United States FLASH: U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG DEAD AT 87

[Tiamat]

Romney backs pre-election Supreme Court vote, paving way for McConnell, Trump

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) signaled on Tuesday that he is open to confirming a Supreme Court nominee this year, solidifying GOP support for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) vow…

thehill.com

Mitt Romney has stated he's in support of a pre-election vote on the Supreme Court nominee.

I would be careful, just because he’s in favor of a pre election vote doesn’t translate to confirmation vote.

 

[Rocinante]

I would be careful, just because he’s in favor of a pre election vote doesn’t translate to confirmation vote.

“The Constitution gives the President the power to nominate and the Senate the authority to provide advice and consent on Supreme Court nominees. Accordingly, I intend to follow the Constitution and precedent in considering the President’s nominee. If the nominee reaches the Senate floor, I intend to vote based upon their qualifications," Romney said in a statement

From the article. He's voting. Let's just hope he doesn't decide to vote against the nomination.

 

[MrBirthday]

Well, now some are advocating that if the Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, it can just be ignored. All I can say is, boy, wouldn't that be a can of worms. And they're fools if they think it would all go one way.

 

[Bacle]

From the article. He's voting. Let's just hope he doesn't decide to vote against the nomination.

McConnell says they have the votes, and that's why they are moving forward.

They likely had expected Romney to vote against them, and figured that into the math. If Romney votes with them, he will likely do so because he wants to keep his office, and Utah is not a place that wants more Liberal judges on the court.

 

[Rocinante]

McConnell says they have the votes, and that's why they are moving forward.

They likely had expected Romney to vote against them, and figured that into the math. If Romney votes with them, he will likely do so because he wants to keep his office, and Utah is not a place that wants more Liberal judges on the court.

They can afford to have three people abstain from voting, and have Pence be the tie breaker. If they lose 4, no appointments will happen.

There are two who are abstaining, and people thought Romney might.

As long as Romney votes with the party, they've got this. If he goes against it, they're fucked, if he abstains, Pence could break the tie.

 

[Urabrask Revealed]

Well, now some are advocating that if the Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, it can just be ignored. All I can say is, boy, wouldn't that be a can of worms. And they're fools if they think it would all go one way.

"Laws for you, laws for me, seperate laws for everyone!"
t. democrats.

 

[Tiamat]

Huh, looks like Romney might not be the only one...

Toomey supports moving ahead with filling Supreme Court seat vacated by Ginsburg

Toomey, a swing-state senator, was one of the last potential GOP defectors to come out in support of processing Trump's eventual nominee ahead of the election

www.foxnews.com

The Left must be having a conniption fit right now. Perhaps an enema would help?

 

[Knowledgeispower]

Well, now some are advocating that if the Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, it can just be ignored. All I can say is, boy, wouldn't that be a can of worms. And they're fools if they think it would all go one way.

And this we really should have enshrined Judicial review(albeit in a more limited format and power than as it currently exists) in a constitutional amendment a long time ago

 

[Typhonis]

Out of curiosity. If the Dems decide to ignore the Supreme court what decisions would come back to bite them in the ass?

 

[MrBirthday]

And this we really should have enshrined Judicial review(albeit in a more limited format and power than as it currently exists) in a constitutional amendment a long time ago

Honestly, I've wondered for a while what things would look like if a President had gone to the mat over the issue early in the Republic's history.

 

[Knowledgeispower]

Honestly, I've wondered for a while what things would look like if a President had gone to the mat over the issue early in the Republic's history.

Blame the Federalists packing the court early in its history and thus making the Democrats(or the Democratic-Republican Party depending on the time period) really not wanting to increase its power as it was being a pain in their neck

 

[MrBirthday]

snip

You misunderstand. I mean a President going all in on "judicial review is nowhere in the Constitution and therefore isn't actually a thing." As opposed to merely ignoring a decision he disliked, like Jackson did.

 

[Cherico]

I would be careful, just because he’s in favor of a pre election vote doesn’t translate to confirmation vote.

this is one of those issues where each republican senitor gets taken aside to a private room and told in no uncertain terms that if you block this if you fuck this up your career in the party is dead and over with, because this issue is that important to the party and if you cant play ball during these kinds of critical moments then you need to pack your bags and get out.

Romney was allowed to be anti trump was allowed to dislike him that's fine, fucking over the entire party out of spite no that isn't going to be tolerated.

 

[Airedale260]

Out of curiosity. If the Dems decide to ignore the Supreme court what decisions would come back to bite them in the ass?

Hard to say, depends what everyone else does. It’s still suicidal, because a) you can bet every single red state would instantly take that as “It’s OK to ignore Roe v. Wade or gay marriage laws” among other things.

I think the writer of this bit must have been smoking crack. The court’s purpose is to check the other two. It’s kind of hard to do that when their decisions “aren’t binding.”

Also I get the sense that Democrats see Garland as the only real escalation (namely, that the GOP wouldn’t let them nominate someone who would have given them cover to break the constitution when they needed it), not understanding that running interference over Roe, playing stupid games to get ObamaCare passed, smearing Robert Bork, filibustering Alito and Estrada, etc, are all considered a series of escalations by the GOP. So they complain when they try to rig the system and, when it doesn’t work and they get hoist by their own petard, throw a giant tantrum.

 

[Tiamat]

Graham tells Dems he's moving ahead with SCOTUS nomination, cites Kavanaugh treatment

Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told the Democratic committee members about his intention to move ahead with the confirmation of President Trump's Supreme Court nominee.

www.foxnews.com

Lyndsey Graham sent a pointed letter to each of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee of his intent, and stated his views on the process had “changed” since the debacle with Kavanaugh.

In other words? “Come and get it motherfuckers.”

 

[MrBirthday]

stated his views on the process had “changed” since the debacle with Kavanaugh

"Lyndsey Graham 2.0", as I've seen his change in attitude called.

 

[Tiamat]

To quote from the link:


"Lastly, after the treatment of Justice Kavanaugh I now have a different view of the judicial-confirmation process," Graham said. "Compare the treatment of Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh to that of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, and it’s clear that there already is one set of rules for a Republican president and one set of rules for a Democrat president."

Graham added: "I, therefore, think it is important that we proceed expeditiously to process any nomination made by President Trump to fill this vacancy. I am certain if the shoe were on the other foot, you would do the same."



The letter was addressed to Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., Chris Coons, D-Del., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii., Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Kamala Harris, D-Calif.

 

[Certified_Heterosexual]

A lot of conservatives want to win elections so that we can control the Supreme Court. I want to control the Supreme Court so that we can win (this) election.

Conservatives need to come to terms with the Rubicon we're about to cross. If we succeed in confirming a justice, the Supreme Court becomes meaningless to half the country in February 2021. Either we win the election and Democrats ignore the Court (they already say they will) or we lose and Democrats pack the Court (again, they already say they will).

What if we don't succeed in confirming a justice? Then we run a high risk that the Election will go to the Supreme Court and Roberts will cuck, leaving the vote 4-4. With three Trump justices, Thomas and Alito, we don't have to rely on Roberts.

There are only two questions we need to ask ourselves: can the new appointee get confirmed in a month, and does this person hate voter fraud? That's it. That's all that matters.

 

[bullethead]

Honestly, given how pissed the Republicans on the Senate may be over Kavanaugh, I think they may just forgo the hearings and go to a straight vote.

 

[Typhonis]

The Democrats are about to reap what they have sewn. I mean would they be THIS salty if it was dear President Clinton trying her best to get a new justice of the supreme court? Nope.


Also, they disavow the Supreme court at their peril. It will not end well for them.