• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

SCOTUS Nomination Thread

Nominate me, i will make sure every republican will have a heart attack with every decision i make on every case.
 
senseamp said:
It's his Constitutional duty, as is the Senate's to advise and consent.
Click to expand...

They should ask Ted Cruz what he thinks should happen. He has such a boner for the constitution.

dank69 said:
McConnell already saying we should wait until after election, lol. Is there any precedent for that?
Click to expand...

They said not in "recent history" so it probably happened a while back for some reason. But yeah, a year with a vacant SCOTUS seat is redonkulous.
 
Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in 1988 which was an election year so there is precedent of the government working as it's supposed to.
 
TastesLikeChicken said:
And in other news...there has been a sudden, sharp increase in the purchase of toilet paper and wet wipes by members of the GOP.
Click to expand...

No doubt, particularly among vulnerable Senate Repubs. Looks like their pal, ol' Mitch, is trying to throw them under the bus with a fight they likely want no part of. Well, that's if Repubs actually follow through.
 
Why wouldn't Obama? It is part of his job. The whole argument against it is the GOP wanting to put a conservative to replace Scalia.
 
Maybe Obama will be presidential like and not nominate another liberal...maybe at least someone moderate. With a Republican congress having a Sanders presidency would not be the end of the world.... Better than a trump presidency. But the next POTUS will likely have the opportunity to nominate 2 judges during their 4 years in the White House.

Put a leftist on the Supreme Court and the nightmare of a Trump presidency may be a foregone conclusion.
 
Jhhnn said:
No doubt, particularly among vulnerable Senate Repubs. Looks like their pal, ol' Mitch, is trying to throw them under the bus with a fight they likely want no part of. Well, that's if Repubs actually follow through.
Click to expand...

I think the Repubs are fucked no matter what they do. If they let a nomination pass they lose their rabid base but gain the support of moderates and a talking point about not being obstructionist. If they block a nomination to a point that the general public thinks they are being asses then they risk losing the support of moderates in the election, but they gain in popularity with their rabid base who will hate McConnell no matter what he does.

If McConnell was smart he would agree to a moderate nomination pick and aim for the fat middle in the election. The base (who happens to hate McConnell with a passion) is pretty much rallying around two people he detests, Cruz and Trump. I read an article the other day that picked up on conservative pundits wondering just "how conservative" the conservative voters are if they are flocking to Trump, a very not-conservative candidate. The conclusion they were reluctant to draw was that many were attracted to conservatism by unfulfilled the promises (dogwhistles) that Trump, a liberal, is now is promising to deliver to them. IMO, right now it's all about hate on the right so it's going to be very interesting to see what direction McConnell takes his party.

I predict that he will make the wrong choice and obstruct every single bit of the way in an unsuccessful bid to regain the respect of conservative voters while crapping on everyone else.
 
rudder said:
Maybe Obama will be presidential like and not nominate another liberal...maybe at least someone moderate. With a Republican congress having a Sanders presidency would not be the end of the world.... Better than a trump presidency. But the next POTUS will likely have the opportunity to nominate 2 judges during their 4 years in the White House.

Put a leftist on the Supreme Court and the nightmare of a Trump presidency may be a foregone conclusion.
Click to expand...

I don't even know how to define leftist in this country anymore.

Anyone slightly left of Mussolini is considered evil proggie leftist for a large percentage of today's US electorate.
 
zinfamous said:
I don't even know how to define leftist in this country anymore.

Anyone slightly left of Mussolini is considered evil proggie leftist for a large percentage of today's US electorate.
Click to expand...

I suppose one way to define them is anyone who supports a socialist for president.
 
rudder said:
Maybe Obama will be presidential like and not nominate another liberal...maybe at least someone moderate. With a Republican congress having a Sanders presidency would not be the end of the world.... Better than a trump presidency. But the next POTUS will likely have the opportunity to nominate 2 judges during their 4 years in the White House.

Put a leftist on the Supreme Court and the nightmare of a Trump presidency may be a foregone conclusion.
Click to expand...

Anyone who doesn't plainly testify in front of the Senate that they would overturn Roe v Wade is going to be a 'liberal'. The litmus test is going to be in full effect.
 
rudder said:
Maybe Obama will be presidential like and not nominate another liberal...maybe at least someone moderate. With a Republican congress having a Sanders presidency would not be the end of the world.... Better than a trump presidency. But the next POTUS will likely have the opportunity to nominate 2 judges during their 4 years in the White House.

Put a leftist on the Supreme Court and the nightmare of a Trump presidency may be a foregone conclusion.
Click to expand...

By leftist, do you mean somebody less of a right wing ideologue than Scalia, or what?
 
Jhhnn said:
No doubt, particularly among vulnerable Senate Repubs. Looks like their pal, ol' Mitch, is trying to throw them under the bus with a fight they likely want no part of. Well, that's if Repubs actually follow through.
Click to expand...
It is going to be one of the more interesting SCOTUS appointments in recent history.

Will Obama tip the scales further left as his final legacy?

A battle will ensue. This could be Custer's, aka the GOP's, last stand.
 
Vying to not vote for anyone Obama nominates because they want a chance for a republican POTUS to fill the seat in a YEAR? This is the party which "honors the Constitution?"

The GOP is just sick and broken these days.

Anyone know what happens if the SCOTUS persists with an even number, like when a vote is tied?
 
woolfe9998 said:
Vying to not vote for anyone Obama nominates because they want a chance for a republican POTUS to fill the seat in a YEAR? This is the party which "honors the Constitution?"

The GOP is just sick and broken these days.

Anyone know what happens if the SCOTUS persists with an even number, like when a vote is tied?
Click to expand...

The lower court ruling stands but sets no precedent.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...urt-will-lean-left-without-replacement-213629

Pubbies be fucked this round.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top