Jump to content

Recommended Posts

DT should nominate another woman, just a conservative one.

Chuck Smuck is already working against any appointment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

As tempting as it may be, and trust me I LOATHE some of her decisions, just remember to never, ever stoop to the level of rejoicing in someones death.  Dont be like the other side and open yourself up

May you rest in peace and thank you for your final gift to the Donald and McConnell!

^^^^^^^one less liberal one on the Supreme Court to decide the contested election results......

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Ihfan4life said:

It’s one thing to get a nomination through the senate. The house, will be another thing...

RIP Nancy. I mean Ruth.

The approval process does not include the House of Representatives.  Only the advise and consent of the Senate, which of course means the approval of the RINO's Susan Collins from Maine, Lisa Murkowski from Alaska, and the very lovable former Massachusetts Governor and failed Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, now the Senator from Utah.  The confirmation process for judicial appointees is filibuster free which means it will not be necessary for sixty (60) votes but fifty one (51).  Republicans can stand one (1) or two (2) defections as Vice President Pence, in the event of a tie, can cast the deciding vote. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, New Englander said:

DT should nominate another woman, just a conservative one.

Chuck Smuck is already working against any appointment.

They’re going to cry 

They need to remember last time they didn’t have the senate

This time the senate is controlled by the president’s party

Murkowski, Collins and the Mit Wit need to fall in line it’s their duty.

it’s not a Trump duty It’s a conservative duty

Collins is up for reelection and she is behind so she needs to vote yes for her legacy  

You can change the president every 4 years but an opportunity to change the Supreme Court doesn’t happen often  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jeeper61 said:

They’re going to cry 

They need to remember last time they didn’t have the senate

This time the senate is controlled by the president’s party

Murkowski, Collins and the Mit Wit need to fall in line it’s their duty.

it’s not a Trump duty It’s a conservative duty

Collins is up for reelection and she is behind so she needs to vote yes for her legacy  

Sadly, the Republicans have difficulty rallying around "duty" unlike the Donkey's who fall in line like comrades around Schumer.  Mitt needs to remember it is his failed Presidential bid which brought us Amabo.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, RichardDSalyer said:

Sadly, the Republicans have difficulty rallying around "duty" unlike the Donkey's who fall in line like comrades around Schumer.  Mitt needs to remember it is his failed Presidential bid which brought us Amabo.

That was a race that should have been won.......that race reminds me of this current one for the dems......the wrong guy for the job and they ran him anyway.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, jeeper61 said:

They’re going to cry 

They need to remember last time they didn’t have the senate

This time the senate is controlled by the president’s party

Murkowski, Collins and the Mit Wit need to fall in line it’s their duty.

it’s not a Trump duty It’s a conservative duty

Collins is up for reelection and she is behind so she needs to vote yes for her legacy  

You can change the president every 4 years but an opportunity to change the Supreme Court doesn’t happen often  

I also feel like they're gonna cry and call foul cause of 2016. But at the same time playing games hoping they could keep her alive long enough to try and get someone else elected. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a nation of laws patterned on what happened in the past(, We all need to remember when Justice Anthony Scilla died.   It was 8 months before the election and Mitch did NOT allow the president to nominate because the "election cycle " was underway.   A (in my opinion) ill advised precedent .   This was a political move by our party that will come back to bite us. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, 1466fan said:

I also feel like they're gonna cry and call foul cause of 2016. But at the same time playing games hoping they could keep her alive long enough to try and get someone else elected. 

That's what im thinking is going to happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RichardDSalyer said:

Let us not forget her staunch support of Roe vs. Wade.  History will judge the lady as a partisan judicial activist.  It is reported by the news she dictated to her granddaughter a "most fervent" wish not to be replaced until a new President is installed.

Even on her death bed, the staunch liberal remained an activist.  Call me a curmudgeon, an arsehole, or just a plain big DICK, but if you believe in the sanctity of life, the rights of the unborn fetus, the right of the male (father) to have a voice prior to the killing of his unborn child, the right of the parent(s) to be notified prior to their daughter receiving an abortion, than the United States of America may well be on the path to a far brighter future for the unborn children.

I do wish RBG peace in her afterlife however I do believe in God, and based on the fifth (5th) Commandment, Thou Shalt Not Kill,  and RBG's positions on the destruction of life, RBG may very weAgll find her new surroundings uncomfortably warm.

Again, "I admire a true believer even if I don't agree with them". I think Roe v Wade is an abomination.  It's a terrible decision that ignores exactly half of the baby making equation (the Father). You want to end abortion legally in a non religious context? Give fathers a choice. That thunder you hear will be legs slapping shut all over the country. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, gonzo 1066 said:

As a nation of laws patterned on what happened in the past(, We all need to remember when Justice Anthony Scilla died.   It was more than a year before the election and Mitch did NOT allow the president to nominate because the "election cycle " was underway.   A (in my opinion) ill advised precedent .   This was a political move by our party that will come back to bite us. 

You are incorrect.  There was NO LAW requiring Merrick Garland to be granted any consideration.  The difference is the Senate was controlled by the Republicans and the nominating President was a Democrat.  In the case at hand, the Senate and President are both controlled by the Republican party.

Sadly, you failed to do the requisite research.

Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years

amy-howe.jpg

Amy Howe Independent Contractor and Reporter

Posted Sat, February 13th, 2016 11:55 pm

Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years

In the wake of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, questions have arisen about whether there is a standard practice of not nominating and confirming Supreme Court Justices during a presidential election year.  The historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election.  In that period, there were several nominations and confirmations of Justices during presidential election years.    

The first nomination during an election year in the twentieth century came on March 13, 1912, when  President William Taft (a Republican) nominated Mahlon Pitney to succeed John Marshall Harlan, who died on October 14, 1911.  The Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Pitney on March 18, 1912, by a vote of fifty to twenty-six.

President Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) made two nominations during 1916.  On January 28, 1916, Wilson nominated Louis Brandeis to replace Joseph Rucker Lamar, who died on January 2, 1916; the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Brandeis on June 1, 1916, by a vote of forty-seven to twenty-two.  Charles Evans Hughes resigned from the Court on June 10, 1916 to run (unsuccessfully) for president as a Republican.  On July 14, 1916, Wilson nominated John Clarke to replace him; Clarke was confirmed unanimously ten days later.

On February 15, 1932, President Herbert Hoover (a Republican) nominated Benjamin Cardozo to succeed Oliver Wendell Holmes, who retired on January 12, 1932.  A Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Cardozo by a unanimous voice vote on February 24, 1932.

On January 4, 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt (a Democrat) nominated Frank Murphy to replace Pierce Butler, who died on November 16, 1939; Murphy was confirmed by a heavily Democratic Senate on January 16, 1940, by a voice vote.

On November 30, 1987, President Ronald Reagan (a Republican) nominated Justice Anthony Kennedy to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Lewis Powell.  A Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Kennedy (who followed Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg as nominees for that slot) on February 3, 1988, by a vote of ninety-seven to zero.

In two instances in the twentieth century, presidents were not able to nominate and confirm a successor during an election year.  But neither reflects a practice of leaving a seat open on the Supreme Court until after the election.

On September 7, 1956, Sherman Minton announced his intent to retire in a letter to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and he served until October 15, 1956.  With the Senate already adjourned, Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William J. Brennan to the Court shortly thereafter; Brennan was formally nominated to the Court and confirmed in 1957.  The fact that Eisenhower put Brennan on the Court is inconsistent with any tradition of leaving a seat vacant.

And in 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson nominated Abe Fortas, who was already sitting as an Associate Justice, to succeed Chief Justice Earl Warren, but the Fortas nomination was the target of a bipartisan filibuster – principally in reaction to the Warren Court’s liberalism and ethical questions about Fortas, although objections were certainly also made that it was inappropriate to fill the seat in an election year.  That filibuster prompted Homer Thornberry, whom Johnson nominated to succeed Fortas as an Associate Justice, to withdraw his name from consideration in October 1968, because there was no vacancy to fill. Moreover, the failure to confirm Fortas as the Chief Justice did not leave the Court short a Justice, because Chief Justice Earl Warren remained on the bench.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gonzo 1066 said:

It was more than a year before the election and Mitch did NOT allow the president to nominate because the "election cycle " was underway.   A (in my opinion) ill advised precedent .   This was a political move by our party that will come back to bite us. 

This is incorrect as well.  Scalia died on February 13, 2016 and Merrick Garland was nominated on March 16, 2016.  The election was held on November 8, 2016.  By my math, the election was held a little less than eight (8) months after the Garland nomination.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RichardDSalyer said:

This is incorrect as well.  Scalia died on February 13, 2016 and Merrick Garland was nominated on March 16, 2016.  The election was held on November 8, 2016.  By my math, the election was held a little less than eight (8) months after the Garland nomination.

Sorry   You are correct on the time line.,  But still my statement stands,  The theory is that we should wait for after the election and let the voters have some say in supreme court justices.  When Trump wins in November he can nominate his choice. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, gonzo 1066 said:

But still my statement stands,  The theory is that we should wait for after the election and let the voters have some say in supreme court justices.  When Trump wins in November he can nominate his choice. 

That is your, and the Democrats theory.  Past precedent by a Republican President and Republican controlled Senate and Democrat President and Democratic controlled Senate begs to differ.  President Trump has a duty and obligation to fulfill all duties of his Presidency up to and including the date of inauguration of either Trump or Biden.  The responsibility and duties of an incumbent President does not end until the torch passes hands.

Their is absolutely NO question if the shoe was on Schumer's foot with a Democratic controlled Senate, Schumer would move forward with lightning speed to hold a confirmation hearing.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RichardDSalyer said:

Their is absolutely NO question if the shoe was on Schumer's foot with a Democratic controlled Senate, Schumer would move forward with lightning speed to hold a confirmation hearing.

 

Exactly all conservatives need to push the senate Republicans to confirm a justice now.

If Biden was to win and the court is 5-4 leaning conservative that is road block for left’s agenda.

Not doing so is a grave mistake even if it costs Donald the presidency the justice is more important in the long run.   

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

We could have ourselves one heck of a mess with this one. Constitutional Convention level.

It's imperative to have a full SCOTUS to prevent a hung decision on any case presented. We have an upcoming election that could be litigated to SCOTUS level if it is in any way close and there is any sort of skulldugery. With all the mail in voting, extensions, early voting, pretty much guaranteed there is going to be trouble. 

I'm not sure, but any judges nominated by a sitting President may have to recuse themselves from an election case to prevent a conflict of interest inquiry? If so, what if they don't recuse and the decisions are in favor of their nominator? Get where I'm going with this?

As to RBG, RIP. A family lost a loved one, many in this country lost a role model and hero. As others have stated, I did not share many viewpoints with her, but she did faithfully stand up for which she believed. And in the end, that's pretty much the best legacy any of us can hope to be remembered for.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

May RBG rest in peace. 

 

She had health issues for more than 4 years. She could of stepped down before her party lost the Presidency. But most all people that get the power she had do not give it up willingly. If we get another conservative justus it will do as much to limit socialism as anything else Trump has done.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Tonyinca said:

I was at a virtual Fair event representing three clubs of Antique equipment with our equipment when I got confirmation of Her passing .

    I prayed to God to forgive the  joy I was feeling at the moment .  Then I got hold of myself and recited, Larry The Cable Guy's prayer , " lord I am Sorry ,Forgive me and  please bless and be with the Pigmies in New Guiney. !

 Sorry ,but I am being truthful. Not going to B.S. you Guys . She was an Ideolog and held that seat," WAY Past Her Use By Date"  just to appease her Ideology. Determined to out live the election , However, God Saw it a little differently.  RIP RBG !

 

 

    Tony

  I do believe that Tony’s last line is completely accurate and makes it a little hard for me to feel that it is wrong, for the process to replace her be immediately undertaken.  She hung on to the very last to protect her seat, her ideology and dislike of our current president when in all reality she should have stepped down and already been replaced.  A justice of the Supreme Court should not hold the court hostage to their personal whims.  My opinion as a middle of America conservative.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ray54 said:

May RBG rest in peace. 

 

She had health issues for more than 4 years. She could of stepped down before her party lost the Presidency. But most all people that get the power she had do not give it up willingly. If we get another conservative justus it will do as much to limit socialism as anything else Trump has done.

I agree. Rip ma’am.  And like Catech said, a family lost someone. 
 

I really think she as a feminist wanted to retire and leave the appointment of a female justice for Hilary. Or not.  Who knows

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2020 at 3:55 AM, New Englander said:

Democrats will scream loud and long and will do their best to delay any nomination. The Republicans have done the same.

I would love to see a judge that believes in the Constitution as written or amended rather than as  "Living document" BS.

Obama and the Dems were so sure HRC would be elected Prez was the only Obama kicked the can to the new Prez. The old saying about hindsight being 20/20 applies here. There is no doubt in my mind if Obama could have a redo of his last few months as Prez he would have tried to install a new justice.  IF the big R was in control of the senate it would be a waste of time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 806 man said:

Obama and the Dems were so sure HRC would be elected Prez was the only Obama kicked the can to the new Prez. The old saying about hindsight being 20/20 applies here. There is no doubt in my mind if Obama could have a redo of his last few months as Prez he would have tried to install a new justice.  IF the big R was in control of the senate it would be a waste of time.

That's just it. The Senate was in Republican hands and refused to bring Obama's nomination to a vote. Had the Senate been in Democrat hands his nomination would have had a vote and likely approval.

I believe the Senate remained in Republican hands due to the ill treatment of DT's nomination. Approved anyway after being dragged through ****. Any nominee should be prepared for worse this time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, New Englander said:

Approved anyway after being dragged through ****. Any nominee should be prepared for worse this time.

In my opinion you are absolutely correct and the Conservatives and moderates need to be prepared for all types of shenanigans.  I am extremely uncomfortable with what is referred to as ballot harvesting.  

Anonymous Democrat operative's account of how election fraud is allegedly committed was 'revealing' and 'chilling': NY Post reporter

In my lifetime, I have never missed any election other than a local election where I did not have a candidate in my particular District running or was running unopposed.  I have no quarrel with an individual requesting an absentee ballot.

I ask all to Google ballot harvesting?  This is a practice which is ripe for fraud.

California Laws on Ballot Harvesting

California voters can legally "designate any person to return [their] ballot to the elections official from whom it came or to the precinct board at a polling place within a jurisdiction."

Both Republican and Democratic organizations took advantage of this law in the 2018 elections, but Democrats appeared to prioritize ballot harvesting more than their Republican counterparts and were able to take over many offices that were previously controlled by Republicans.

North Carolina Laws on Ballot Harvesting

North Carolina voting law states that it is a Class I felony for "any person except the voter's near relative or the voter's verifiable legal guardian to assist the voter to vote an absentee ballot when the voter is voting an absentee ballot," outside of special and specific circumstances.

Recent elections in North Carolina have shone a light on potential abuses of ballot harvesting tactics, including:

  • Mishandling filled and unfilled ballots
  • Influencing voters' decisions
  • Illegally filling out voters' ballot

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...