4 hours ago, jcsmith said:

And what was the excuse four years ago? I say excuse because we all know good and well that is all that it is. But let's ignore the hypocrisy for a second and just focus on why this is wrong. For one the balance isn't 4-4, or are we now counting Justice Roberts as a democrat? But let's ignore that too and focus on what happens if there is a 4-4 tie... In that case the decision of the lower courts is affirmed. So that entire argument is invalid.

 

With that out of the way let's remind people what the same guys who are now trying to push through a justice in the next month and a half had to say when Merrick Garland was nominated... 8 months before the election! 

Corey Gardner: "I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”

John Corryn: "Confirming a new Supreme Court Justice during a presidential election year for a vacancy arising that same year is not common in our nation’s history; the last time it happened was in 1932. And it has been almost 130 years since a presidential election year nominee was confirmed for a vacancy arising the same year under divided government as we have today."

Ted Cruz: "“It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”"

 

Lindsey Graham: "If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election”
 

Marco Rubio: “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term — I would say that if it was a Republican president .”

 

Joni Ernst: "“We will see what the people say this fall and our next president, regardless of party, will be making that nomination.”

David Perdue: “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”

 

Ron Johnson: “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”

Pat Toomey: “The next Court appointment should be made by the newly-elected president.”

Richard Burr: “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”

It wasn't just Mitch... But suddenly in the last four years they have had a complete change of heart. It's hypocritical. It's an embarassment. But given everything we've seen from the GOP over the past four years, it isn't at all surprising. 

Interesting quotes. But there is something missing. Which party had power when these statements were made? I'm sure you will find the vast majority, if not all statements, were purely partisan.

5 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

If Biden wins and the Dems gain control of the Senate, then they should increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court to thirteen or fifteen.  When 60% to 70% of American support abortion rights, it is intolerable that the Court should be dominated by a majority that wants to have forced births. 

 

When they overturn Roe v. Wade that will not mean that abortion will be illegal, but only that states will have the power to pass laws making it illegal in their state.  Abortion will remain available in the blue states which means that middle-class women will always be able to travel to get the procedure, but poor women won't be able to.  

I suggest reading more about the previous attempt to, “stack the court” during FDR’s Administration.

5 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

If Biden wins and the Dems gain control of the Senate, then they should increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court to thirteen or fifteen.  When 60% to 70% of American support abortion rights, it is intolerable that the Court should be dominated by a majority that wants to have forced births. 

 

When they overturn Roe v. Wade that will not mean that abortion will be illegal, but only that states will have the power to pass laws making it illegal in their state.  Abortion will remain available in the blue states which means that middle-class women will always be able to travel to get the procedure, but poor women won't be able to.  

So your solution is to match corruption with more corruption. As for Roe v Wade: after 47 years of the left crying wolf on abortion rights, is there is any logical reason to believe this time it will somehow be different?

Just now, wwest5829 said:

I suggest reading more about the previous attempt to, “stack the court” during FDR’s Administration.

I am thrilled to agree with you on something. That tactic was over the top and rejected by the public then. I fail to see how, even in this extremely partisan political environment, it would turn out differently now.

8 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

If Biden wins and the Dems gain control of the Senate, then they should increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court to thirteen or fifteen.  When 60% to 70% of American support abortion rights, it is intolerable that the Court should be dominated by a majority that wants to have forced births. 

 

When they overturn Roe v. Wade that will not mean that abortion will be illegal, but only that states will have the power to pass laws making it illegal in their state.  Abortion will remain available in the blue states which means that middle-class women will always be able to travel to get the procedure, but poor women won't be able to.  

Birth control is cheap and readily available for everyone. 

 

Responsibility is on the individual. 

 

Get over it 

11 hours ago, Swiss1960 said:

Yes, it will get ugly and Amerivans should

Those Amerivans can also say good-bye to the 2nd amendment when Harris becomes president.

Ginsberg should of resigned while Obama was POTUS.

 

Edited September 19, 20205 yr by IAMHERE

8 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

So your solution is to match corruption with more corruption. As for Roe v Wade: after 47 years of the left crying wolf on abortion rights, is there is any logical reason to believe this time it will somehow be different?

Why would expanding the SC be corruption?

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

Speculation.  She beat pancreatic cancer in 2009, and for all we know she was as fit as an 87 year old can be until very recently.  Unless you have evidence she was too impaired to function, lay off the conspiracy theories.

How is speculating on Ruth's fitness a "conspiracy theory"? But let's set that aside. The last time I saw her on television, should could barely hold her head up. It's perfectly reasonable to think the mental faculties of such a person are significantly compromised.

10 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Why would expanding the SC be corruption?

Depends on how it happens. But yes, obviously if it is expanded to one party's benefit, that would be corrupt. The people understood this when FDR tried it. The court has functioned well with nine justices.

4 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

Depends on how it happens. But yes, obviously if it is expanded to one party's benefit, that would be corrupt. The people understood this when FDR tried it. The court has functioned well with nine justices.

Not corrupt then.

 

Strange comment btw from someone who just called partisan SC appointees pushing through perfectly ok 

Edited September 19, 20205 yr by stevenl

10 hours ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Because the reason it was held up last time is that Obama was on his way out, completing 2 full terms, and the Senate and WH were controlled by different parties. 

This time, Trump is an incumbent running for re-election and the senate and WH are controlled by the same party. 

 

It was not a simple matter of "in an election year" it was stinging in a seat while you're on your way out, completing 2 terms. 

 

Those are the facts amigo, you may not like it, it may upset you, but thats your problem. 

So is this the official GOP stance now or just more of your mental gymnastics to defend the indefensible?

4 years ago McConnell clearly stated the responsibility of a new nomination had to be given to the incoming POTUS. This was backed by many, many GOPers, all singing obediantly to McConnels tune. It's was never mentioned that this 'rule' only worked for departing Presidents; it also wasn't mentioned about the WH and Senate being 'controlled by the same party' but here you are trying to pass these things off as 'facts' when they are nothing of the sort.

I just wish you Trump fans could just be honest and fess up to what everyone can see is clearly happening; 4 years ago McConnell and the GOP managed to prevent Obama from nominating a SCJ by childishly throwing their toys out of the pram but now it doesn't suit them, they are just going to be complete hyocrites and do exactly the reverse of what they preached 4 years ago.

I think you would get more respect from Biden fans if you did this rather than your usual vacuos 'explaining'. 

 

 

 

Edited September 19, 20205 yr by johnnybangkok

1 minute ago, johnnybangkok said:

So is this the official GOP stance now or just more of your metal gymnastics to defend the indefensible?

4 years ago McConnell clearly stated the responsibility of a new nomination had to be given to the incoming POTUS. This was backed by many, many GOPers, all singing obediantly to McConnels tune. It's was never mentioned that this 'rule' only worked for departing Presidents; it also wasn't mentioned about the WH and Senate being 'controlled by the same party' but here you are trying to pass these things off as 'facts' when they are nothing of the sort.

I just wish you Trump fans could just be honest and fess up to what everyone can see is clearly happening; 4 years ago McConnell and the GOP managed to prevent Obama from nominating a SCJ by childishly throwing their toys out of the pram but now it doesn't suit them, they are just going to be complete hyocrites and do exactly the reverse of what they preached 4 years ago.

I think you would get more respect from Biden fans if you did this rather than your usual vacuos 'explaining'. 

You say all this like the Democrats wouldn’t do the exact same thing if given half the chance. 

26 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

Birth control is cheap and readily available for everyone. 

 

Responsibility is on the individual. 

 

Get over it 

Yes because self-control and taking personal responsibility has always worked out for the best hasn't it? (drink driving any one?) 

The facts are simple; if this debate was about mens ability to control their own bodies then there wouldn't be a debate. But for some reason, old, white men feel they have a divine right to govern what happens to a womans body.

It's sooooooooo 1920's

4 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

You say all this like the Democrats wouldn’t do the exact same thing if given half the chance. 

McConnell has opened the door, we don't know what democrats would do. We do know they have never done this..

But that is not applicable, republicans are showing themselves for the hypocrites they are.

Edited September 19, 20205 yr by stevenl

3 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

You say all this like the Democrats wouldn’t do the exact same thing if given half the chance. 

That's NOT your argument and it certainly isn't mine but yeah, Dems would probably do it but that's not the point is it?

The point is the GOP are trying to do it now and more importantly, you're defending it with some made up nonsense about outgoing Presidents and the likes.

48 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

Of course. And do you think for a moment if it were a Democrat in Trump's shoes that they would be calling for delaying the pick until after the election?

 

Remember the words of one of the left's most brilliant politicians ever: "elections have consequences".

I agree with you. I was commenting on a post claiming that a  made up "McConnell rule" should be respected.

Edited September 19, 20205 yr by candide

9 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

You say all this like the Democrats wouldn’t do the exact same thing if given half the chance. 

 

Yet another deflection.

10 hours ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Because the reason it was held up last time is that Obama was on his way out, completing 2 full terms, and the Senate and WH were controlled by different parties. 

This time, Trump is an incumbent running for re-election and the senate and WH are controlled by the same party. 

 

It was not a simple matter of "in an election year" it was stinging in a seat while you're on your way out, completing 2 terms. 

 

Those are the facts amigo, you may not like it, it may upset you, but thats your problem. 

Nice try but this is a revisionist's version of history.   Nothing like that was mentioned in 2016, or in 1980 when the idea of delaying SCOTUS nominations during a presidential election was brought up (as the Thurmond Rule, although nobody in legal circles considers it an actual "rule").

 

There were a lot of legal opinions circulating in 2016 either supporting or challenging Mcconnell's decision.  Not one of them introduced either of the qualifications you now are claiming.  

R.I.P RBG

 

It doesn’t matter which way one’s political/moral compass swings...

 

Ruth Badger Ginsburg stayed aligned with her “true north,” always showing determination, fierceness tempered with deep integrity.

 

We lost one of the greatest women in history today.

 

Today, each of us should metaphorically place our hats on our hearts.

 

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, if you can hear me - THANKS FOR EVERYTHING.

An unsourced and unsubstantiated post on an early proponent of birth control in the U.S. has been removed, along with a reply.

 

9 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I saw some where that when they made the lifetime appointment rule people didn't tend live so long. Maybe in 2020 they could limit it to 20 years. Still long enough to be independent but not so long that it's a bit ridiculous.

There should be a condition that the justices need to be in good health. If they fail the physical they are done regardless of who is President. That way you don't get a corpse on the court hiding from the public for extended periods waiting for the election with the candidate of their choice.

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I suggest great care in selecting RGB’s replacement.

 

The last two appointees are certain to face removal for perjury during their appointment hearings.

 

 

‘Only the best people’.

 

I suspect it will be a black woman, thoroughly vetted, beyond reproach and conservative to the max. You have to play the race and sex card here. It most certainly can't be a man or no matter who it is somebody will come forward with some hazy memory from 20 years ago. To hide behind sex and race is a move right out of the dems playbook.

 

2 hours ago, 2530Ubon said:

The average length of time to nominate and confirm a supreme court justice is 70 days, so people shouldn't be too worried about the process now. It would be almost impossible to nominate and confirm prior to election day, especially with COVID restrictions in the senate.

The real question should be - If Biden wins in 45 days, will Mitch try and fill the seat in a lame duck session? Now THAT could be interesting.

 

Well with the tihs show that is going to be mail in voting we may not know who won for months. Isn't that going to be convenient? This is going to get real ugly. I can say many people in the USA who do not live on the interwebz are getting awfully sick of the BLM, Antifa, lockdowns, etc. 

 

If that demographic loses it's cool it's going to make the "protests" look like a summer of love. 

Edited September 19, 20205 yr by Cryingdick

Bravo Mitch McConnell.

Edited September 19, 20205 yr by bluehippie

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

McConnell has opened the door, we don't know what democrats would do. We do know they have never done this..

But that is not applicable, republicans are showing themselves for the hypocrites they are.

 

Wasn't it under Obama they changed it to a simple majority to appoint a SCJ? If so the chickens are simply coming home to roost. Elections have consequences. God, I adore that line these days.

23 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Wasn't it under Obama they changed it to a simple majority to appoint a SCJ? If so the chickens are simply coming home to roost. Elections have consequences. God, I adore that line these days.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the ability to break the filibuster for Supreme Court Justices with only a simple majority happened by the republican majority during Merrick Garland's nomination. Democrats did make a similar change before that though (in 2013) lower court and executive branch positions. 

2 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

Interesting quotes. But there is something missing. Which party had power when these statements were made? I'm sure you will find the vast majority, if not all statements, were purely partisan.

Republicans controlled the senate at that point when those statements were made, the same as they do now. Democrats of course controlled the presidency but I'm not sure how that is relevant. This is otherwise the exact same situation as Republicans were in 4 years ago... The only difference is that in that case there was much more time before the election. Yet the reason that was given to note even bring Merrick Garland to a vote was that it was too close to an election. Well if that is the case then certainly 45 days from an election more than qualifies for that same explanation. But suddenly it's a completely different tune. Which pretty much makes all of the above bold-faced liars and hypocrites. There is no other way to see if we are being honest. 

Edited September 19, 20205 yr by jcsmith

2 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the ability to break the filibuster for Supreme Court Justices with only a simple majority happened by the republican majority during Merrick Garland's nomination. Democrats did make a similar change before that though (in 2013) lower court and executive branch positions. 

 

You could be right. So you are saying the GOP actually changed it to make confirmation simpler at a time Obama was appointing a potential SJC? It occurs to me the only real difference in all of this is not the time line involved. The MAJOR difference is the GOP hold both the senate and the WH. If the dems had the same situation their pick would have gone through.

I expect by Monday morning Mitch McConnell will have a name in his hand and start the proceedings. Old Ruthie refused to retire to deny Trump a replacement. Now it's time to do the right thing. Replace her immediately!
This should have happened over a year ago.
Trump Senate House 2020

2 hours ago, candide said:

I agree with you. I was commenting on a post claiming that a  made up "McConnell rule" should be respected.

Cool. We can probably agree the Republicrat party sucks and is corrupt. But I concede it sucks when it's the other party's turn to suck and be corrupt.  :)