Why rushing to fill RGB's SCOTUS seat may not be in Repubs best interest

That giant flushing sound is the LAST of your credibility heading for the sewer give the ABSURD falsehood above.

Since cannot deal with FACTUAL REALITY you have effectively DISQUALIFIED yourself from any further MEANINGFUL interaction as far as I am concerned.

Sad!

Have a nice day!

 

You have a blessed and nice day too, Te! Always a pleasure.

 

Let's say that the Republicans want to vote before the election. It would be clearly a rush job that would also take Senators away from their campaigns, only 12 of the 35 senate seats up for vote are held by Democrats. Pushing through a conservative justice will gain exactly 0 votes for those senators in their races because the hard corps who want a conservative justice at all costs are already voting for them. It could lose them a lot of moderate voters for their lack of exercising their responsibility of advise and consent and due diligence.
After jeopardizing their re-elections there will be an increased risk of the senate flipping and combined with a Trump loss it would be a lame duck senate confirming a lame duck president's pick. That would give Democrat's some serious political ammunition and nothing to stop them from confirming the expansion of 6 new seats to the Supreme court giving them the majority of 9-6. After doing that the Democratic controlled Senate could set new rules requiring 60 up votes for new justices and make it require 67 votes to change the rule. There wouldn't be a conservative court again for decades, maybe never. That's a big risk.
If they wait until after the elections to act then they could preserve their 5-4 advantage at the very least.

 

~ I believe many democrats went with Reagan in the 1980's for similar reasons .

 

I couldn't find that for some reason. Good shot!

 

~ Actually I am surprised the moderators let it stay up !

 

Sorry to see you haven't cured your caps-lock fixation which insists I skip whatever you post about.
But in the real world you just don't declare victory without explaining how. You allege "factual reality" but fail to present any. And allow me to break this to you. You disqualifying anyone from anything is almost as hilarious as the idea that Joe Biden will win this November.

 

He is kinda' fun though, if predictable. Everyone reading can determine who is at least attempting to be factual...or not.

 

Several reasons...

PROMISES MADE - PROMISES KEPT

And who knows how screwed up the elections will be due to Democrat efforts to slow down the vote counting.

If Trump were behind or tied at this point it might cause some hesitation, but he isn't behind in the internal polling.

 

I wouldn't have thought it controversial as it was his trademark bit. It wasn't like Red Skelton's idiot Clem Kadiddlehopper, or Mortimer Snerd, the dummy's dummy from Bergen & McCarthy. I can understand why political correctness might object to them. Which reminds me, the entire TV run of Amos & Andy is out or about to be released. Finally. I really liked Tim Moore as the Kingfish.

Careen back to topic kinda. I guessed wrongly. The GOP does plan to vote on Amy Barrett before Trump's reelection. (I'm guessing Barrett but odds lean that way as of this instant. Later today may see change but for now she's the one.)

So the leftists who haven't been in a church since ever are suddenly screaming about Barrett's supposedly dangerous charismatic Catholicism --- and it's Wednesday and business as usual.

 

They could do that. Then next time the Senate has a 60 seat Republican majority which could happen in 2022, they could change the number of judges to 18, 20, 50 or whatever number they wanted. Then we keep getting increases in the number of justices until half the country's citizens are sitting on the Supreme Court. LOL

Democrats never think these things through. Harry Reid used the nuclear option to break the filibuster for executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments, but not for the Supreme Court. McConnell used Reid's precedent to extend that to include the Supreme Court. Whatever Democrats start with in changing rules, Republicans use that "plus 1" as soon as they have the chance. The escalation just goes endlessly back and forth.

Republicans should not cave to Democrats' threats to pack the court. Democrats were threatening to pack the Supreme Court in 2019 before RBG died. The threat isn't new, but ongoing from the left, with Republicans suggesting why breaking over 150 years of the SC having 9 justices and adding more justices for political gain is a very bad idea. They're going to do it anyway, so Republicans should move ahead.

And, by the way, I think that if Trump picks Lagoa, Trump and the new Republican Party could actually gain swing voters versus lose them.

 

~ That could very well happen. Regardless of what people think of Trump personally - he is a keen observer of politics. He is unpredictable .


Next Supreme Court Justice ❓

 

And she is what I call a squishy Republican, SQRUP

 

It's a personality type, to draw this away from just him. Leftists have insisted on a hive mentality since at least the early 1960s and it transcends party and soars into cult. Knowing someone has a closed mind is actually a positive tool in addressing a given topic. As for fun? I like tossing out red meat to the hysterics simply because I like the sound of their caterwauling.

 

She's polling well below 50% to keep her seat, so the Dems will get a "plus 1" seat in the Senate there. As far as voting on legislation there won't be any change. Collins was always a Democrat.

 

Agreed on voting won't change. Just looked up Murkowski, who lists herself on Faceplant as a conservative, evidently with two years to go. Probably too early to start hyping "end of liberal Republicans," if Collins is gone, but she certainly isn't going to be missed in conservative quarters. How much she isn't? Shakespeare can't count the ways.

 

I kind of agree with you on this. I had no plans on voting for Trump again but if I lived in a swing state and I knew for certain that a conservative justice was on the line I may just bare it and vote for Trump again. Now you can argue that it is illogical because even if the seat was not open it was highly likely she would have stepped down during this term but I think when it is open and sitting right there in front of you it makes a difference. Luckily I do not live in a swing state and my vote does not matter like the majority of Americans.

 

How would it be rushed, if Trump nominates a sitting federal judge that already went thru the entire selection process?

Bridget Bade was confirmed and appointed to the federal bench on August 27, 2018
Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed and appointed to the federal bench on October 31, 2017
Barbara Lagoa was confirmed and appointed to the federal bench on January 9, 2019

Etc...

 

And all the dems do is speculate on what they think a Catholic judge might, could possibly happen to do, in the extremist of circumstances. They have absolutely no proof of Baarrett ever sidelining the Constitution or current law, to push thru her own ruling, based upon her personal religious bias

 

Barrett would make a Catholic majority. Somehow I just can't quite envision the Knights of Columbus holding us at swordpoint for the communion wafers. Even in the fancy hats.

She'll be a good judge. Too bad they'll pull a Kavanaugh-style attack, just because they're Dems.

 

Yeah, SCOTUS is in desperate need for a Catholic jurist.

 

The Court is in desperate need for more conservatives. Unanimous ain't enough.

 

So only Catholics are conservative? News to me.

 

Sorry to say she died this year. The leather freaks will mourn her forever.

 

There have been 114 Supreme Court Justices....only 13 have been Catholic....I don't think it would hurt adding one more to make it a little more diverse