Trump's US Supreme Court Nominee Thread

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,424
1,636
136
And Romney flipped. It's over.

With this I think the right has basically secured permanent rule. Even when the Dems hold majority power again someday, it won't matter. The court will just be able to object to any policy they pass using whatever excuses or rationalization they want. Mitch wanted to make it "unconstitutional" to repair America and succeeded.
If this happens, I think there will be significant support for Dems to expand the number of seats on the supreme court.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,225
10,878
136
And Romney flipped. It's over.

With this I think the right has basically secured permanent rule. Even when the Dems hold majority power again someday, it won't matter. The court will just be able to object to any policy they pass using whatever excuses or rationalization they want. Mitch wanted to make it "unconstitutional" to repair America and succeeded.
History is written by the winners. We may or may not know how much damage Mitch has done to this country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iRONic

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,202
18,671
146
If this happens, I think there will be significant support for Dems to expand the number of seats on the supreme court.

Conservatives are on their only holy crusade, theocracy is the goal, it's been the long play since the civil rights movement, and supported by the oligarchy
 
  • Like
Reactions: iRONic and hal2kilo

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,225
10,878
136
Conservatives are on their only holy crusade, theocracy is the goal, it's been the long play since the civil rights movement, and supported by the oligarchy
Oligarchy loves religion and the religious state. Look at history.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z

Sonikku

Lifer
Jun 23, 2005
15,745
4,563
136
If this happens, I think there will be significant support for Dems to expand the number of seats on the supreme court.
Maybe. But it won't matter because Dems continue to adhere to procedure even after the GoP has thrown that book away.
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,538
759
146
If this happens, I think there will be significant support for Dems to expand the number of seats on the supreme court.

They probably are going to need a few more than 50 Senators from what I see even if the GOP runs roughshod over them with the SC pick. I'm thinking it might have to be at least 53. A lot of Democrats have been showing their true colors again.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,225
10,878
136
They probably are going to need a few more than 50 Senators from what I see even if the GOP runs roughshod over them with the SC pick. I'm thinking it might have to be at least 53. A lot of Democrats have been showing their true colors again.
Unfortunately, Dems don't follow orders from the top like Republicans, plus we don't have purity tests. We always needs at least 3 or 4 extra Dems to make up for that. Although I use the term, Dems are generally reluctant to stigmatize their DINOs as opposed to Republicans.
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,538
759
146
The first case was underhanded bullshit. The senate should have simply voted against Obamas appointment rather than play foolish games. Regardless, it was legal. This time there isn't anything the least bit shady going on. A justice passed away, Trump gets to appoint a new one, the senate votes yes or no. End of story. Pretending that there is something nefarious going on is absurd. Pretending that RBG has some right to determine who or when her replacement is seated is even more absurd.

But it's so close to the election. A reasonable time frame comparing other nominations and confirmations would lead to confirmation either very near the election or after. What's more, Trump didn't get more votes than Hillary. Oh, and it's painfully obvious that Trump is a lifetime felon and basically a traitor. I find it funny that Republicans care about restricting felons in many, many ways (e.g. Why should felons vote?), yet as long as its their scumbag, they can decide for a generation or more who gets to resolve judicial disputes on the highest court.

Adding more justices is constitutional, so what's wrong with that looking at your perspective? Within the rules. I think most would find a system that lets two unpopular vote presidents to pick what happens in the courts for a generation or more to be completely asinine. 4 of the 5 conservative justices are now from the Orange buffoon and Dubya.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,461
996
126
We already have one Boof Kavanaugh on the court...don’t need to add Buffy too.

Dems will screw this up if they focus on who the candidate is and what skeletons are in her closet or even what her legal opinions are. It really isn’t about whether or not she is qualified. Dems should be blanketing the airwaves and digital with the fact that another stolen seat means ACA is toast and 20 million will lose health insurance, and Roe v. Wade will be over. That’s what matters. Focus on the likely outcomes a 6-3 conservative court will bring... hell just start with the current docket coming up in 2 weeks.

The ACA is already a dead man walking to its execution. The case will be heard right after the election and will be decided by 8 or 9 justices. If there are 8 and its 4-4 ACA is dead because it leaves the lower court in effect. So essentially for ACA to survive we have to have a 5-3 split of the current 8 justices which is slim to none. Let alone when there are 9.

ACA will be officially dead by spring. It’s time for the Dems to ram through Universal Healthcare if they control Congress and the Presidency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iRONic and hal2kilo

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
32,120
10,946
136
Stolen assumes it belongs to someone. The seat belongs to the people, not a political party.

So are "the people" the electorate? If so, then the Senate should wait for a new president as in 2016.
If "the people" are represented by the current president, then Garland should have been confirmed in 2016.
You can't say it belonged to the people in both 2016 and 2020 and have two different outcomes
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,202
18,671
146
The ACA is dead a man walking to its execution. The case will be heard right after the election and will be decided by 8 or 9 justices. If there are 8 and its 4-4 ACA is dead because it leaves the lower court in effect. So essentially for ACA to survive it we have to have a 5-3 split of the current 8 justices which is slim to none. Let alone when there are 9.

ACA is dead. It’s time for the Dems to ram through Universal Healthcare if they control Congress and the Presidency.

No, it's time to kick millions off health insurance and get bent, - conservatives
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,461
996
126
If the Dems take Congress and the Presidency it’s time they take a hard shift left to counteract how far right the Republicans have taken us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BadTrip

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,202
18,671
146
So are "the people" the electorate? If so, then the Senate should wait for a new president as in 2016.
If "the people" are represented by the current president, then Garland should have been confirmed in 2016.
You can't say it belonged to the people in both 2016 and 2020 and have two different outcomes

Sure he can, he just redefines words as needed
 

iRONic

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2006
7,474
2,741
136
*Waves bye to the protection for my pre-existing multiple sclerosis *
*Waves bye to my daughter's right to decide her own choice *
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,225
10,878
136
I bet there are Republicans out there who wouldn't let Trump baby sit their kids, but pick SCOTUS seats, no prob.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,695
4,204
136
Stolen seat? Nothing stolen about it. A justice passed away, a new justice is appointed by the sitting president. That single term taints the narrative because it's blatantly false. The democrats don't own that appointment, nor did RBG have the power or the right to determine who should replace her.

You mean like when Merrick Garland was nominated by the president?

It's ok to just say you are a hypocrite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jman19 and hal2kilo

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,129
30,521
136
Holy mother of conflicts of interests... Trump is a stable genius at self preservation.


Edit: Oh yeah, I forgot. Just a little news, Romney's not fooling anybody, he has no principles because he is a Republican. He just went over to the dark side. There is no HOPE!
It baffles me that anyone was naive enough to believe Romney is anything other than a piece of shit like every single other Republican politician right down to the local dog catcher.
 

BlueWeasel

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
15,943
475
126
Plus ... Trump will do whatever Hanity and Carlson tell him to do.

I'm sure Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society will have much to say. The question is how much their recommendation will help Trump. In the end, he's not going to pick who's best for conservatives.....he's going to pick the person that most likely helps his re-election campaign.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,745
40,188
136
Romney may hate Trump, he may acknowledge the stolen seat that voters choose Obama to fill, but in the end he is still beholden to his holy roller supporters and is no friend of equal rights for women.

I gave up expecting the religilous to do the right thing along time ago, I guess I shouldn't be surprised by Romney's decision to help Moscow Mitch give women and the country the bird. He had me hoping though.

Another catholic on the court, and one that drinks the Fox koolaid. Wonderful. The march to remove America's credibility continues...
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Sonikku

Lifer
Jun 23, 2005
15,745
4,563
136
udi7H0f.jpg
 

Grey_Beard

Golden Member
Sep 23, 2014
1,825
2,007
136
If anyone thought Romney was a savor because he did what he did during impeachment, you clearly do not know his “conservative” creed. He was a oligarch who ran for President. He was jerb creatur. He loves an underpaid work force who is financially strapped so he can acquire the company, take the employee pension for himself and keep them destitute. To think he would not fall in line with this nomination was foolish. Like I said on another thread, I am surprised Alito and Thomas have not resigned to get two more long-term conservatives on the court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nickqt