Trump on Supreme Court nominee: 'It will be a woman'

Don't be. You have 4 more years of happily moaning Trump's presidency!

 

i certainly think the president has a duty to nominate just like obama did. in 2016

 

And its also Congresses duty too which the GOP refused to do in 2016, and then lied about their reasons.

 

it’s the senates duty to advise and potentially consent.

the gop did that in 2016....and the president’s nominee didn’t get convent to.

 

You said it right there. The senate must advise. They didn't do that in 2016. They also claimed the president shouldn't nominate in 2016. That is unconstitutional.

 

they certainly did advice they reminded the admin of the biden rule that was still in place

that’s not unconstitutional at all.

 

Ann Coulter would be fun. Maybe after the election for the next open seat.

 

Personally? I don't give a ****. I mean, outside of there's an opening in the court, fill it - I have little concern about this. I mean, if you really wanna take politicizing Supreme Court judge appointments back, you can go back to what the Dems did to Robert Bork and you can trace a direct line from what the Dems did to Bork - to this.

Mostly, I'm just on this thread for a few laughs though.

 

I think that suggesting that they (the Senate) advised Obama that they would not consent to any appointment he made was Constitutional. It was up to Obama to go ahead and nominate someone even knowing the Senate would not consent with their votes.

There is nothing in the Constitution which states that there be a certain number of judges on the Supreme Court nor any limit on an amount of time for a new justice to be confirmed. There is nothing that a vote has to be held if the Senate doesn't consent.

This is all the Constitution has to say:


So....Obama was unlucky that the Senate was majority "red" when he nominated Garland. Trump is lucky that the Senate majority is red right now while a new seat is open.

Elections do have consequences.

 

Yep. Biden was Chair of the Judiciary Committee. Biden (along with Ted Kennedy) is responsible for how
the word "Bork" got turned into a verb, as in "I got Borked," as one of his many political "accomplishments" over 40+ years in office.

(Notice how at one time Biden was completely capable of speaking without the "childhood stutter", which we are not supposed to make fun of today. Amazing observation that Biden can't speak fluently now but does have more hair today. lol )

 

Huh. If Democrats hadn't borked Bork in 1987, then Obama would have had his entire second term to select a third S.C. Justice during his presidency. Bork died December 19, 2012 right after the election. Karma.

 

Each one has been vetted having been confirmed already to the Circuit Court of Appeals.

No one can be 100% sure about a nominee. Seems the Republicans do get backstabbed by their nominees occasionally, while I don't know of a single liberal justice that became conservative. That is the nature of power. If you are of the belief that your ideas are more important than following the law as written then there is nothing to stop justices from exercising that power.

 

I have every confidence in democrats to be as racist and sexist with a female minority nominee as they would be with a white male nominee.

 

don’t forget their bigotry agains Catholics

 

Good. Pick a PoC woman and the Dems will have focus on that individuals record.

And knowing Trump, their will probably be a lot to work with

 

I actually thought it was unfair and that it may be used against us in the future. Like what if we have a GOP president and a Dem senate that just refuses to fill any appointments? But that is what the democrats did towards the end of Bush Administration. Then when McConnell tried the same tactics against Harry Reid, Reid did the nuclear option. So each side is guilty of escalation. Supreme Court justices used to be respected as a choice of the president. That ended with Bork. Democrats drew first blood.

Roe v Wade was a political judgment which was not based in the law. It was political. This created the environment for court appointments to be highly politicized.

 

Only against conservative Catholics. Obama's pick Sonia Sotomayor is Catholic.



The only attack Democrats seemed to have with Coney-Barrett's confirmation to the 7th Court of Appeals was that they tried to paint her as an "extreme" Catholic.

If that it their primary attack tool, they she is a good selection. You'd think that Democrats are smart enough not to attack someone for being Catholic right before an election. Catholics are a very large voting bloc, which used to be Democrat Party loyalists. Plus, it would be awkward to attack Coney-Barrett's religion, since Joe Biden is presumably a "devout" Catholic as well.

 

the nominated Harris is a well known Catholic bigot

 

The combination of the Executive Party and Senate Majority is the only determinant of a relatively fast replacement or a knock-down, drag out.

Red/Red or Blue/Blue can sail a selection straight through with ease. If the executive office and Senate majority are mismatched Red/Blue or Blue/Red, then it doesn't really matter how much of a performative show Senators put on stage for the public, the nominee will not get the seat.

So, everyone should just be prepared now for Trump's pick to pass through to the Supreme Court.

It would not surprise me if Democrats set a new low-bar for partisan division in 2021 if they win the House and Senate. A SCJ can be impeached for nothing other that a claim of "bad behavior". Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren already called for Kavanaugh's impeachment from the bench right after he was passed by the Senate. That does require 2/3rds vote by the Senate though.

 

I didn't know that there was a specific "Black Baptist" church, but this article says that Kamala belongs to a "Black Baptist" church. Her parents did expose her to both Hindu and Christian religions. This article is wrong about Pence though. He is a self-described "Evangelical Catholic". (Article may not be reliable.)



https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2020/08/13/kamala-harris-future-american-religion

 

Prior to Nixon, there used to be no rejections of Supreme Court nominees except in the case of someone with serious moral turpitude issues. They were usually given bipartisan votes to confirm.

The democrats began voting against nominees based on political considerations in a partisan fashion

President Trump, Donald
Kavanaugh 50-48
Gorsuch 54-45
President Obama, Barack
Kagan. 63-37
Sotomayor 68-31
President Bush, George W.
Alito 58-42
Roberts 78-22
President Clinton
Breyer 87-9
Ginsburg 96-3
President Bush, George H.W.
Thomas 52-48
Souter. 90-9
President Reagan, Ronald
Kennedy 97-0
Bork 42-58
Scalia 98-0
Rehnquist 65-33
O'Connor 99-0
President Ford, Gerald
Stevens 98-0
President Nixon, Richard
Rehnquist 68-26
Powell. 89-1
Blackmun. 94-0
Carswell, 45-51
Haynsworth, 45-55
Burger, 74-3

 

Wow. All good points. Kudos.

 

3/5ths I believe.

 

Yes, thanks. 60%