ADVERTISEMENT

Ruth Bader Ginsberg....Do not replace her until after the election

Whomever wins the election, is the one who decides her replacement. That's the way it was played under Obama.

Granted, I would love nothing more than Trump nominating a replacement, but as under Obama, not during an election year.

Can't be hypocritical.

Yeah you can.

Dems arent going to lose gracefully.

The last thing we need is a 4-4 SCOTUS tie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gunny46
Whomever wins the election, is the one who decides her replacement. That's the way it was played under Obama.

Granted, I would love nothing more than Trump nominating a replacement, but as under Obama, not during an election year.

Can't be hypocritical.

Kudos to you 30 CAT. I agree with you and for the same reason. If Trump wins, his choice; if Biden wins, his choice.
 
Whomever wins the election, is the one who decides her replacement. That's the way it was played under Obama.

Granted, I would love nothing more than Trump nominating a replacement, but as under Obama, not during an election year.

Can't be hypocritical.
Just ask yourself this question...if Pelosi was in Mitch’s position what would she do.....she is so honorable and has great moral and ethical values......
lol
 
Kudos to you 30 CAT. I agree with you and for the same reason. If Trump wins, his choice; if Biden wins, his choice.

Trump won in 2016. Elections have consequences. #filltheseat

We are about to have an election. We need a full Supreme Court in case we have a Bush/ Gore situation.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: WVU80ate
And Trump slouched in a chair and rambling to George, saying the same things over and over with incomplete sentences with no context and almost no facts....

If you truly watched both like I did and your are the intelligent person that I think you are, then you know that it wasn’t close.....

Donnie will be in trouble in the debate...
I'll be the first to agree we, the American people, have two horrible, horrible candidates to choose from. Amazing in a country of 300,000,000 people that these are the 2 we get to choose from? Shew on the grandest scale. With that said, we shouldn't be voting for the man but rather be voting for the ideals, platform, morals, beliefs, philosophies he stands for. In that case it's a slam dunk on Trump for me.
 
Dirty politics? The constitution spells out how SCOTUS is chosen and that will be followed. The american people elected a GOP Senate and President to fill the courts. Fill them.

So the "Party of Unity" said back 4 years ago that a Supreme Court position shouldn't be filled during an election year...........now Mitch changes tune...........Sounds like unity to me!

Personally I don't care. But I just hate the double standards from people like Mitch, especially when I see his campaign ads talking about his "integrity".
 
I'll be the first to agree we, the American people, have two horrible, horrible candidates to choose from. Amazing in a country of 300,000,000 people that these are the 2 we get to choose from? Shew on the grandest scale. With that said, we shouldn't be voting for the man but rather be voting for the ideals, platform, morals, beliefs, philosophies he stands for. In that case it's a slam dunk on Trump for me.

My brother says the same, it helps him sleep better at night......
 
Whomever wins the election, is the one who decides her replacement. That's the way it was played under Obama.

Granted, I would love nothing more than Trump nominating a replacement, but as under Obama, not during an election year.

Can't be hypocritical.

There is a difference. Obama was not running for re-election. The people were voting for an entire new White House, not a continuation of the old.

I said back then that McConnel should have held hearing on Merrick, and given him his due.

However, considering how badly things are trending in this country when it comes to constitutional rights, the last thing we need is a Joe Biden token pick who will be farther left than Ginsburg.
 
The American people elected President Trump and the majority Republican US Senate. It is their constitutional duty to fill the SC and it will be done.
 
The American people elected President Trump and the majority Republican US Senate. It is their constitutional duty to fill the SC and it will be done.

Honest question (not being a d!ck): Did you feel this same way in 2016 with Obama not getting that chance?
 
Democrats attempted to overthrow a duly elected President, promoted country-wide rioting and violence and now they expect a modicum of civility? We've knocked them to the ground and now is the time to step on their throat.

Ahhh...........nothing like "unity" speech. [laughing]
 
The best play here is for Trump to go ahead and nominate a candidate for the seat but the Senate to come out and say they will hold off a vote until after the election.

Use it to your advantage. Use it as a vote for the next President. Use it as a vote against abortion, gun control, anarchy, marxism, and whatever else you can make some political hay with.

Pull those Rinos leaning Biden's way back into the fold.

No one can really say it is hypocritical, either. Obama went ahead and nominated Garland. The Senate just refused to have the confirmation hearings until after the election.

Same thing here.

If Trump wins, the confirmation process begins pretty quickly and should be wrapping up before the inauguration.

If Trump loses, go ahead with the confirmation process quickly and get her confirmed before inauguration day.

You get the court anyway win or lose. Senate republicans may face some backlash at the polls in the next cycle but by that time people will have moved on to something else anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: atlkvb
The best play here is for Trump to go ahead and nominate a candidate for the seat but the Senate to come out and say they will hold off a vote until after the election.

Use it to your advantage. Use it as a vote for the next President. Use it as a vote against abortion, gun control, anarchy, marxism, and whatever else you can make some political hay with.

If Trump loses, go ahead with the confirmation process quickly and get her confirmed before inauguration day.

You get the court anyway win or lose.

This! 100% agreement.

iu
 
Whomever wins the election, is the one who decides her replacement. That's the way it was played under Obama.

Granted, I would love nothing more than Trump nominating a replacement, but as under Obama, not during an election year.

Can't be hypocritical.
I disagree totally. That would/should require constitutional change. As currently written, the president nominates and the voting majority in the senate confirms. May need confirmation on "voting majority vs. 51%". The situation before had a Republican majority senate. That is a totally different comparison.

When I voted on Trump, I wanted his business background plus the Supreme Court that he could seat. As things stand, Pres may nominate and Senate may confirm. The Majority leader will set the Senate agenda. I do not think there are any time restraints placed upon the process. I do not wish to sacrifice a seat the is legally that of the sitting president. Not sure that "packing the court" is a viable option at this point in time without stepping thru hoops.
 
Whomever wins the election, is the one who decides her replacement. That's the way it was played under Obama.

Granted, I would love nothing more than Trump nominating a replacement, but as under Obama, not during an election year.

Can't be hypocritical.
Here's a better idea. Find the most right wing...conservative...Trump loving...judge and get him or her on the court tomorrow. Help bring sanity back while fuking with weenie ass libtards at the same time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 30CAT
The best play here is for Trump to go ahead and nominate a candidate for the seat but the Senate to come out and say they will hold off a vote until after the election.

Use it to your advantage. Use it as a vote for the next President. Use it as a vote against abortion, gun control, anarchy, marxism, and whatever else you can make some political hay with.

Pull those Rinos leaning Biden's way back into the fold.

No one can really say it is hypocritical, either. Obama went ahead and nominated Garland. The Senate just refused to have the confirmation hearings until after the election.

Same thing here.

If Trump wins, the confirmation process begins pretty quickly and should be wrapping up before the inauguration.

If Trump loses, go ahead with the confirmation process quickly and get her confirmed before inauguration day.

You get the court anyway win or lose. Senate republicans may face some backlash at the polls in the next cycle but by that time people will have moved on to something else anyway.

Bingo
 
  • Like
Reactions: atlkvb
Here's a better idea. Find the most right wing...conservative...Trump loving...judge and get him or her on the court tomorrow. Help bring sanity back while fuking with weenie ass libtards at the same time.

Anything to annoy the Left. The more the better.
 
ADVERTISEMENT