Should a new Scotus judge be appointed before the 2020 Presidential election?

I think Trump and the GOP will obviously move heaven and earth to do so and I think yes, they should, Trump is still president, the GOP still have their majority. I know the GOP blocked it before but they do have an argument that this was for a exiting president whilst they expect Trump to be re-elected.

 

If they truly expect Trump to be re-elected then they should wait.

He won't. of course, McConnel has already said they will "vote on" (that is, approve) his nomination.

They are determined to do as much damage to the country as they can. This is why we must defeat ALL the Republican politicians. We must pull the teeth of this rapacious mad dog that will kill our democracy if it is let to.

 

a far right court is as bad as a far left court, this is a sad time for the American people

I prefer 5-4, either party having a 6-3 majority is not a good thing

especially with the republican rule change, changing the votes needed to seat them from 60 to 50

 

For Garland, McConnell said "we should let the voters decide, as it was an election year in the final hear of the president".

If he does not do this now, he's a hypocrite.

There is no counter argument the biz about the prez and the party being the same, no, that's not a counter argument, that's a cop out IF your premise was the aforementioned.

 

This is not necessarily the final year of a Trump presidency, he's not a lame duck. The Democrats would nominate and confirm if they could the Republicans should play the same hardball.

 

i do think the process whould be started immediately. though the democrats will undoubtedly do everything they can to gum up the works, trump should go ahead with the business of governance and let the progressives fume and foam at the mouth. as much as i would like to see a strict constitutionalist added to the bench (what the progressive drones refer to as a rabid right-winger), i think the proper play would be for trump to choose a moderate and let the democrats be shown for the hypocrites they are. we already know that any trump choice, even a pro-abortion black woman, will be raked over the coals and vilified by the never-trumpers, so i think all of the voters should be treated to the spectacle of these quasi-marxist buffoons throwing yet another temper tantrum.

 

Well, that seems pretty definitive.

 

Trump should nominate, McConnell call for a floor vote, let the Democrats boycott and pound sand. Especially if it is Barrett or Logoa who have already been vetted and confirmed for appeals court positions, no need to hold hearings on them. Could be done in a week.

 

I voted definitely.

I'll change my vote if someone can point to the LAW that says there cant be a nom during an election.

 

Definitely, I don't care about the Democrats and their mental gymnastics and mouth foaming.

The tantrums do help recruit GOP voters, so don't stop, please.

 

Pack the court Mr. Trump, it is your constitutional duty. The senate is another story.

 

As long as Trump is president he has a legal and moral obligation to fill vacancies. Okay, presume this as a scenario:

Nobody is declared a winner in the election. Nobody is satisfied with the process. They go to the United States Supreme Court that gets tied in their decision. Then we've allowed a political hack that is NOT on the United States Supreme Court make a decision like that. Screw that waiting around to see if Joe Biden can best Trump. Tell Trump and the Senate to do their freaking job. If you're not going to let Trump do his job, then Congress and the President should say screw it and leave Washington until after the election is decided. In the private sector, if a company's president dies, the stockholders don't wait to see what happens in the stock market and with their company. They name a successor and keep moving forward.

 

Oh Hell no, let's not do that. Let's wait and if Trump wins the election, we can hold off until the next time a Democrat is elected to fill the seat. Surely we can wait four more years with eight Justices and allow party hacks to cast any deciding vote if the high Court deadlocks.

Get over it. Trump doesn't get to sit on his arse and do nothing just because Joe Biden MIGHT win. Trump has a duty, an obligation and the authority to nominate a Justice to fill the vacancy right now. We're paying the man to do a job. Let him do it.

 

Iike the repubs in Obama's last year in office?

"Senate Republicans may be forced to eat their own words four years after they blocked Barack Obama from filling a vacant supreme court seat in an election. The circumstances are the same — only the years, the names and the sides have changed".

Ah yes, count on a conservative to read the letter, rather than the spirit, of the law....

The "stable genius" (by his own estimation) can certainly work a crowd. (Archaeologist couple Marilyn and Matthew Turner were astounded by Hitler's ability to work a crowd in Germany, during their visit to Berlin in 1936).

I heard Trump yesterday literally asking whether the crowd wanted a man or a woman to fill the SCOTUS vacancy; once the crowd made their choice clear - for a woman - he accepted that as his course of action. Sheer brilliance.

But Trump is incapable of 'moderation' unless it promotes his survival of the fittest mentality.

er...lets read on:

...and a good proportion of his Right Wing, in your example there!

In your fascist dreams.....

 

It’s such a bad look politically the only reason you move on this pre-election is if you’re anticipating a November loss.

I doubt McConnell has the votes anyway.

 

Trump has a constitutional duty (DUTY) to nominate a suitable replacement to sit on the Supreme Court... period. He's doing his job.

 

Filling that seat is more important than holding the White House. I don't see confirmation as a negative at all. Liberals whine about everything, this is just one more thing, so its really pointless to care what they have to say on this particular matter...

 

We have approached the point where a seat on the Supreme Court is more important than the presidency. Even a highly-successful president projects power for only eight years. A Supreme Court Justice can project power for DECADES...

Put it into perspective -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Golden Gate Bridge were the same age! But she tenaciously clung onto her power until she died, less than ten days ago....

. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Golden Gate Bridge -- both born in 1933...!

 

But unfortunately he has chosen some-one who is a literalist, both in relation to the 18th century US Constitution, which is by no means Holy Writ, and to the Holy Bible itself which is anything but 'holy' in parts (...which is why Marcion rejected the entire OT while composing, simultaneously but separate from others, the evolving NT canon (in the 2nd century AD).

Pompeo of course believes in eternal war until Armageddon, and the 2nd Coming with its "rapture" as per Revelations. (St. John was obviously still suffering from TSD when he wrote it, asking Jesus to "return quickly" at the end of his imaginings). Naturally Marcion omitted St John's 'revelations'.

Pompeo will certainly be pleased with Barrett's appointment.

But both Barrett and Pompeo have completely missed Christ's own post-OT and pre-NT message, namely "Love God and love one-another" and "blessed are the peacemakers, for they are the children of God".

So of course proclaiming the right to bear arms, to defend...one's life and property..... against one's neighbors (that's how anachronistic the 2nd amendment is in the 21st century) ....is more important than establishing economic justice in an economy that works for all, as Bernie Sanders puts it

Such can we expect from Barrett's "exceedingly brilliant mind", as Trump puts it.

Which concept is closer to Christ's message?

 

Well, that's all very interesting... but first it is essential to remember that if enough American citizens don't like the "18th-century" Constitution, all they have to do is AMEND it. It's already been done successfully twenty-seven times....

Next, no one has suggested installing Mike Pompeo, Bernie Sanders, Jesus Christ, or the ghost of Marcion of Sinope as a Justice on the Supreme Court....

However much liberal Democrats may wish to occlude the central issue, it nevertheless remains quite clear -- Ginsburg died... the president nominates a replacement... the Senate decides to hold hearings, or not... and then votes on the nominee (if one is acceptable for consideration).

All in all, a very straightforward, useful process -- whose unobscured process is eloquently (if sparingly) described in our "18th-century" Constitution....

 

Correction, GOP fantasizes about Donald Trump's reelection.

Donald Trump will take the GOP down with him.

 

So, you disagree with Biden and the rest of the Democratic party elite.. But... weren't you telling us over on the pack the court thread how good an idea that was.......

 

Not so simple to amend, when you have ideologically blind - literalist - scriptural and constitutional ideologues like Barrett who by chance find themselves in a majority in the SC, with lifetime tenure....

And the fact that the modern Left in the US can't inspire enough of the population to vote for control of Congress and the WH ...I fully expect Biden to be thoroughly out-maneuvered by Trump in Wednesday's debate.

Reason: the Left is playing by the Right's neoliberal free market rules; which means that as soon as the Left has to explain "how are you going to pay for" all those nice public policy options eg, free higher education, single-payer healthcare and the GND, the Left can only propose higher taxes, whereas issuance of money by the public sector, using the currency-issuing capacity of the sovereign US government - provided spending does not violate the limit of available resources and the nation's productive capacity (to avoid inflation) - is an option the free market reserve bank and treasury ideologues refuse to consider, even though inflation has been dead for decades.

But Barrett is a good stand-in for Pompeo.....

https://www.motherjones.com/politic...t-about-her-religious-group-people-of-praise/

Maybe, but as I explained, "liberal Dems" can't win elections*, meaning catastrophic gunfire like the incident in which Ms. Taylor died will continue to occur as police face a population armed to the teeth, aided and abetted by conservative ideologues like Barrett ignoring "Love God and love another", in favour of an anachronistic "right to bear arms". So much for "the right to life"....

* Obama briefly had control of the three branches, but he had no understanding of economics, and was cowered into inaction (by his conservative orthodox neoliberal advisors) at the height of the GFC catastrophy.

 

The further we go down some of these 'rabbit holes' the farther away we get from the thread topic... nevertheless....

If those who want to change the "18th-century" Constitution lack the support or the energy to amend it, then whose fault is that...? "Where there's a will there's a way" would surely apply here. The Constitution, as I said, has been successfully amended 27 times already!

Next, it is regrettable that Ms. Taylor was shot and killed. She chose to allow a person to occupy her dwelling who was the target of an arrest warrant. Her "guest" fired his weapon at the officers attempting to arrest him and she was 'collateral damage' in the ensuing shootout.

Too bad... so sad....

Ms. Taylor's "heirs, successors, and assigns" can ponder the misery of the whole situation while each of them spends his/her share of the TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS they will be paid by the City of Louisville because of what was, ultimately, Ms. Taylor's unfortunate choice in the kind of person she let in her apartment....

*******************

Now, back to the thread topic -- yes, most emphatically, a new Justice is needed for the Supreme Court ASAP. Poor, old Ruthie Ginsburg was "phoning it in from home" on what amounts to life-support for the past two years! It will be good to have nine fully-functioning Justices on the SCOTUS again....

(Hint: if Ginsburg was so damned adamant to be replaced by another flaming-liberal like she was, she should have retired ten years ago and let Obama pick a replacement....)

 

Interesting you omitted the examination (in the link) of Barrett's literalist brand of delusional 'Christianity', and ignored the role of economic orthodoxy in the Left's defeats.

As for the OP: of course Trump will do and can do what he is able to do, according to the constitution. Does that really require a debate?