• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Ginsburg is dead .....

m1west

Well-known member
GOLD Site Supporter
I thinking she won't be replaced until after the election. That said this puts a lot of weight on the Senate races.

Likely , even if Trump appointed someone they would never be confirmed before the election.
 

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
I thinking she won't be replaced until after the election. That said this puts a lot of weight on the Senate races.
I'm thinking the same. If Trump tries to push something through it might push some undecideds the Biden way and change the election.
 

Jim_S

Gone But Not Forgotten
GOLD Site Supporter
I'm thinking the same. If Trump tries to push something through it might push some undecideds the Biden way and change the election.


the chance to push the court back to its true mission could bring more conservative voters to the polls.
 

mla2ofus

Well-known member
GOLD Site Supporter
If we thought the Kavanaugh confirmation was nasty you ain't seen nothin' yet!! I pity the poor nominee.
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
She WILL be replaced BEFORE the election !! Prove me wrong !
HEY! That's my line.:clap:

However I believe you will be proven wrong for many of the reasons mention above. Trump needs the support of people who believe in decorum, tradition, and fair play. For those reasons he will not test the loyalty of his supporters, nor influence the power of his detractors.

To make a nominationnow would be political suicide.

Besides, he has already named the potential candidates.
 

Jim_S

Gone But Not Forgotten
GOLD Site Supporter
McConnell: Trump's Supreme Court nominee 'will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate'
Ginsburg, 87, died Friday from complications surrounding metastatic pancreas cancer

Brooke Singman By Brooke Singman | Fox News

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said unequivocally Friday night that President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee to fill the vacancy of late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg “will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

more at the link

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcconnell-supreme-court-nominee-vote-floor
 

Attachments

  • D661B2C2-09D8-4ECF-AB00-30217962C769.jpg
    D661B2C2-09D8-4ECF-AB00-30217962C769.jpg
    143.8 KB · Views: 54

Jim_S

Gone But Not Forgotten
GOLD Site Supporter
I thinking she won't be replaced until after the election. That said this puts a lot of weight on the Senate races.

She WILL be replaced BEFORE the election !! Prove me wrong !


going to get nasty either way. :hammer:

if shes not replaced i foresee a lot of 4-4 ties :( that will cause a lot of problems. post election because of all the challenges that will come to the court
 

300 H and H

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
going to get nasty either way. :hammer:

if shes not replaced i foresee a lot of 4-4 ties :( that will cause a lot of problems. post election because of all the challenges that will come to the court

I am afraid you are correct...

This is a pivotal moment in time. Critical to outcome, pivotal to our nation. As goes the court, will our nation go.

Regards, Kirk
 

EastTexFrank

Well-known member
GOLD Site Supporter
I think that you're all wrong and all right at the same time.

President Trump will announce who he is going to nominate and leave it at that until after the election, forcing Biden to state who he would nominate. I guarantee that will be a black female judge. Nothing of consequence will happen until after the election and then it could get really UGLY.
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
I think that you're all wrong and all right at the same time.

President Trump will announce who he is going to nominate and leave it at that until after the election, forcing Biden to state who he would nominate. I guarantee that will be a black female judge. Nothing of consequence will happen until after the election and then it could get really UGLY.

I can't see how Biden will be forced into anything.

I also don't think 3 months is enough time to seat any SCOTUS judge. Ginsburg's passing, however will be the defining issue in the upcoming election.
 

XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

Master of Distraction
Staff member
SUPER Site Supporter
I think the White House knew this was happening for a while. That is why there were stories about Ted Cruz and few others as potential nominees being floated around a week ago.

Trump will announce his candidate early this week and the Republican Senate will fast track the confirmation. Trump knows how important this is.

This is exactly what the Democrats would do. They wanted to do it in 2016 but they didn't control the Senate.
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
I think the White House knew this was happening for a while. That is why there were stories about Ted Cruz and few others as potential nominees being floated around a week ago.

Trump will announce his candidate early this week and the Republican Senate will fast track the confirmation. Trump knows how important this is.

This is exactly what the Democrats would do. They wanted to do it in 2016 but they didn't control the Senate.

She WILL be replaced BEFORE the election !! Prove me wrong !


I am coming to believe you and Kaper may be right. It seems the wind is blowing that direction.

Whilst I believe the current politics dictate Trump should wait until after the election, the fact is the Constitution assumes the Office of the President would and should act in the best interest of the country and the people the entire four years. In other words, the person should operate in the same manner from Inauguration to Inauguration.

The speculations floated this morning's news is that Trump will present a nominee shortly. Democrats and naysayers be dammed. Here's possibly why.

The Democrats have already pledged to challenge the vote. With a 4/4 SCOTUS Trump will need an edge, a conservative plurality. The nomination struggle alone could pressure a swing of the popular vote either way. A big gamble.

And a very tumultuous period for the nation. In a nitroglycerin atmosphere, the timing of such a nomination could be akin to bringing a blow torch of ignition to the fight.

Keep you powder dry boys. We are in for a tough time.
 

road squawker

Active member
GOLD Site Supporter
I am afraid you are correct...

This is a pivotal moment in time. Critical to outcome, pivotal to our nation. As goes the court, will our nation go.

Regards, Kirk
The presidential elections may very well be decided by a court.

remember the Gore and the hanging chads fiasco.
 

pirate_girl

legendary ⚓
GOLD Site Supporter
Susan Collins is saying RBG's seat should not be filled until the Presidential election is over.
Others are suggesting that too, obviously...
 

Jim_S

Gone But Not Forgotten
GOLD Site Supporter
Susan Collins is saying RBG's seat should not be filled until the Presidential election is over.
Others are suggesting that too, obviously...

It will be very messy no matter who does (or doesn’t) do.
 

Jim_S

Gone But Not Forgotten
GOLD Site Supporter
Flashback: Timeline of Democrats’ Brutal Attacks On Brett Kavanaugh
Posted by Fuzzy Slippers Saturday, September 19, 2020 at 7:30pm

If you were angry then, just wait until Democrats brutalize the nominee to fill the Ginsburg vacancy

https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/...rats-brutal-attacks-on-brett-kavanaugh//#more

President Trump has stated that he will move “without delay” to name a nominee to fill the Supreme Court following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Speculation is rampant about whom he will nominate, but one thing we can count on is Democrats behaving shamefully.

We know this because of the way they relentlessly and groundlessly tried to destroy Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings.

Here at LI, we covered that vile spectacle from beginning to end.

Major developments: 8, 2018: Senate Republicans Call Out Democrats for Pointless Stall Tactics on Kavanaugh Confirmation
August 10, 2018: We have a date! Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearings Begin September 4
September 4, 2018: WATCH LIVE: Day 1 of Brett Kavanaugh Senate Confirmation Hearing
September 5, 2018: WATCH LIVE: Day 2 of Brett Kavanaugh Senate Confirmation Hearings
September 6, 2018: WATCH LIVE: Day 3 of Brett Kavanaugh Senate Confirmation Hearings
September 13, 2018: Sen. Feinstein Sends Secret Letter About Kavanaugh to FBI
September 27, 2018: Kavanaugh’s Testimony: Here are the highlights (and lowlights)
September 27, 2018: Ford Testifies, Says ‘100%’ Certain Kavanaugh Assaulted Her
October 3, 2018: McConnell Files to End Kavanaugh Debate, Confirmation Vote Possible Saturday
October 5, 2018: Senate Invokes Cloture, Sets Up Final Kavanaugh Confirmation Vote for Saturday
October 6, 2018: Senate CONFIRMS Brett Kavanaugh to Supreme Court
October 8, 2018: Justice Kavanaugh Sworn In At White House

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25mm7O0TBUs

.
 

Attachments

  • 529A1FD7-D97F-4441-8614-E14B8832AD53.jpeg
    529A1FD7-D97F-4441-8614-E14B8832AD53.jpeg
    63.8 KB · Views: 35
  • 08292250-5385-4340-96A5-4DB60799A430.jpeg
    08292250-5385-4340-96A5-4DB60799A430.jpeg
    69.8 KB · Views: 36

Jim_S

Gone But Not Forgotten
GOLD Site Supporter
President Trump says the new pick will likely be a woman.
So that leaves out my personal hopes for Ted Cruz or Tom Cotton.

Donald Trump: Supreme Court Pick Next Week; ‘Most Likely’ a Woman
by CHARLIE SPIERING19 Sep 2020

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...eme-court-pick-next-week-most-likely-a-woman/

President Donald Trump on Saturday said his nomination to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court would likely be announced next week.

“I think the choice will be next week,” he told reporters as he left the White House on Saturday for a campaign trip to North Carolina.

When asked if he would choose a woman to replace Ginsburg, after she died on Friday, Trump replied, that it was “most likely.”

“I could see most likely it would be a woman,” he said. “Yeah… I would say that a woman would be in first place, the choice of a woman would certainly be appropriate.”

The president reminded reporters that he had a shortlist of potential nominees.

“I’ve gotten to know many of them. From a legal standpoint, from a sophisticated understanding of the law, from a constitutional standpoint, I think it’s the greatest list ever assembled,” he said.

When asked about Judge Amy Coney Barrett, Trump noted that she was “highly respected.”

He was also asked about Judge Barbara Lagoa, a judge in Florida.

“I’ve heard incredible things about her,” Trump replied. “I don’t know her, she’s Hispanic and highly respected.”

The president said he disagreed with Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), who said that the Senate should not confirm a Supreme Court in an election year.

“I totally disagree with her. We have an obligation,” he said. “We won, and we have an obligation as the winner to pick who we want.”

Trump said that he agreed with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell “100 percent” that they should move to fill the seat.

“We’re here now, right now, we’re here, and we have an obligation to the voters,” he said.

When asked about the Republican-led Senate blocking former President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee in 2016, Trump replied, “That’s called the consequences of losing an election. He lost the election. He didn’t have the votes. When you lose elections. some times things don’t turn out well.”
 

Jim_S

Gone But Not Forgotten
GOLD Site Supporter
Top Five Candidates for Nomination to Ginsburg Seat on the Supreme Court — No Men Allowed
Posted at 4:00 pm on September 19, 2020 by Shipwreckedcrew

https://www.redstate.com/shipwrecke...urg-seat-on-the-supreme-court-no-men-allowed/

Putting out a list of possible Supreme Court nominees was something done by Pres. Trump in 2016 to appeal to GOP conservatives who wanted reassurance that he would advance their interests if elected notwithstanding his long personal history of moving between parties and supporting liberal causes with contributions throughout his adult life.

He was assisted in putting together his list by the leadership of the Federalist Society, and the list reflected that fact. On the issue of judicial appointments Pres. Trump has made good on his pledge — not just with respect to the Supreme Court, but also with regard to naming seemingly reliable conservatives in record numbers to the Circuit Courts of Appeal.

Pres. Trump has added to his list of potential Supreme Court nominees, with his latest additions coming just two weeks ago.

In taking a look at the names on his lists, I see the following five individuals as being the most likely nominees — and all of them are women.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Joan Larsen, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Alison Eid, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Judge Diane Sykes, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Judge Margaret Ryan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Judge Amy Comey Barrett and Judge Diane Sykes are probably the two most well-known based on earlier coverage of them in the press connected to the nominations of Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch.

Judge Barrett is a practicing Roman Catholic, and mother of five biological children and two adopted children. At 47 years of age, she fits the profile of a nominee capable of spending 25+ years on the Court. She has an established track record as an Appeals Court Judge, and is viewed as a “textualist” and “originalist” in her jurisprudence on constitutional issues. She graduated first in her class from Notre Dame Law School, and eventually clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia. While a Professor at Notre Dame Law School, Barrett was among Pres. Trump’s earliest nominees to the Circuit Court in May 2017.

Judge Sykes has had the longest tenure on a Court of Appeals, having served on the Seventh Circuit for 17 years. She has amassed a significant judicial record in that regard, but the record is consistently conservative and she, therefore, is likely to be among the most reliable in terms of adding to the Supreme Court’s conservative membership. But, at 63 years old, she may not fit the profile of a potential nominee any longer.

Among the most interesting possibilities to me is Judge Margaret Ryan, now a “Senior” Judge for the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. She is “Senior” because terms on that court are limited to 15 years. But she is only 55 years old. She served 11 years active duty with the US Marine Corps and was nominated to the Court of Appeals by Pres. Bush in 2004. More significantly, however, she served as a law clerk for the highly influential Fourth Circuit Court Judge J. Michael Luttig and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Both Judge Larsen and Judge Eid were nominated to the Appeals Courts by Pres. Trump. Judge Larsen was previously a Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, and Judge Eid was a Justice on the Colorado Supreme Court. I don’t think either stands out above the top 3, but they are potential picks.

I know there is some sentiment for picking a minority female, but I don’t see a standout among the potential choices on the President’s lists. One who I have seen mentioned is Judge Barbara Lagoa of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, a Cuban-American born in Miami. She was a state appeals court judge in Florida for over a decade and was briefly on the Florida Supreme Court before being nominated by Pres. Trump to the Eleventh Circuit. She also served as an Assistant United States Attorney in Miami before becoming a state appeals court judge.

I suspect Pres. Trump will pick Judge Barrett over Judge Sykes based on their ages, but Judge Ryan is the “dark horse” surprise candidate who might be difficult for the Democrats to mount a meaningful defense against on substance.
 

Jim_S

Gone But Not Forgotten
GOLD Site Supporter
As we expected:

Here’s Why Blue Check Twitterhawks Are Threatening Violence Over Ginsburg’s Supreme Court Seat
Posted at 5:30 pm on September 19, 2020 by Jeff Charles

https://www.redstate.com/jeffc/2020...-violence-over-ginsburg’s-supreme-court-seat/

Well, that didn’t take too long, did it? As my colleague Sister Toldjah reported, mere hours after the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was announced, progressives on Twitter and other social media platforms had a collective meltdown in response to the reality that that mean guy in the Oval Office might be appointing another justice to the highest court in the land.

True to form, they took to Twitter to express their holy outrage at the thought of having another justice who isn’t a rabid progressive take Ginsburg’s place. Some of these intrepid individuals have taken action that only the bravest of us could even consider: Going on Twitter and calling for political violence from the comfort of their home.

Dr. Jessie Christensen, an Australian astrophysicist, claimed that he would riot if President Trump and Republican members of the Senate push to confirm an appointment. “IF THEY RAM THROUGH AN APPOINTMENT IN THE NEXT TWO MONTHS I WILL RIOT. This is an actual nightmare,” he tweeted.

Former CNN contributor Reza Aslan expressed similar sentiments. “If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire f*cking thing down,” he threatened.

Progressive writer Laura Bassett also weighed in on the matter, claiming that more riots will ensue if the left doesn’t get its way. “If McConnell jams someone through, which he will, there will be riots,” she tweeted.

Author Beau Willimon also joined in. “We’re shutting this country down if Trump and McConnell try to ram through an appointment before the election,” he tweeted.

But isn’t this another case of a dog’s bark being bigger than its bite? Does anyone actually believe that these people will even engage in violence? Apparently not. At least one Twitter user pointed out the obvious:

Text TRUMP to 88022
@harambe_fren
Notice its the wealthy white liberals calling for political violence today? Doubtful they will be the ones putting themselves in harms way...
12:58 PM · Sep 19, 2020

He’s right. None of these people will participate in any of the violence they hope to incite with their social media platforms. If there is more rioting and looting, it’ll be done by Antifa peons acting out their faux angst. After all, it’s past the point of them pretending they are rioting for George Floyd, right? What better excuse can they use than to act like they are upset about another Supreme Court seat going to a conservative-leaning judge?

But the reality is that these threats of violence are about as useless as a life preserver in a kiddie pool. Why? Because these thugs are going to riot and loot no matter what. It’s not as if they really need an excuse. Their agenda has nothing to do with black lives or Supreme Court appointments.

These people want to burn the entire system down and remake the United States government in their Marxist image, not influence policy. So they couldn’t care less about Ginsburg’s seat. The fact of the matter is the violence will continue as long as governors and mayors allow it to happen.



Let me know what you think in the comments below!

Follow me on Twitter: @JeffOnTheRight
 

Jim_S

Gone But Not Forgotten
GOLD Site Supporter
POSTED ON SEPTEMBER 19, 2020 BY PAUL MIRENGOFF IN JUDICIAL NOMINEES, SUPREME COURT
WHAT IT ALL COMES DOWN TO

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/09/what-it-all-comes-down-to.php#disqus_thread

In the coming weeks, as the struggle to confirm a Supreme Court nominee fires up, we will be inundated with facts about past confirmation timetables and other “precedents.” Advocates will try to elevate past practices to matters of principle, and maybe even to matters of morality.

I think all of these arguments should be ignored. The only rule that applies, and it’s a reasonable one, is that Supreme Court nominees get confirmed when the president’s party has secured enough support from the electorate to muster the 50 Senate votes needed to confirm.

Voters didn’t give Democrats enough Senate votes to confirm Merrick Garland (or to get him the waste of time a hearing would have amounted to). That’s all there was to that story.

It’s not clear whether voters have given President Trump enough votes to confirm a nominee this close to a presidential election or, if Trump loses, in the months afterwards. If voters haven’t, that’s all there will be to that story, with this caveat.

Voters in Utah and Alaska must have thought, when they elected Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski, that they were giving Trump a vote to confirm a qualified Supreme Court nominee at any point in the calendar or election cycle. Thus, if Trump can’t get a nominee confirmed because of Romney and/or Murkowski (to take two important examples), it will be a tough pill to swallow.

But we may have to swallow it, and distribute the blame among the two Senators and the voters they duped.
 
Top