, then it's just fine with you.

Either it was a lie in 2016 that the voters should have say in the next SCOTUS appointment or it's a lie now that voters don't. One of those two things are a lie to get what they want.

And you support that.

What a laugh. Politicians say whatever to score points with the people, and they all lie.

Here you go.

https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/co...ump-look-honest

https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/12/21/Top-10-Political-Lies-Year

https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/the-most-controversial-lies-u-s-presidents-have-ever-told.html/

https://m.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/lying-politicians-the-worst-liars-in-american-politics

Would you like to address the actual topic of the thread or would you like to divert attention elsewhere? Did any of the things you posted have any such impact on a government body as these SCOTUS nominees will have over the long haul or are you just reaching for far fetched examples that do not really compare?

They all compare. You're the one that wants to fling yourself on the floor, throw a tantrum, and scream, "they lied!"

They didn't lie to you. They told you what they wanted then. Now they're telling you what they want now.

You should look up those links. They might give you something called perspective.

Did you just figure out that politicians lie?

Oh, I actually think LBJ's "I will not send American boys 10000 miles to do something Asian boys should be doing" while he was directing the pentagon to plan the war in viet nam as one of the most consequential lies ever told.

The people had their say when they elected the officials who can vote to confirm the appointment. Obama didn't have the votes. It seems Trump does. The people vote on more than the president. When politicians have the power, they use it if they can.

It might actually be better for Biden if the appointment goes through before the election. People who wouldn't otherwise vote for Trump might vote for Trump if it means getting another conservative judge on the Supreme Court. But then a lot depends on how people weight getting rid of Trump versus the importance of a liberal/conservative leaning SC. I'm not sure you'll get both.

Unfortunately, Democrats seem to be better at using charisma than working the political system. Republicans have lousy personalities, but they know how to work the system. It might tie back to the "emotional IQ study," unfortunately, emotional IQ doesn't help a whole lot with actually getting things done.

Also, sadly, Republican voters frequently seem to care more about getting the things they want done than they do about who does it and how.

Emotional appeals (like a call for "fairness") don't work as well against "right-brained" (tend towards rationality over feelings) people.

Those who have read my posts know that I am very anti trump. But I do not hold trump nominating a SC candidate against him. It is what he should do. It is what Obama did and it was what Obama should have done.

I do hold it against the Senate. They have one standard for democrats and a different one for republicans. 9 months before an election is too close to the election while 45 days is not? Ridiculous. When should that cut-off be? I don't know but it should be consistent.

This is a 2 party system and they need to work together. What the republican senate is doing is acting in bad faith. And that is going to be a hammer blow towards destroying this country.

So they should do the wrong thing to be consistent? Lol. It's politics, pure and simple. If the tables were turned, the dems would have done the exact same thing in both cases. They used the system to get someone of their leaning into the Supreme Court. The fake outrage is strong with this situation.

Quite simply:

Politics; poly - many, tick - blood sucking arachnid.

They can fix this mess by requiring a 2/3rd vote from the Senate for all nominees.

That way we get rid of the partisans on the left and right.

Sadly, we'd never have another s.c. justice appointed in that scenario.

That’s what I was thinking. We’d eventually be reading headlines like “Supreme Court issues split 2-1 decision on the latest case”

So what they did the first time was wrong? You seem to keep avoiding this question.



Can you cite one such example? If you mean both parties nominate justices that lean in their political direction we agree. If your claim is they've ignored hearing one SCOTUS nominee in an election year then turned around and had hearings in the exact same set of circumstances you'll have to do better than, "they would have done the same thing in both circumstances.



It's not really outrage. It's actually an attempt to get those who support Republicans to man up and admit how wrong this is. And we can all see how that is going. Not only do they refuse to admit what a two sided lie they're telling, but they actually seem happy to make excuses for their behavior. And I'm neither outraged nor surprised by it. You may be one of one of the very few exceptions that has surprised me.

j/c...

Poor lady. She'll be drug through the mud, accused of terrible things, derided, on and on.

Both sides do it, don't get me wrong here. For scotus, for POTUS........for anything.

Why would anyone allow themselves to be blasted relentlessly over a job?

Oh. Money.

I feel bad for her already.

You are on to something here. We all bemoan the lack of quality candidates, but the relentless and underhanded attacks by so many on both sides almost certainly discourages decent candidates from throwing their name into the hat.

Hmm, lets' see, Both sides?
I disagree!

Let's see, we Know how they accused Kavanaugh,
how they accused Clearance Thomas,

we know how they will accuse this nominee,
We know how the left treated Sarah Palin

Can we cite examples of "Both sides doing it" meaning there are legitimate cases from the other side.

Let's see, Kamala Harris' attacked by the right?
Elisabeth Warren? attacked by the right?

Both sides do it? I disagree

Barak Obama attacked by the right? SCOTUS POTUS anything?

Al Gore, attacked by the right?
How about Geraldine Fereraro?

How about Jessie Jackson? attacked by the right?

How about Andrew Yang, How about Hillary Clinton? attacked by the right?

Oh, for conduct? how about for personhood? how about just making fun of, inteligience, or charactrisitcs?

Attacking policies and conduct doesn't count.

Both sides don't do it, the Right doesn't attack personalities like the left does.

What about AOC, sure think there could be a lot more attacking,
Just imagine, AOC were a republican appointed for SCOTUS and the democrats had a hearing on it.

Did Buttigegg get attacked for his character by the right? (The Dude with the husband?)

NO, it's all the dang liberal democrats who can't abide peoples' personalities.

Evidence shows.

They must pwn the libs...

She's about as far right as they come for judges IMHO, but she doesn't think abortions should be illegal and just has issues with late term abortions. She was a law Professor at Notre Dame, I didn't know that. She clerked for Scalia, not good if she thinks like him, no not good at all. She has also spoke out about the ACA, say goodbye to Obamacare and pre-existing conditions coverage. smh

I guess if Trump is going to make the pick, it doesn't really matter who he picks. The left will just have to suck it up until we get into power with a super majority, then we can fix A LOT OF CRAP.

And if she Thinks like Scalia that "Is" a good thing.

Elana Keagan, nominated by Obama, took only 63, sixty some days. The Right didn't attack her with paid historical accusations of harassment, like similar to Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh were; by the left.

Appoint her TWICE AS FAST AS KAGAN,

At least Twice as fast as Kagan, should be the moniker.

Y'all get whatever you get. I don't care about your feelings, her feelings, or any trump supporters' feelings. GOPers are a plague on society with their backward crazy brand of politics in normal times IMHO, but now that your main guy is trying to drag us to a dystopian authoritarian fascist Trumpian regime, I have NOTHING for any of you but disgust...

Like we care?

Do you understand that the circumstances are far from being exactly the same?

Yes, this time they are in power.
Sadly.

"They" were in power last time as well. Thank God.

The situation is NOT exactly the same...not even close.

The people voted it this way. The people gave the Senate this majority largely due to SC nominations. This is how democracy works.

People forget that President Carter appointed several judges just before President Reagan took the office.

That's great image to try and paint, but it's really not. I know what the Republicans claim makes it different but let's just use our brain for a second.

The Republicans said, "Let's let the voters decide". Would you like to see the video clip of Graham saying he would not ever hold hearings on a SCOTUS nominee after primary voting started?

You see, if the timing as the claim in 2016 was to let the voters decide, then it's exactly the same. No matter which election it is, voters decide between a Democrat or a Republican. No matter which election it is a president can be voted out or their party can be voted out.

I know the claim. "Well Obama couldn't run fro president again so it's different this time." That still doesn't mean Trump can't be voted out. You let the voters decide based on their vote. Whether they wish to have a Republican or a Democrat make that SCOTUS appointment. Trying to claim differently is only some excuse to make it sound better.

Judge Napolitano on Trump’s Supreme Court nominations

President Trump has been "utterly faithful" to his promises about the Supreme Court, Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano said Saturday.

"For Donald Trump, this is a moment of triumph. Three justices in the three and a half years -- all of a similar intellect and all of a similar attitude about the Constitution," the former judge said on "Fox & Friends Weekend."

TRUMP SET TO ANNOUNCE BARRETT AS SUPREME COURT PICK, AS DEMS VOW TO FIGHT

"Very few presidents have had this many nominees and Donald Trump is still in his first term," Napolitano added. "He has been utterly faithful to his promises with respect to the intellect and ideological orientation of the people that he has nominated."

The president is expected to announce his pick to fill the seat vacated by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Saturday afternoon, and multiple sources tell Fox News that Amy Coney Barrett is expected to be his nominee.

Napolitano says Barrett, who would be Trump's third Supreme Court nominee, is a "conservative intellectual, sort of in the Neil Gorsuch mold that President Trump has been promising he would nominate."


Trump got this!

Do YOU UNDERSTAND that the circumstances are NOT far from the same as the situation

For the appointment of Elana Kagan in around 2010
Very similar to the Elana Kagan appointment,

Very Similar circumstances.
Except this time the goal shoud be to confirm them,
Twice As Fast.

Dumb person says stupid things that make people go, "What the hell!?"

j/c:

Thousands march in Washington to pray and show Trump support

WASHINGTON – Thousands of people packed the National Mall in downtown Washington on Saturday to pray and show their support for President Donald Trump.

The march, which stretched from the Lincoln Memorial to the U.S. Capitol, was held just hours before Trump was set to announce he was nominating a conservative judge for the Supreme Court.
https://www.news4jax.com/news/politics/2...-trump-support/

Now that the nomination has been made, what is the line(s) of attack going to be from the whack-jobs on the other side of the aisle?

Do they have someone willing to say she had an affair with her former boss, Anthony Scilla or will a previous babysitter come forward saying the nominee’s husband got her pregnant and forced her to have an abortion? Something the nominee fully supported.

What will it be?

Based on their past performances, it will most certainly involve another attempted lynching.

I don't know, but I'm sure dirt will be dug, lies will be told, and the smear campaign will be on.

The Democrat call to arms, "think of the children".

link



Democrats began smearing Judge Amy Coney Barrett on Friday night before President Donald Trump even nominated her to become the next Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, which he is expected to do on Saturday afternoon.

Dana Houle, a Democrat activist who was once a chief of staff on Capitol Hill to a Democrat lawmaker, tweeted Friday night that he hopes Barrett is investigated over the children she and her husband adopted from Haiti. “I would love to know which adoption agency Amy Coney Barrett & her husband used to adopt the two children they brought here from Haiti,” Houle wrote.

My favorite quote from the article;

As an adoptee, I need to know more about the circumstances of how Amy Coney Barrett came to adopt her children, and the treatment of them since.

Transracial adoption is fraught with trauma and potential for harm, and everything I see here is deeply concerning. https://t.co/1o1ZHrOF4C

— John Lee Brougher (@johnbrougher) September 26, 2020

Does this mean the dems are against transracial adoption?

Are you serious????????????? This is the depth they will go to to denigrate, annihilate, and destroy someone????

Pathetic. Just as I predicted.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/leftists-a...K6I0t9oj9ZlaQ_s

From the article:

So now this lady is covertly being portrayed as a sex trafficker? Does the left know no bounds???

Hey, all you have to do is put it out there,right?

Who is John Lee Brougher? The tweets are not public.

They were. If you'd read the article, you'd know he switched his account to private after he got done being disgusting. Must be guilt.

Me, no. I'm rarely serious. Those dems were when they posted that crap, though.

Ah - i clicked the only link that was in your post.

You are right, those comments are very revolting, and he should probably shut down his account.

I doubt he speaks for many Democrats.

Senate confirmation hearings to start October 12 for Barrett

By Steve Holland, Susan Cornwell


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said the U.S. Senate will likely open hearings on his third Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, on Oct. 12 and he expected a full Senate vote before the Nov. 3 election.


Why the delay?

EXCLUSIVE: Supreme Court frontrunner Amy Coney Barrett hid her membership in the religious group that inspired hit TV show The Handmaid's Tale and teaches that wives have to obey their husbands in everything - even in voting

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...ious-group.html

Usually all senators meet with the candidate individually first...

This background process normally takes ~2 months, it is already being expedited.

Thank you Lyuokdea, I thought some of the procedures could be dismissed since she was vetted, had hearings, and was appointed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017.

Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman (witness at Trump's impeachment hearing) said Saturday that Judge Amy Coney Barrett “deserves” a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

"I disagree with much of her judicial philosophy and expect to disagree with many, maybe even most of her future votes and opinions. Yet despite this disagreement, I know her to be a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases in good faith, applying the jurisprudential principles to which she is committed. Those are the basic criteria for being a good justice. Barrett meets and exceeds them".

Almost all Supreme Court Justices have been vetted and appointed to a previous Circuit Court of Appeals.

Roberts - D.C. Circuit
Thomas - D.C. Circuit
Breyer - First Circuit
Alito - Third Circuit
Sotomayer - 2nd Circuit
Kagan - Did not, was previously solicitor general of the US
Gorsuch - 10th Circuit
Kavanaugh - DC Circuit

This is a higher standard.

The idea that "is qualified" is the only standard we are supposed to use when evaluating supreme court picks is a joke.

If you disagree with her views on ACA and Roe v. Wade, you should oppose her.

If you agree with her views on ACA and Roe v. Wade, then I guess you should support her.

EDIT: The Democrats also use this argument to support their own nominees, it is BS then too.

That's exactly what the Republican senate will be doing if they hold hearings. Either they lied in 2016 or they're lying now to steal power.

Wrong group...

The inaccurate link between the People of Praise and Atwood’s story, perpetuated by a series of confusing coincidences and uneven fact-checking, first emerged in a Newsweek article and was later picked up by Reuters. Both articles have since been corrected, but the right was furious at both. The Washington Examiner called it a “smear that just won’t die.” Fox News noted several other outlets have mentioned Barrett and The Handmaid’s Tale in the same story.

https://www.vox.com/culture/21453103/amy-coney-barrett-handmaids-tale-supreme-court

So, is this EXCLUSIVE:....BS?

Thanks

So she is not part of the handmaid's tale group. But she is part of a group that believe she must do as her husband says... Shouldn't he also have to be vetted and confirmed since she can't be trusted to make her own decisions?

Joe Biden’s Teleprompter, is that you?

Trump uses teleprompters as well.

Not to answer questions.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
-Carl Sagan

Then Biden’s teleprompter better get to work, because someone keeps putting a lid on it.

donny just rambles on nonsensically until he steers the ‘answer’ back to himself and how unfair he’s been treated. He needs no teleprompter to feel like a victim.

Trump Supreme Court pick Amy Coney Barrett faces 'White colonizer' attacks, other criticism from left, media

https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-supreme-court-amy-coney-barrett-colonizer-left-media-attacks


The video... just how many of our norms are democrats willing to break? smh

You're just now asking that question? LOL I guess late is better than never.

At the end of the day, there is zero reason why this nomination shouldn't go forward. What would Trump or the GOP have to gain by holding off? They certainly wouldn't gain the respect of anyone here by doing so. Since Trump was elected the left has proposed ideas like increasing the number of Senators, the Supreme Court, abolishing the Electoral College, etc all things that would fundamentally change the Institution, so you can't even say that the GOP should hold off in order to preserve the Institution or any other traditions.

And according to you guys Trump is nothing more than a narcissistic a-hole who literally doesn't give a fig about anybody else... so why should he care if people are pissed at him? I'll even admit that to Trump "famous" and "infamous" are as different in meaning as "flammable" and "inflammable".

If the Dems were smart they'd continue to paint her as a boogeyman on specific court cases and try to get a little political capital out of that. Past that? They really should shut up about this adding Justice seats if Biden gets elected nonsense. For the same reasons (or lack of) I mentioned above
why shouldn't Trump take them up on that idea and tell 'ol Lyndsey Graham to add 2 more from his list and get them seated before November? That would be 11 seats... even if Biden wins, good luck trying to sell the American people on adding more seats on top of that. Then you get to deal with a 8-3 court for the next 20-30yrs...

I wasn't asking anything! I couldn't believe the things they were saying. The party of Trump talking about dems breaking norms! LMAO You can't make this crap up.

The Democrats hurt themselves if they make crazy claims about ACB as a person. *

** This of course, would change if something verifiable and important came up in background checks -- like happened with Kavanaugh. There is no indication that will happen in this case.

Instead they should focus on the fact, that she is likely to make rulings on Health Care and Roe v. Wade that are very unpopular with the majority of Americans.

That, itself, should be a reason for Americans not to support her nomination.

EDIT: I also want to note that Republicans are being a bit ridiculously choosy here. The worst part about Twitter is that it is easy to find the **worst argument** that anybody on the other side has ever made -- and then "pretend" that this argument represents the other side.

Most Democrats, including important politicians, left-leaning median members, etc. are making the right arguments and are not leveling dumb personal attacks. But if Breitbart pretends that only the crazies exist, then they don't have to care about legitimate arguments made against ACB as a candidate.

Nothing important come up in Kavanaugh's back round check. That's why the "witness" couldn't remember where, when, who, etc. Nothing more than another failed fabrication.

You don't even have to debate the merits here.

If there are two named witnesses, who come out, and are willing to testify (under oath!) that the candidate committed a felony -- the senate should take a day to listen to that before appointing somebody (for life) to one of the most important jobs in the country.

Two named witnesses that couldn't recall any details are not witnesses.

You're right, they're slanderer's.

Purgerers.

But very popular with Republicans, especially Republican women when it comes to abortion.

In that case there is zero reason the Merrick Garland nomination shouldn't have gone forward.



The only question will be which one of these SCOTUS seats did they steal.

The Senate gets to advise and consent to the appointment. The Senate didn't want him. Get over it.

Technically, the Senate didn't do anything.

The senate's job is to hold hearings. They didn't do their job. Deal with it.

Stop promoting they do two opposite things and claim they have some right to act that way. And you winder why you were labeled deplorable.

Liberal women’s groups, Planned Parenthood rush to rip ACB, say she will ‘turn back the clock on equality’

"Donald Trump and the Senate Republicans want to steal another seat on the Supreme Court so that Amy Coney Barrett can help repeal Roe [v. Wade] and shred the Affordable Care Act – but not before she votes with a new, ultra-conservative majority to validate an election he intends to steal," the National Organization for Women said in a statement.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/amy-coney-barrett-roe-v-wade-supreme-court

Hair on Fire!

I mean - aren't those the things that Conservatives (or Trump himself) say she is going to do?

That's what they said Kavanaugh was going to do, even though he was very clear he wouldn't. Has ruled multiple times in favor of precedent, even when it conflicts with his personal beliefs.

ACB could be a different story, though.

Um... they do have the right to act that way. Hypocritical? Sure. I don't see why more people are admitting it because it doesn't matter if it is. Is it dirty politics? Yeah it is and I said as much back with Garland.

So?

Sometimes I do wish our representatives acted in a more respectful, "Gentleman's Agreement" manner in the course of their business. But it was the lefties who sank that ship before Trump got elected.

It's why Trump got elected. I disagree with a lot of you guys on this stuff, but the difference between me and you, I don't think you guys are stupid. Which is why for the life of me to this day you guys still refuse to see how the behavior of the left and Democrats was the single biggest reason for Pres Trump to even exist.

You guys need to get over it. No one is impressed by your accusations of hypocrisy or calls for "Republicans to man up". Pfft! You guys have neither the moral or ethical standing to demand anyone be held accountable to you. None whatsoever. Every single one of you crying about how Trump isn't doing enough to "unify" have at one time or another explicitly or implied that every poster here who leans on the right is a:

-racist
-homophobe
-Nazi
-supports sexual assault
and the list of truly base, [censored] things to call people goes on.

For years you guys have done it without apology, without remorse, and with impunity... until Trump came along. Donald Trump's behavior is the mirror image of how you guys have treated anyone who disagreed with you.

The Republicans have ZERO responsibility to clean up Harry Reids mess. Cocaine Mitch warned him about getting rid of the 2/3 majority for confirmation. To quote Barack Obama's mentor the Reverend Wright your "chickens have come home to roost".

If none of that sank in then I'll make one final, simpler point:

You just called Erik deplorable because he stated a fact about process that you didn't like. I agree that it is dirty politics, but it is politics within their Constitutional authority. Instead of presenting a rebuttal based on the Constitution or law, you decide to level a personal insult against him.

Way to be the exemplar of civility and unity, a paragon of morality and ethics, a shining beacon that we should aspire to, and to be the change you want to see in the world. That nose bleed must be from picking it too deep because the High Road you guys think you travel on isn't as high as you think.

Amen!

Then give me an example where Democrats have used a double standard in their "stated policy" to make a lifetime appointment that controls the law of our nation.

I mean talking a good rant may work for you. But what you can't do is actually show where this has been done before. Ever, by either party. Until now....

I'd argue Sotamayor's appointment to the court followed by Democrat's whining about 'judicial activism' (among other things, obviously) during the Kavanaugh nomination.

This is doubly hilarious, because Kavanaugh has (and still does) ruled at odds with his religious beliefs.

That argument falls pretty short compared to this example.

Both parties want justices appointed that will rule in their favor. It doesn't always work out that way, but that's the goal. As in, Trump said he wouldn't nominate anyone who isn't anti abortion. That's been sort of the status quo for a while now.

I agree that the hypocrisy doesn't quite rise to the same level as what's going on now, but it's still hypocrisy. They made an argument against a nominee that applies more to their own nominee.

Interesting post.

I would counter your point regarding standing, since it is the foundation of our country to hold politicians accountable to us. I also do not meet any of the explicit or implicit parameters that you mention. I don't think I have ever - at least seriously - referred to any of you as deplorable. Quite the opposite actually.

I also have made clear that I am no fan of either of the political parties in control.

Agree on the fact that Harry Reid made a mess. He was a disaster.

I also agree that Democrats cannot claim a moral high ground.

Lastly, I also agree that Democrat behavior - especially those of career politicians like Pelosi - are partly responsible for the fervor that got Trump elected. However, I think that notion also applies to Republicans. The 2016 Republican primary where he basically broke the system of getting the conventional candidate elected I believe is the same reflection of the impact of that anti-establishment fervor on the Right.

The double standard I was referring to is in their behavior and how they view people.

As for this being a first.. so what? It doesn't mean its not allowed. Since the ratification of the Constitution our government has constantly experienced "firsts". Granted sometimes that 'first' leaves a bad taste inn our mouths and exposes something that needs correction. But the thing liberals often forget is that the Constitution has a built in remedy and process.

If you wanted to have a discussion about how the Legislative Branch has too much discretion in how business is conducted, I think that would be an outstanding premise. On the face of it I wouldn't be opposed to Constitutionally defined time constraints for Presidential appointments.

Is that process long and difficult? Yup. But that just means everyone has to as you say "man up". (I'll change it to "all-gender-inclusive-up"... we may not agree on stuff but I wouldn't want the cancel culture to come after you for being a misogynist or transphobe .!)

But the solution isn't to admonish and berate people who you've shown an unabashed disdain for and expect them to clean up your mess.

The solution isn't to threaten to pack the court with ideologues when/if you regain power.

I absolutely agree with this. I always viewed the 2016 campaign/election as being more of an anti-establishment movement than an ideological one. On the Right at that time Ted Cruz was positioned pretty well outside the establishment and I think he would have ended up with the nomination. However when Trump got in, he was soooo far outside the establishment, Cruz ended up like everyone else.

On the Left, I don't think the support that Bernie was able to get should be overlooked either. I couldn't say how many of those supporters wanted to go full blown Commie, but the fact that he had some serious attention showed me that people on the left were looking for something outside the establishment as well.


If you notice, the key players in just about all the... crap... are establishment players: Pelosi, Schumer, Cocaine Mitch.... These are all people desperately clinging to power as it slips away. I think people on all sides want more civility and sanity. I believe the Dems miscalculated and thought that meant people wanted to return to the establishment and that's how they got the Biden/Harris ticket.

As for the other side... Trump is not the GOP. A lot of support for Trump is not necessarily support for the GOP. People voted for Trump because they were tired of all the above undeserved nastiness and the GOP letting it happen. Trump is their Thunderdome combatant and they've adopted an attitude of "I'm your Huckleberry" and see who's left standing.

Has this been healthy for the Nation as a whole? Hell no. But there's been no alternative. The left has only doubled and tripled down on the behaviors that got Trump elected.

If this mess wasn't about the D.C. establishment trying to cling to power, someone like Tulsi would have been given a fair shot and nominated. So, so many people I've talked to that voted for Trump and plan to vote for him again have said they would have voted for her instead.

Going forward I do believe that the country would be best served if after this cycle that someone like Dan Crenshaw and Tulsi Gabbard were made Speaker and Minority Leader (based on who controls the House and who doesn't of course). There is a tone and pragmatism that they both have that I think can go a long way in re-establishing some sense of order.

Hey, some people are so accomplished that they can't fit all of the good things on their resume

The next argument upon confirmation is that she ought to recuse herself from any such cases. Depending on the case and argument to be made, she may very well ought to. Here again however we'll likely see a double standard in action. Justice Kagan didn't recuse herself from the Obamacare case even though prior to becoming a Supreme Court Justice she argued the law on behalf of the Administration at the lower Courts.


I don't understand why you guys are freaking out so much. Conservatives have gotten burned many times by Justices appointed who had a reputation of being conservative but end up siding with the libs half the time. When's the last time a Dem appointed Justice did the reverse?

Relax, you guys will be fine. I promise.

Over turning Roe I don't think is as simple as everyone on both sides thinks it would be. Too much has changed and too much is known, too much had changed. For example, advancements in medicine have changed the whole idea of "viable"... with laws on the books, its one thing to say a woman can abort all the way up until the day of because its "just a clump of cells" but if someone comes along and punches that same woman in the stomach which terminates the pregnancy, they can be charged with the Murder of the same "clump of cells".

And given the arguments from both sides, I don't think relegating it to a State's Rights would be appropriate either.

It doesn't stop at Roe.

I will only make two comments concerning your reply. First, the fact that nobody ever thought the senate would abuse the process doesn't mean it isn't wrong. You can say "it's allowed" if you like. Nobody can seriously say that refusing to hold hearings one on presidents SCOTUS nomination for eight months while pushing the next presidents nomination through in less than two months is "right".

Secondly, claiming that voters simply wanted an outsider I find to be a false narrative. Trump was the angriest most attacking and nasty individual to ever run for the office other than George Wallace I've ever seen. This was more about promoting that than anything else. It wasn't about who he was but rather how he was. Name calling, pro white and nasty. They hated Obama and their vote was more in protest of him than anything.

All anyone has to do is listen.

Wasn't her stance already pretty much known prior to this little tidbit of info?

I mean, Trump has made no secret of his desire to repeal RvW as well as killing Obamacare. So when he picked her, wouldn't it be a given she opposed both?

Yes - except that judges (on both sides) like to make this big show during nomination hearings about how they have no prior opinions.

It's amazing the lengths the top legal minds in our nation will go to -- in order to pretend that they've "never really thought about Roe v. Wade all that much"

I can't disagree with anything you just said. I have mixed feelings about this election. On one hand, I cannot stand Trump and most of what he stands for, along with his behavior, obviously. I think he is the sign of a populace who is angry, and politicians who take office because of anger and resentment have historically been disastrous more often than not.

One the other hand, I am also disappointed with the prospect of a Biden presidency because I think it will further a validation of establishment politicians that continuing Washington's "business as usual" is okay, because it clearly is not. I shudder to think of people like Pelosi or McConnell can stay comfortable with how they have conducted themselves and their affairs.

Depending on whether you want to be convinced that this is ok -- I am happy to write a much longer post.

Do you mean that "we can't have a return to normalacy when our country is so divided?"

or:

"Biden is an old establishment politician, and we need new energy?"

I don't want to answer for Devil, but in my mind, it wasn't simply looking for an "outsider." I don't think it was looking for a healthy alternative. I think it was a lot of anger and ugliness manifesting itself in a candidate who was willing to stoke those notions, because it would give him a return on his need for validation through "winning."

I'm not comparing Trump to Hitler, but when Hitler was elected, it wasn't because his platform was "I'm xenophobic and I plan on going to war and killing a bunch of people mercilessly" but it was "You have been pushed aside by the world, ignored by these politicians in power, and I am here to change all of that and restore your pride and get back at those who put you down."

Trump's message to the right was that all the Republicans were involved in bad trade deals, endless wars, and helped transform DC into a swamp. In that aspect, he was right. He also dressed down just about every establishment politician on the right for doing that in the primaries, and quite frankly, he emasculated them. I can't believe Ted Cruz became such a toadie after what Trump said about his wife.

Anyhow, I think people who voted for Trump in 2016 took the fact that he was an "outsider" and combined that with his fervor to "drain the swamp" and make their lives better because of his business acumen (as misleading as that was) as the leading reasons to rally behind him.

Sure, there were groups that voted for him directly for the wrong reasons, but I think most of the supporters had their skepticism overcome by the fervor he created, and turned a blind eye to some of the bigger concerns.

Neither, really, but also both. I do think our country will have trouble returning to normalcy and I do think Biden is an old establishment politician.

I think Biden signifies a return to what was already going wrong in the pre-Trump era. I don't think "new energy" per se will solve the problem, because new energy can just toe each respective line.

I just think that we've gone from a fundamental establishment problem (of which Biden was a part of) to a "holy hell what have we gotten ourselves into" problem.

So, while I want to get out of the "holy hell problem," I wouldn't look forward to a return of the "establishment problem."

I don't really disagree with you about each having their own baggage and associations. Biden certainly wasn't my first, nor my second choice among the potential democratic candidates running for the nomination.

As of right now, I'm just looking for some sense of normalcy and decorum. A sense of someone at least attempting to bring some sense of unity rather than purposefully spreading hate and division.

It's the lesser of two evils choice we're all faced with right now.

Telling voters that the other side is unAmerican, telling them politicians who aren't white should be deported, mocking a disabled person, just the hate filled rhetoric spread by Trump is not what America should be. It's bad enough we have every day Americans spread such BS, much less having our president do it.

That's just where I'm at right now.

I can't disagree with you there, Pit. I think what I am doing is taking it a step further and saying that, if we do return back to what we considered "normal," then it's not enough to say "whew, we're back to normal."

We desperately need to come together and find a sustainable solution to our politics. The hardest part about that is establishment politicians don't want that to happen, because they control us through fear, division and anger.

They bit off more than they could chew when all of that resulted in Trump, but I don't think that will stop them from trying to perpetuate that tactic.

I would love to see a downfall of our bipartisanship, but that seems like such a distant dream to me.

Biden was also not my first choice.

But, I think a Biden presidency gives America a lot of room to figure out what it wants to be next.

He is old -- he's not some force-of-character type person (e.g., a Reagan or Bill Clinton). He's committed to working across the aisle, but also unlikely to be able to force bipartisanship that isn't there.

I think he will probably not run for a second term, given his age, and the fact that he appeared very hesitant to run in the first place. I think he truly believes (for better or worse) that he is a singular figure who can heal wounds of the Trump presidency.

I think the rule of law is important, and having a president who respects that is critical -- and guarantees my vote for Biden.

dawglover's last few posts were absolutely brilliant, imo. Clear and succinct description of one of the things that happened in 2016. I agree that that is a big part of what went into the result of 2016.

It's also why I'm so worried about a Biden presidency. If the DNC is apparently going to ignore what happened in 2016, and just continue on without learning a single thing from that failure... how can say that 2016 isn't just going to happen again? That same anger and frustration is still there; and if anything, it will have grown from being ignored still.

I agree totally. In order I promoted Mayor Pete and Amy Klobuchar.

Pete certainly isn't a Washington insider. But with him being gay it would have been tough to get him elected. Amy certainly isn't an outsider but compared to what remained of the rest of the field she would have been my choice.

I'm not a fan of the two party system. But the way they have the rules set up, it's all about favoring it remains that way.

I can understand that completely.

What I think some are ignoring is the Hillary factor. Sadly, the Democrats have this perceived hierarchy of what I call, "It's your turn now". The Republican party understands this. As such, they spent years attacking and trying to pin something on Hillary. While they never could make anything stick, it didn't stop them from making her a very questionable political figure. She really didn't do herself any favors by the fact she isn't a very likeable person.

I think the difference in this election will boil down to what was sold to some voters verses what they've seen. A lot of them believed Trump when he said he could act presidential. It became a popular theme that he was in "campaign mode".

Rather than drain the swamp, he actually built a new and improved swamp with even more alligators. And of course the entrance fee increased as well. His White house has had more turnover than a fast food drive thru.

It's not going to change the minds of Republicans. I don't think anything will at this point. But it's going to change the minds of a lot of people who feel conned and disillusioned. I think many of them are considering the old saying, "Be careful what you wish for" right about now.

Thanks for the kind words, oober. I really appreciate that.

I agree that the Dems are out of touch with their own constituents and they seem more bent on honing in on Trump's problems than actually listening to what their own base has to say, or attempting to solve issues that shouldn't even be political.

So let me guess. Democrats don't put judges in that agree with their positions, right? Rgb, kagan, and sotomayor were strict constitutionalists that rule on the law and not their personal opinions?

I don’t know - I feel like the major lesson of 2016 was “Don’t nominate very unpopular people”.

I personally think Hilary would have been a great president. But she was a very weak candidate, and a lot of people strongly dislike her.

Now the Democrats are running Biden, who is not extremely unpopular — Trump still is very unpopular — and shockingly that seems to help in the polls.

Both sides do it. The point that was being made was concerning disclosure.

Nowhere does it say they have to hold hearings. Advise and consent. They did not consent.

To hell with the Dems, If they want to delay the hearings, just go straight to the confirmation vote.


Here We Go: Democrats Demand SCOTUS Hearings Be Delayed Due to Positive Virus Tests

Katie Pavlich

|
@KatiePavlich
|
Posted: Oct 02, 2020




Top Senate Democrats are demanding the Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett be delayed after Republican Senator Mike Lee tested positive for Wuhan coronavirus.

NEW: Schumer and Feinstein says Senate Judiciary should delay Barrett hearings.

"The unfortunate news about the infection of our colleague Senator Mike Lee makes even more clear that health and safety must guide the schedule for all Senate activities, including hearings."
— Laura Litvan (@LauraLitvan) October 2, 2020

The seeds of this idea were planted last night by the media when news broke that President Trump had also tested positive.

White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows has been traveling on and off with Trump all week.

Meadows huddled with McConnell on Call Hill Wednesday, and has been assisting SCOTUS nominee Amy Coney Barrett in her meetings with senators on the Hill. pic.twitter.com/dqAhqMEC4E
— Scott Wong (@scottwongDC) October 2, 2020

Barrett was tested for the disease and was found negative.

In a statement released by Senator Lee about his diagnosis, he said he plans to move forward with the confirmation of Barrett.

"Like so many other Utahns, I will now spend part of 2020 working from home. I have spoken with Leader McConnell and Chairman Graham, and colleagues in advancing the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett in the Committee and then to the full Senate," Lee said.

Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has no plans to delay Barrett's hearing. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham has indicated the same.

Just finished a great phone call with @POTUS. He’s in good spirits and we talked business — especially how impressed Senators are with the qualifications of Judge Barrett. Full steam ahead with the fair, thorough, timely process that the nominee, the Court, & the country deserve.
— Leader McConnell (@senatemajldr) October 2, 2020

Talked to Senator Lee earlier today and wished him a speedy recovery.

Look forward to welcoming him back to the @senjudiciary to proceed with the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barret on October 12. https://t.co/OVm0OQbnQF
— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) October 2, 2020

Earlier this week the Senate held a hearing with fired FBI Director James Comey, who testified remotely.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli...avirus-n2577369

Explain which one of these things is a lie....

#1 It's an election year. There are eight months until the election. We think it's only fair to wait until after the election so the voters have say.

#2 It's less than two months before the election and we don't care. We won't allow the voters to have a say. We'll just push it through anyway.

Your double standards and BS mean nothing.

And they all said the opposite in 2016. So they were lying then or they're lying now. Choose which time they lied and why you endorse their lie.

I hope the Dems pack the courts

Neither is a lie. The did what they wanted because they controlled the senate. Your beloved democrats would have done the exact same thing.

Thank you Miss Cleo. Excuses and unfounded predictions seem far more popular than accountability. So much for the party of personal responsibility.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-seeks-curtail-senate-not-172704377.html

GOP seeks to call off Senate work, but not Barrett hearings

Mitch McConnell: Amy Coney Barrett Will Be Confirmed ‘No Later than Monday’


Joshua Caplan

23 Oct 2020


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) vowed Friday that the full Senate will vote to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court “no mater than Monday.”

McConnell’s remark came as Democrats protested Barrett’s imminent confirmation by forcing the Senate into rare closed session that lasted for roughly 15 minutes.

“I believe the Senate majority is on the precipice of making a colossal and historic mistake by rushing this nomination through the Senate only eight days before a national election,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) lamented. “Before we go any further, we should shut off the cameras, close the Senate and talk face-to-face about what this might mean for the country.”

“The Republican majority is steering the Senate, the Supreme Court and the country in a very dangerous direction,” he added. “The damage to Americans’ faith in these institutions could be lasting. So before we go any further, we should shut off the cameras, close the Senate and talk face to face about what this might mean for the country.”

As Roll Call reports:

The stage is set for a Sunday afternoon Senate vote to limit debate on President Donald Trump’s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell filed a cloture motion on the nomination Friday. That sets up a simple-majority vote to wind down the debate one hour after the Senate convenes on Sunday. Under regular order, that vote is expected to kick off at 1 p.m. Eastern time.

With a 53-47 Republican majority, and just two GOP senators opposed, Trump’s nominee is on a glide path to confirmation that will seal a conservative hold on the court for years to come.

McConnell said Monday that Barrett demonstrated over several days of public hearings the “sheer intellectual horsepower that the American people deserve to have on the Supreme Court.”

Without the votes to stop Barrett’s ascent, Democrats have few options left. They are searching for two more GOP senators to break ranks and halt confirmation, but that seems unlikely. Never before as a court nominee been voted on so close to a presidential election.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/...er-than-monday/

So "because they could" is the answer and gets 3 likes.

Cool. If the democrats win the WH and senate and pack the court and give statehood time Puerto Rico "because they can" there won't be any crying then . . .

They'd be stupid if they didn't. You know damn well Erik is right and the dems would have done the exact same thing.



Wah wah. Sour grapes anyone? It's politics. Both sides suck.

What Will Happen If the Democrats Pack the Supreme Court
.



https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/10/15/what-will-happen-if-liberals-pack-the-supreme-court/

jc The voters had their say in 2016. Too late to cry giant tears about it now. Its the GOP right to nominate who they wish.

I love the added lie at the bottom that voters fraud is also a problem, is this a regular source of fiction for you?