OtherGround Forums RIP Tough RBG! Republicans Must Fill The Seat!

Edited: 9/19/20 1:38 PM
3/1/10
Posts: 13579

Trump is either gonna pick ACB or Lagoa.

 

Justice Barbara Lagoa

 

 

 

 

9/19/20 2:00 PM
4/1/11
Posts: 2662
Marion Cobretti -
bigJ6464 -

 

 

If he was more qualified just so the left would show their homophobic and racist side.

No way it can be a man.  The left will find a cult of women claiming to be raped by the nominee. 
 

that’s why you need a conservative female. It destroys the left narrative. And can get it done. 

But he's gay and a vet and big 2A

9/19/20 9:33 PM
4/7/10
Posts: 9954

Trump says he will nominate a woman next week.

 

Amy Coney Barrett and Barbara Lagoa are being talked about the most 

9/19/20 10:01 PM
2/19/09
Posts: 857
Marion Cobretti -
Luke Rockhard -
onepunchJD -
AngryGerbil - 

 




I would like to see this.

But under the circumstances, it should probably be a woman or a minority.

Cruz has already said he would not accept it. 

What is the senate break up? 53 rep. 45 dem. 2 independent who are Dems. So 53/47. Mitt and the two woman rinos, mcorsky or whoever the fuck and Collins.  That makes it 50/50. Tie breaker Pence. I don’t think we can give up Cruz’s vote. 

its not that easy.  Graham is on record against voting on SC during last year of election, but i think he will come around and is already appearning too.  Grassley is the other...he may be an issue.  Hes old and is deeply principled....

9/19/20 10:05 PM
7/12/03
Posts: 12327
Pumpkin Spice Lazarus - 
camicom -
The Adversary -

They won’t.
 

Republicants will play by the rules and lose again, as usual. 

 

Say what you will about the Left, but they’re serious about winning. The Right is content just to not lose, sometimes. They don’t understand offense. 

McConnell has already said he is going to fill the seat

McConnell is among the most cut-throat, unapologetic politicians in the history of this nation. The Adversary is absolutely delusional in his claims.


You forget about Schiff?

9/19/20 10:05 PM
1/11/06
Posts: 7602

Why all this obsession before the vote in November? Trump picks the chick next week, the senate does the hearings, however long that takes, and then vote. Could be before or after the election. The new justice will be in before the next government takes over in January although it’ll probably still he Trump anyway.

9/19/20 10:09 PM
7/12/03
Posts: 12328
onepunchJD - 
Marion Cobretti - 

Bring in Barrett. She should of been the pick last time. Irish Catholic. Like 6 kids. I believe an extremely conservative voting record!?!?. No way the left can tear her apart. She a strong. Educated successful mother. 
 

put a male in there and someone is coming out of the wood works for the smear. Investigation. Stall etc. 




Agreed.


Is there a black woman on Trump's list?

He was in NC at a rally and said he was going to nominate a woman.

9/19/20 10:14 PM
7/12/03
Posts: 12329

"Look at the cases,the American people deserve a fully staffed Supreme Court of nine. "
"The longer this high court vacancy remains unfilled, the more serious the problem we will face -- a problem compounded by turbulence, confusion, and uncertainty about our safety and security, our liberty and privacy, the future of our children and grandchildren," Joe Biden

9/19/20 10:37 PM
4/1/10
Posts: 2613
The Adversary -
Cotton -
The Adversary -

They won’t.
 

Republicants will play by the rules and lose again, as usual. 

 

Say what you will about the Left, but they’re serious about winning. The Right is content just to not lose, sometimes. They don’t understand offense. 

Lose again? 

I'm 100% sure Donald Trump is your president. 

Jesus Christ, here we go again. 
 

Anytime I bring up the pussiness of the Republicans, you lot think I’m a lefty. When in fact, I’m so fucking far to the right that you can’t see me. 
 

Yes, LOSE AGAIN as in, fail to capitalize on an opportunity for fear of optics because they are poontangs. 
 

No one said anything about Trump. Case in fucking point, he’s great, but the Republicans did everything they could to derail his candidacy because they are POOSAYS. 

I agree.  Trump has been a refreshing change but the overall trend before him has been republicans not fighting and taking the L over and over

9/19/20 11:31 PM
9/20/07
Posts: 6800
emu67 -

Why all this obsession before the vote in November? Trump picks the chick next week, the senate does the hearings, however long that takes, and then vote. Could be before or after the election. The new justice will be in before the next government takes over in January although it’ll probably still he Trump anyway.

Cruz makes a good point about a constitutional crisis being the Dems have all but said they will not concede defeat in November. So results will go to the Supreme Court and it could be a 4-4 tie. 

Edited: 9/19/20 11:33 PM
1/26/08
Posts: 18414

Right now there is a very real chance that D win the senate and presidency this year, if that happens and Republicans push through a SC Justice, you can bet Democrats will add 2-4 democrat justices next year expanding the supreme court. 


If Republicans push someone through before the election, it only increases the chances of D winning the Senate so I wouldn't expect a vote on the appointee until after the election. If D have the numbers then, it would be better for Republicans stick with tradition and not put one up as it wont matter due to the democrats strategy. To recap:

If Republicans push one through before election, and D get complete control, they wll get rid of fillbuster and add addtional SC justices

If Republicans wait they can see If D have numbers to do that and if they don't, push one through and if they do, better not or it will end up costing them the supreme court also whiich they have right now.

Highly unlikely D add justices if R don't push one through.

IMO that Is the best stratefy for the republicans

9/20/20 12:21 AM
9/23/07
Posts: 9746
David@accu - 
The Adversary - 

They won’t.
 

Republicants will play by the rules and lose again, as usual. 

 

Say what you will about the Left, but they’re serious about winning. The Right is content just to not lose, sometimes. They don’t understand offense. 


Serious about winning? They ran Hillary Clinton and if that wasn't bad enough they ran Joe Biden who doesn't even know where he is or who he is half the time. They backed rioters and looters and supported the destruction of others property. Where in there do you see "Seriousness"?

Those are very good points.

I guess what I was trying to speak to, was their resolve. The relentless attacks in the media, online censorship, the impeachment, all the hoaxes, and now attempting mail-in voting, presumably to commit fraud. They are constantly on offense.

It seems like they don't feel the need to run great candidates, because they can still win despite how terrible they are.
9/20/20 12:24 AM
9/23/07
Posts: 9747
Pumpkin Spice Lazarus - 
camicom -
The Adversary -

They won’t.
 

Republicants will play by the rules and lose again, as usual. 

 

Say what you will about the Left, but they’re serious about winning. The Right is content just to not lose, sometimes. They don’t understand offense. 

McConnell has already said he is going to fill the seat

McConnell is among the most cut-throat, unapologetic politicians in the history of this nation. The Adversary is absolutely delusional in his claims.


You guys are right, but there are still the NeverTrumpers like Romney that could pull a McCain and derail the vote.

I hope I'm wrong, I would love to eat a crow's asshole on this one.
9/20/20 12:25 AM
1/1/01
Posts: 10017


9/20/20 12:42 AM
4/26/03
Posts: 30678

It just makes sense they start the process of filling it. Why are people getting pissed? Why are people pissed at McConnell?

9/20/20 12:53 AM
11/21/02
Posts: 8649

??it’s rare you see this big of a mistake made at this level.   should start hearings next week and end it in 3 days.  If they go w lady w 7 kids, good luck attacking her.  She had 5 kids and adopted two Haitian orphans.  Lady seems like a saint.  This could blow up in Dems face w white women.  
 

 

9/20/20 12:53 AM
11/21/02
Posts: 8650

??it’s rare you see this big of a mistake made at this level.   should start hearings next week and end it in 3 days.  If they go w lady w 7 kids, good luck attacking her.  She had 5 kids and adopted two Haitian orphans.  Lady seems like a saint.  This could blow up in Dems face w white women.  
 

 

9/20/20 12:53 AM
3/18/02
Posts: 95874
cycklops - 

It just makes sense they start the process of filling it. Why are people getting pissed? Why are people pissed at McConnell?


because feelings

9/20/20 1:15 AM
1/26/08
Posts: 18423
BigEyedFish -
cycklops - 

It just makes sense they start the process of filling it. Why are people getting pissed? Why are people pissed at McConnell?


because feelings

2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.): “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.”

2018, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “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.”

2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “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.”

2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “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.”

2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”

2016, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”

2016, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “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.”

2016, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”

2016, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”

2016, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”

2016, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “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.”

2016, Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.): “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

 

9/20/20 1:32 AM
6/13/03
Posts: 29773
If it ain't Dutch, it ain't much -
BigEyedFish -
cycklops - 

It just makes sense they start the process of filling it. Why are people getting pissed? Why are people pissed at McConnell?


because feelings

2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.): “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.”

2018, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “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.”

2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “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.”

2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “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.”

2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”

2016, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”

2016, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “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.”

2016, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”

2016, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”

2016, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”

2016, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “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.”

2016, Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.): “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

 

9/20/20 1:42 AM
1/1/01
Posts: 2571

I have no issue with the republicans playing hardball, though I prefer comity, and if a rule is being professed as it was with Obama / Garland, it should stay consistent. Regardless they have the votes or they don't.

 

What I'll say is if you play hardball, don't complain if the other side does too. If the republicans do push someone through and the dems win presidential and senate based on the energy it causes, I've long endorsed to friends to increase the size of the court to counter gorsuch and to do the same here. Nothing constitutional about the size of the court. Just a matter of law.

Plus make dc a state. Every citizen deserves equal representation. and bring puerto rico in if they vote for statehood, in fact puerto rico is made up of 6 regions. With the island pop of 3.7 million, You could bring it in as 6 states, which would still be bigger than the smallest population states currently.

Then follow the wyoming rule to at least somewat balance representation in the house. It would result in about 50 more reps if I recall, most though not all going to bluer states, though texas and florida would get a good number. Again it would be more fair, and a tit for tat bit of hardball, even if it meant there would never again be a republican majority in either house.

I've never whined about hard play in politics or business, and I work with federal LEOs from 5 or 6 different agencies all of whom are vastly more conservative than me, and we've had debates and outright arguments over the years.  There are certainly members of the forum that sadden me with their posts, but as long as we are each willing to play by the rules of the game and try to encourage more participation for a better country, even where we disagree on what that better is, we have common ground.

9/20/20 1:48 AM
12/20/10
Posts: 875

^  

 

They never thought she would lose or they would have fought harder for Garland. That is also why all the circuit judges across the country were unfilled. Those seats were hers to pick/sell out.

OOPS BACKFIRE

 

 

WINNING

TRUMP

MAGA

9/20/20 1:59 AM
1/26/08
Posts: 18424
Wildcard -

I have no issue with the republicans playing hardball, though I prefer comity, and if a rule is being professed as it was with Obama / Garland, it should stay consistent. Regardless they have the votes or they don't.

 

What I'll say is if you play hardball, don't complain if the other side does too. If the republicans do push someone through and the dems win presidential and senate based on the energy it causes, I've long endorsed to friends to increase the size of the court to counter gorsuch and to do the same here. Nothing constitutional about the size of the court. Just a matter of law.

Plus make dc a state. Every citizen deserves equal representation. and bring puerto rico in if they vote for statehood, in fact puerto rico is made up of 6 regions. With the island pop of 3.7 million, You could bring it in as 6 states, which would still be bigger than the smallest population states currently.

Then follow the wyoming rule to at least somewat balance representation in the house. It would result in about 50 more reps if I recall, most though not all going to bluer states, though texas and florida would get a good number. Again it would be more fair, and a tit for tat bit of hardball, even if it meant there would never again be a republican majority in either house.

I've never whined about hard play in politics or business, and I work with federal LEOs from 5 or 6 different agencies all of whom are vastly more conservative than me, and we've had debates and outright arguments over the years.  There are certainly members of the forum that sadden me with their posts, but as long as we are each willing to play by the rules of the game and try to encourage more participation for a better country, even where we disagree on what that better is, we have common ground.

Exactly that is what people on this board dont understand, the Republicans can push someone through but Democrats can fuck them over 100x as bad if they win the senate and Biden wins. If they expand the court, add more D senators and add more seats to the house, what can Republicans do. They wont win the house in the next 20 years if that is the case and good luck winning senate if ther is 4 more Democratic Senators in areas that are unlikely to be switched anytime soon. 

9/20/20 2:04 AM
2/4/07
Posts: 34472
If it ain't Dutch, it ain't much -

Right now there is a very real chance that D win the senate and presidency this year, if that happens and Republicans push through a SC Justice, you can bet Democrats will add 2-4 democrat justices next year expanding the supreme court. 


If Republicans push someone through before the election, it only increases the chances of D winning the Senate so I wouldn't expect a vote on the appointee until after the election. If D have the numbers then, it would be better for Republicans stick with tradition and not put one up as it wont matter due to the democrats strategy. To recap:

If Republicans push one through before election, and D get complete control, they wll get rid of fillbuster and add addtional SC justices

If Republicans wait they can see If D have numbers to do that and if they don't, push one through and if they do, better not or it will end up costing them the supreme court also whiich they have right now.

Highly unlikely D add justices if R don't push one through.

IMO that Is the best stratefy for the republicans

You really think the Democrats aren't going to push the limits of what they can get if the Republicans roll over on the Supreme Court pick?  It's honestly adorable the childlike view you have of the situation. 

9/20/20 2:43 AM
1/17/03
Posts: 18851

Dems have thrown all traditions and norms out the window. Now they wanna be civil?