Some registered account users are experiencing password recognition issues. The issue appears to have been triggered by a PHP update last night. If this is occurring, please try logging in and using the "forgot password?" utility. Bear in mind auto-generated password reset emails may appear in your spam folder. If this does not work, please click the "Contact Us" option near the lower right hand corner of the index page to contact me via email.

Thank you for your patience!
- M.W.

Trump to name next Supreme Court Justice soon

Debate and discussion of current events and political issues across the U.S. and throughout the World. Be forewarned -- this forum is NOT for the intellectually weak or those of you with thin skins. Don't come crying to me if you become the subject of ridicule. **Board Administrator reserves the right to revoke posting privileges based on my sole discretion**
User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 9236
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

Re: Trump to name next Supreme Court Justice soon

Unread post by audiophile »

The D's are now claiming if they get in they will pack the court with more than 9.

That should scare any moderate to heck, which plays to Trumps favor. (Besides Trump hasn't nominated any hacks unlike Obama did.)

Dummies!
Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!
bmw
Posts: 7749
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: Trump to name next Supreme Court Justice soon

Unread post by bmw »

I again have to quote Hillary Clinton the day Scalia died:
Elections have consequences. The president has a responsibility to nominate a new justice and the Senate has has a responsibility to vote.
Couldn't have said it better myself :lol
User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 9236
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

Re: Trump to name next Supreme Court Justice soon

Unread post by audiophile »

:lol


The President does have the responsibility!

What the Senate does with it from there is out of his control.

Now Pelosi is talking a second impeachment to stop the nomination. Again, this should annoy moderates.
Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!
bmw
Posts: 7749
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: Trump to name next Supreme Court Justice soon

Unread post by bmw »

I think Pelosi might have fewer marbles rolling around in her head than does Biden.
User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 16584
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Trump to name next Supreme Court Justice soon

Unread post by Rate This »

bmw wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 3:57 pm I again have to quote Hillary Clinton the day Scalia died:
Elections have consequences. The president has a responsibility to nominate a new justice and the Senate has has a responsibility to vote.
Couldn't have said it better myself :lol
That was also with 9 months to go rather than 2.
Donald Trump… In your guts you know he’s nuts.
zzand
Posts: 2415
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 9:16 am
Location: right here

Re: Trump to name next Supreme Court Justice soon

Unread post by zzand »

The amount of time, 9 or 2 months makes no difference. With an election that is almost a lock to be contested a full court is necessary, so speed is of the essence. America is tiring of Dems spending their time and money trying to get Trump out of office. If they try the impeachment gambit again it will surely bite them on the ass in more ways than one. They need to accept that a nominee will be put forth to the Senate to confirm or not. Whomever wins in November will have one or two seats to fill.
bmw
Posts: 7749
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: Trump to name next Supreme Court Justice soon

Unread post by bmw »

2 months or 9 months is irrelevant. The Constitutional duty remains. As I said, I thought the Republicans in 2016 ultimately should have allowed a floor vote on Obama's nomination.

Now back to the impeachment question - that raises an interesting procedural question. What would happen if the Dems somehow were successful in impeaching Trump right before the election or even during the lame duck session but he won? Would he ultimately get the Presidency back on inauguration day?
User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 16584
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Trump to name next Supreme Court Justice soon

Unread post by Rate This »

bmw wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:14 pm 2 months or 9 months is irrelevant. The Constitutional duty remains. As I said, I thought the Republicans in 2016 ultimately should have allowed a floor vote on Obama's nomination.

Now back to the impeachment question - that raises an interesting procedural question. What would happen if the Dems somehow were successful in impeaching Trump right before the election or even during the lame duck session but he won? Would he ultimately get the Presidency back on inauguration day?
No because the stipulation of a conviction is not being allowed to hold office again. So I guess hello Pence.

They won’t try to impeach him though. What’ll probably happen is that they will sue arguing and gum it up until after the election or ask Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth McDonough to make a ruling on whether McConnell changed precedent which is what the senate operates on when he did the Garland stonewalling. They have a strong chance that she would agree that putting a nomination forth At this time for a vote violates precedent. Not so good. So they aren’t as helpless as we think.

As for america getting tired of going after Trump. Conservatives may be tired of it but most objective measures indicate he’s gonna be a one term guy. That in itself indicates you are incorrect.
Donald Trump… In your guts you know he’s nuts.
User avatar
MotorCityRadioFreak
Posts: 7333
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:26 am
Location: Warren, MI

Re: Trump to name next Supreme Court Justice soon

Unread post by MotorCityRadioFreak »

Where was this sense of Constitutional responsibility from Moscow Mitch 4 years ago?
They/them, non-binary and proud.

Remember that “2000 Mules” was concocted by a circus of elephants.
The right needs to stop worry about what’s between people’s legs. Instead, they should focus on what’s between their ears.
Audacity sucks.
User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7178
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Trump to name next Supreme Court Justice soon

Unread post by Bryce »

Constitution is pretty clear here. 1. The President shall nominate. 2. The Senate shall advise and consent.

It DOESN'T say the President shall nominate unless there is an election upcoming. It DOESN'T say the President shall nominate except in the last year in office.

Obama nominated in his last year in office, as he should. In that case, the Senate led Mitch M. withheld their consent as is their constitutionally mandated right.
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 9236
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

Re: Trump to name next Supreme Court Justice soon

Unread post by audiophile »

Bazinga!
Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!
User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 16584
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Trump to name next Supreme Court Justice soon

Unread post by Rate This »

Bryce wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:43 pm Constitution is pretty clear here. 1. The President shall nominate. 2. The Senate shall advise and consent.

It DOESN'T say the President shall nominate unless there is an election upcoming. It DOESN'T say the President shall nominate except in the last year in office.

Obama nominated in his last year in office, as he should. In that case, the Senate led Mitch M. withheld their consent as is their constitutionally mandated right.
But the senate operates on precedents that the full senate has to vote on changing. If he wants to go ahead with the this then the democrats can force a vote on a rule change. They still need 60 to do that.
Donald Trump… In your guts you know he’s nuts.
User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7178
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Trump to name next Supreme Court Justice soon

Unread post by Bryce »

Rate This wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:59 pm
Bryce wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:43 pm Constitution is pretty clear here. 1. The President shall nominate. 2. The Senate shall advise and consent.

It DOESN'T say the President shall nominate unless there is an election upcoming. It DOESN'T say the President shall nominate except in the last year in office.

Obama nominated in his last year in office, as he should. In that case, the Senate led Mitch M. withheld their consent as is their constitutionally mandated right.
But the senate operates on precedents that the full senate has to vote on changing. If he wants to go ahead with the this then the democrats can force a vote on a rule change. They still need 60 to do that.
The Senate may operate on Senatorial precident, but they are not mandated by the constitution to do so. They are mandated to give consent on a high court pick. Witholding consent is within their mandate as is giving consent. Timing is NOT in the mandate.

Neither, is there anything about the President not fulfilling his duty of office in the last year of his term. The people elected him for four years. He gets to serve for four years unless removed from office.
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 16584
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Trump to name next Supreme Court Justice soon

Unread post by Rate This »

Bryce wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 5:11 pm
Rate This wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:59 pm
Bryce wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:43 pm Constitution is pretty clear here. 1. The President shall nominate. 2. The Senate shall advise and consent.

It DOESN'T say the President shall nominate unless there is an election upcoming. It DOESN'T say the President shall nominate except in the last year in office.

Obama nominated in his last year in office, as he should. In that case, the Senate led Mitch M. withheld their consent as is their constitutionally mandated right.
But the senate operates on precedents that the full senate has to vote on changing. If he wants to go ahead with the this then the democrats can force a vote on a rule change. They still need 60 to do that.
The Senate may operate on Senatorial precident, but they are not mandated by the constitution to do so. They are mandated to give consent on a high court pick. Witholding consent is within their mandate as is giving consent. Timing is NOT in the mandate.

Neither, is there anything about the President not fulfilling his duty of office in the last year of his term. The people elected him for four years. He gets to serve for four years unless removed from office.
The constitution is the framework... the meat of the way things work is all the precedents and rules and procedures. Those determine how the railroad is going to run.
Donald Trump… In your guts you know he’s nuts.
bmw
Posts: 7749
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: Trump to name next Supreme Court Justice soon

Unread post by bmw »

The difference today compared to not that long ago is that the Senate now makes its advise and consent decisions based purely on politics rather than on qualifications.

Remember these votes?
98-0 John Paul Stevens
99-0 Sandra Day O'Connor
98-0 Antonin Scalia
97-0 Anthony Kennedy
90-9 David Souter
96-3 RBG
87-9 Stephen Bryer

Sure, there were exceptions (Bork and Thomas), but most judges were confirmed with flying colors.

Then when GW Bush took office it all went downhill from there. Every nomination this century has received at least 22 "no" votes.
Post Reply