Should Trump and the Turtle rush a nominee through before the election?

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 80.0%
  • No

    Votes: 1 20.0%

  • Total voters
    5

Dodger12

Super Moderator
At least be consistent. What's funny to me is that you guys (Republicans on this board) have a win at all costs approach to politics but then you nonstop excuse Jerry's bullshit running the Cowboys the last 25 years. It's like you want to be sheep and are willing to justify anything that supports your ideology or worldview.

Why do you make an statement that doesn't exist and then formulate your argument around that? I mean, we have a Jerry death watch thread. We've tried to recruit martyr pilots to fly his choppers and planes.....We've had bad thoughts about his yacht sinking.....I mean, how much lower do we have to go? Not many folks around here support Jerry and make exuses for him. Far from it. This isn't CZ.

McConnell and the Republicans literally just prevented the previous President from appointing a new Justice in his last few months and now all of you are demanding that Trump be allowed to appoint one, even closer to the election.

That would be a negative. President Obama nominated Garland but the Republicans controlled the Senate. That's politics, whether you like it or not. Nothing prevents Trump from nominating a SCOTUS and he should, just like Obama did. Something like 14 SCOTUS's have been confirmed in an election year. More have been nominated.

If Trump wins the election in less than 2 months, no issues from me. I'm not thrilled about his potential selection but it's within his rights at that point.

Trump is President for another few months. He'll make a nomination. That shouldn't surprise you. But don't take it from me. Take it from your hero:

 

Dodger12

Super Moderator
And as I mentioned earlier CMD, this wouldn't even be an issue had the Dems not done away with the filibuster. It forced both sides to cooperate and compromise. Looking back now, it's obvious why folks smarter than us inserted the filibuster into our system of legislation and that is to avoid the bickering we've been seeing the last few years. Your issue is not with the President. Your issue is with Harry Reid and the Dems.
 

Doomsday

High Plains Drifter
McConnell and the Republicans literally just prevented the previous President from appointing a new Justice in his last few months
Never mind that President was lame duck and this one isn't, necessarily.

"Elections have consequences" as Pelosi likes to say. You have a big city big government POTUS who happens to have an R by his name on the re-election ballot, and you have a R controlled Senate. That margin of control is thin and it's only going to take 4 of them to stop any nomination.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
 

Doomsday

High Plains Drifter
it's obvious why folks smarter than us inserted the filibuster into our system of legislation and that is to avoid the bickering we've been seeing the last few years.
The filibuster IS a tool of bickering.

Our founders and framers WANTED bickering. WANTED our system to BE adversarial. DID NOT want it to be cum-by-ya. DID NOT want it to be easy to put laws on the books. DID NOT want the executive to have ultimate authority. Checks, balances, separation of powers... It's ALL about opposition and bickering at every level.
 

Scot

Pro Bowler
Here are a Biden’s thoughts on the subject then

In a speech at Georgetown University, Biden also said: “I would go forward with a confirmation process as chairman, even a few months before a presidential election, if the nominee were chosen with the advice, and not merely the consent, of the Senate, just as the Constitution requires.”

And here are Biden’s current thoughts on the situation


Biden has made a 180-degree turn with the death of Ginsburg, writing on Twitter on Friday: “Let me be clear: The voters should pick a President, and that President should select a successor to Justice Ginsburg.”
 

Scot

Pro Bowler
 

cml750

Facepalm
TBH it would not surprise me at all to see them find someone to push a bullshit story like they did with Christine Blasey Ford for Kavanaugh and Anita Hill for Thomas. The democRATS are so damn evil there is no telling what depths they will sink to.
 

dbair1967

Administrator
The hypocrisy in here is rich.

McConnell and the Republicans literally just prevented the previous President from appointing a new Justice in his last few months and now all of you are demanding that Trump be allowed to appoint one, even closer to the election.

At least be consistent.

I think one of the differences between now and then is there is a R President and R senate now, and the R senate has run on (in part) confirming conservative judges who will interpret the law and not try to legislate from the court. The current President ran on appointing conservative judges. It is the President's responsibility to fill an open SC spot, it's the senate's job to confirm or not confirm.
 

dbair1967

Administrator
The question should be should Trump immediately nominate someone, and the answer is absolutely yes.

I also think the likelihood of a really fucked up election cycle and "lawyering up" that either side is sure to do, kind of dictates we have a full compliment of judges on the SC.
 

Doomsday

High Plains Drifter
The question should be should Trump immediately nominate someone, and the answer is absolutely yes.
I wouldn't have even waited until the body cooled.

Whether they can get a nom confirmed is an open question. Romney came out surprisingly for it. Only two Rs have said no to it.
 

Dodger12

Super Moderator
The hypocrisy in here is rich.

McConnell and the Republicans literally just prevented the previous President from appointing a new Justice in his last few months and now all of you are demanding that Trump be allowed to appoint one, even closer to the election.

At least be consistent. What's funny to me is that you guys (Republicans on this board) have a win at all costs approach to politics but then you nonstop excuse Jerry's bullshit running the Cowboys the last 25 years. It's like you want to be sheep and are willing to justify anything that supports your ideology or worldview. I prefer debate and reason and those who can accept their own flaws and can admit when their guy or side screwed up.

If Trump wins the election in less than 2 months, no issues from me. I'm not thrilled about his potential selection but it's within his rights at that point.

If I offended anyone by calling you sheep, it probably means you are one,. If you think for yourself and want reasonable, consistent leadership from your representatives, you're not who I'm talking to.

Cmd, folks offered you a lot of opinions and past precedent. Just wondering if you've changed your stance or have any follow-up.
 

Creeper

Spectator
The hypocrisy in here is rich.

McConnell and the Republicans literally just prevented the previous President from appointing a new Justice in his last few months and now all of you are demanding that Trump be allowed to appoint one, even closer to the election.

At least be consistent. What's funny to me is that you guys (Republicans on this board) have a win at all costs approach to politics but then you nonstop excuse Jerry's bullshit running the Cowboys the last 25 years. It's like you want to be sheep and are willing to justify anything that supports your ideology or worldview. I prefer debate and reason and those who can accept their own flaws and can admit when their guy or side screwed up.

If Trump wins the election in less than 2 months, no issues from me. I'm not thrilled about his potential selection but it's within his rights at that point.

If I offended anyone by calling you sheep, it probably means you are one,. If you think for yourself and want reasonable, consistent leadership from your representatives, you're not who I'm talking to.

Hypocrisy in politics? Noooo! Seriously though, this started with Robert Bork. Before that neither side played these SCOTUS appointments like this. What Democrats did to Bork was despicable. They misrepresented his record, lied about speeches he made and thoroughly trashed his well established reputation. Here is what Bork said about Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden's brief on Bork which he read to the Senate Judiciary committee, "so thoroughly misrepresented a plain record that it easily qualifies as world class in the category of scurrility." Even after that Republicans voted to confirm RBG, Sotomayor and Kagan, even though Kagan has 0 years of experience as a judge. Remember too, it was Democrats who ended the filibuster rule on judicial confirmations.

McConnell could have dragged out the Garland hearings, then Republicans could have voted to reject him. Democrats never had the votes to confirm Garland. McConnell spared Garland. But Republicans have the votes to confirm a Trump appointee and they will. This will probably come back to bite Republicans if Democrats win the Senate and Presidency, and I suspect as early as 2024.

The problem is not the Senate or McConnell, it is the entire country. We are so divided now both sides are talking about extreme actions and both sides excuse their own corruption. Republican hypocrisy pales in comparison to what we are learning about the the origin of the Russia collusion hoax, the Flynn take down and the Biden family's dealings in Ukraine, Russia and China. But even these recent revelations from FBI agents testifying about the Mueller team out to get Trump the country ignores it like it is no big deal. If this is where we are at now, then both sides should expect the worst from each other until something blows the entire country up and we all lose.
 
Top Bottom
We've logged Hit Counter by Digits Visitors since 2018.
DISCLAIMER:
The company requires me to use a disclaimer:
The opinions expressed are solely those of authors on this forum and do not represent the views of the Company (Jackson's Food Stores)
Thank you.