SCOTUS Thread

[IndySteel]

 

[IndySteel]

 

[IndySteel]

James Woods is awesome.


James Woods
@RealJamesWoods
Watching you in particular choke on this confirmation is one of the sheer unmitigated joys I anticipate over the coming weeks. After what you lying savages did to Justice Kavanaugh’s family, this will be fireworks, champagne and caviar. Your threats are as empty as your soul.

Richard Blumenthal
@SenBlumenthal
If Republicans recklessly & reprehensibly force a SCOTUS vote before the election—nothing is off the table.
5:34 AM · Sep 20, 2020

 

[IndySteel]

 

[IndySteel]

 

[deljzc]

It appears Romney is going to vote. Color me impressed.

As of right now, only the two RINO women are not planning to vote yes to a qualified candidate before the election.

I hope it's the woman from Notre Dame. I don't want the appearance of picking a Hispanic from Florida just because it's an election coming up. I have a feeling she's not a clean as Barrett is. That's just my gut talking. I think there are more potential surprises with Lagoa than with Barrett. I think Barrett is more qualified with a more impressive resume.

But that is my choice. I do think it's only going to be one or the other at this point. Can't wait for Saturday to see who he picks.

 

[Steelin]

A great comment I read on American Thinker...

If the dims can impeach the president during an election year than the president can surely nominate a SC justice to be confirmed by the senate.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

A great comment I read on American Thinker...

If the dims can impeach the president during an election year than the president can surely nominate a SC justice to be confirmed by the senate.

As Trump said at the Pittsburgh rally last night (I was there), "they want to impeach me for doing what the Constitution says I have to do".
It doesn't say the President cannot nominate justices in an election year.
Although back in 2016 I thought the Senate should have given Merrick Garland a hearing and just voted him down. All Bomma had to do was nominate someone a Republican Senate would vote for but of course that wasn't going to happen.

 

[SteelChip]

 

[deljzc]

As Trump said at the Pittsburgh rally last night (I was there), "they want to impeach me for doing what the Constitution says I have to do".
It doesn't say the President cannot nominate justices in an election year.
Although back in 2016 I thought the Senate should have given Merrick Garland a hearing and just voted him down. All Bomma had to do was nominate someone a Republican Senate would vote for but of course that wasn't going to happen.

McConnell wasn't sure he had the votes on the floor to vote Garland down.

Remember, there was a big worry that if Garland didn't get approved, Clinton would win the election and bring in someone as liberal as RBG. That fear might have pushed enough Republicans to vote yes to Garland.

Where McConnell had power was he convinced the Republicans on the judicial subcommittee to never let it come to the floor. McConnell only needed to convince those 5-6 senators to hold out just to see what would happen come November.

Personally, it's all fair in politics. Had the roles been reversed, both back then and now, we all know Democrats would be doing the same thing. Even Tibs and the rest of the liberal whiners on this board know that.

Those are the rules. The Senate Judicial committee has a lot of power. Always had, always will.

It's funny that this issue might eliminate the filibuster. Whether that opens up democrats to do some pretty crazy things (add states, pack the court), who knows. I have to look into whether those issues can be done with a simple vote from congress and no veto from the President.

 

[IndySteel]

 

[IndySteel]

 

[Steelworth]

Okay, time for a little light-hearted fun:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Libs unironically sharing the <a href="https://twitter.com/TheBabylonBee?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@TheBabylonBee</a> article about NBA players wearing lace collars is pretty funny <a href="https://t.co/YotaShvRdM">pic.twitter.com/YotaShvRdM</a></p>— Kyle Mann (@The_Kyle_Mann) <a href="https://twitter.com/The_Kyle_Mann/status/1308821972361424897?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 23, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[SteelChip]

Okay, time for a little light-hearted fun:

 

[IndySteel]

 

[Superman]

it's started...

https://heavy.com/news/2018/06/amy-...Ky-WSVB6L1qxpg3ajy0HOSOjzD9L5JlHNZj_a2MT5bXXA

 

[ZonaBurgh]

it's started...

https://heavy.com/news/2018/06/amy-...Ky-WSVB6L1qxpg3ajy0HOSOjzD9L5JlHNZj_a2MT5bXXA

The article is over 2 years old, but ya, it's coming.

 

[SojournerSteel]

The article is over 2 years old, but ya, it's coming.

The Progs are all about female advancement and breaking glass ceilings until it's the wrong type of woman doing it.

 

[Superman]

The article is over 2 years old, but ya, it's coming.

right, and that article was pulled up and is being distributed across social media now.

 

[SteelerInLebanon]

Do you think she is a red herring to distract from the real choice? It could still be the Cuban/American Judge. It would be a brilliant move in my opinion, the left spends all this energy getting ready for Barrett then is caught flat footed

 

[SteelChip]

In an article this morning, a good case was made that Donald would be wise to make a recess appointment.

Trump Should Make a Recess Appointment to the Supreme Court
By Don Brown

https://www.americanthinker.com/art..._recess_appointment_to_the_supreme_court.html

Why is there a need to do this?

Because this presidential election is a litigation fiasco waiting to happen, creating a compelling reason for a recess appointment, followed by permanent confirmation of the recess appointee. The Supreme Court does not need to be divided four-four on matters that might adjudicate a presidential election, not for one second longer than it needs to be.

But does history support such a move — a recess appointment to the Supreme Court?

You bet it does.

A dozen times, presidents have made recess appointments of justices to the Supreme Court prior to Senate confirmation. Eleven out of twelve of those recess-appointed justices were ultimately confirmed by the Senate. Recess appointments have been made by some of the most revered presidents of the ages.

The president would be within his constitutional authority to make the recess appointment, on October 12, assuming that the seat isn't yet filled and assuming the Senate does in fact recess on that day, for the final push of the election season.

The nation cannot wait.

The Democrats are apparently convinced that they cannot defeat Trump in a straight-up, traditional election — the kind of election where voters actually go to the polls, the hallmark of every presidential election in the nation's history, and the model that provides the best opportunity for ballot security.

Worried and concerned about the weak magnetism of the less than electrifying Joe Biden, the Democrats have lawyered up and are ready to go, all champing at the bit to fight for the presidency in the courts.

If the Senate chooses to go on recess on October 12, before making a permanent confirmation to fill the Ginsburg seat, the president should act.

After all, the presidential election may likely wind up in the hands of the Supreme Court, and a 4-4 tie would be a "supreme" recipe for disaster.

 

[SteelChip]

There's no end to the entertainment....

Problem here is .....he probably said this for real.

 

[Coach]

It is 90% likely whomever Trump appoints will get through. I'm hoping for Barrett, mostly because she's reliably conservative, young and can re-energize the religious right vote, which has been disenfranchised.


Those who don't like Trump don't need another reason to vote against him, however, the Catholic vote was not great for Trump, and Barrett can really help him. Something like 110 Catholics go to church once a week.


So it will be a 6-3 or 5-4 split for years, thanks to Roberts flip flops. I take that back, Bryer is 82 year old and liberal. If he steps down or passes, whoever wins this election can replace him. So 7-2 or 6-3 on 90% of the issues is not out of the question in the near future.

Such a strong majority could vote down anything the Democrats might try, and make no mistake they don't care about rules or history.


Go Trump Go!

 

[ZonaBurgh]

It is 90% likely whomever Trump appoints will get through. I'm hoping for Barrett, mostly because she's reliably conservative, young and can re-energize the religious right vote, which has been disenfranchised.


Those who don't like Trump don't need another reason to vote against him, however, the Catholic vote was not great for Trump, and Barrett can really help him. Something like 110 Catholics go to church once a week.


So it will be a 6-3 or 5-4 split for years, thanks to Roberts flip flops. I take that back, Bryer is 82 year old and liberal. If he steps down or passes, whoever wins this election can replace him. So 7-2 or 6-3 on 90% of the issues is not out of the question in the near future.

Such a strong majority could vote down anything the Democrats might try, and make no mistake they don't care about rules or history.


Go Trump Go!

I don't under stand how only 110 Catholics going to church every week will help much.

 

[Booted]

I don't under stand how only 110 Catholics going to church every week will help much.

None go to church. Practicing religion is against the law now.