In order to keep further discussions of SCOTUS picks (and no doubt future rancor)out of the memorial thread I have started this one. Lagoa is a Cuban American that is on the short list. Dems will attack her over that recent decision on felon rights, but they're going to attack the nominee regardless of who it is. Republicans feel they got the votes to pass any nominee(very hubris of them as well). I have a feeling this next nomination fight will make the nasty Kavanaugh hearings look like Disneyland.
The Republicans are fucking hypocrites. It's a fact. (Waits for the usual gang of idiots to say "all politicians are hypocrites"...)
Well, Romney just pissed any legacy he had away. Interesting that he cited 'precedent.' Not recent precedent, of course.
He said he supported having a vote, which is both the President and the Senates legal right to have. It also doesn't automatically mean that he'll vote for that nominee. He could end up voting no based on the qualifications
The "precedent" set is to wait until after the new president is inaugurated this close to an election. IT happened in 1992 when in August of that year a vacancy became open and it happened in 2016 when a vacancy remained opened for greater than a year. Now that it's 45 days before the election, the GOP is going to disregard precedent and move forward. I expect DEMs to do what ever they can to disrupt precedents once they regain power. This is the beginning of the end.
I love ya, man, but I have to disagree on this. This is one more step toward the end, but the beginning was decades ago, IMO.
I like how all the news was trying to guess if there might be a chance the republicans were not going to vote on a replacement right away. How gullible is the US? Trump will get to replace RBG and he will get to replace Thomas before he goes out. Oh, and I hate to spoil the surprise for all the people who think the dems will up the number of justices if Biden wins, but have you met the neo-republican party and your republican replacement for trump yet? Looking to the dems to save you from what trump has made is like looking to organized crime to save you from a retarded joker.
Very substantive. The GOP Senate is gerrymandering the courts just like they've gerrymandered the House of Representatives. in 2018, 15 million more people voted for DEMOCRATS in the Senate than Republicans. In the House, Democrats had a plus 9% advantage in votes over Republicans. In 2016, Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million. They do not represent the the people. The norm the close to an election is to wait for the winner in November to nominate. That may very well be Trump, but the truth is that McConnell & the GOP don't think so, so they are going to ram it through now. So yeah.. once Dems get the Senate, say bye bye to the filibuster... and not just for judicial nominees. If the Prez and the Senate go Dem, you can expect an expanded court and laws written to prevent it from expanding further.
Yes because when they don't get their way, Democrats will do anything to make sure they get what they want. Don't get who you want on the Supreme Court, pack the courts, impeach the President for doing his constitutional duties and now they're talking about making DC and Puerto Rico a state so they can have a permanent majority because they couldn't win the majority in 2018. They act like toddlers.
What part of Democrats want to pack the court do you not understand? The Republicans are simply following their constitutional duties.
You're a real idiot if you think this is the Dems fault. Mitch stole a SCOTUS nominee from Obama. the GOP straight up LOST the popular vote in both 2016 and 2018 and Dems still won a gerrymandered House. Yet, the GOP still feel emboldened enough to make this pick less than 45 days to an election. See you in 2021.
Trump has comitted numerous impeachable offenses since the Ukraine incident. She will simply take her pick. If Trump wins in Nov, I totally expected him to be impeached in 2021.
That's not what she said though. She specifically said she would impeach him if he picks a nominee before the election. Does that not bother you?
no, because it's the actual words that matter and not how you interpret them. She can NOT impeach a president because he nominated a SCOTUS justice. I don't see how anyone can think that.
That's not the same thing as impeaching him for nominating a justice. And it wouldn't even have to be the President. The House could impeach any one of his criminal minions and the Senate would have to put all other business aside and hold a trial.
If she said "I will try to impeach him for daring to nominate a justice before his term is done," that would be foolhardy and improper. He has the right to nominate whoever he wants, and even a super-liberal Senate would not vote to remove based on that. But she didn't. And he has done numerous impeachment-worthy things.
No they wouldn't. The Senate can take the House findings and then dump them in a committee where they can sit until hell freezes over.
And Democrats have been playing games with Supreme Court picks since the 80s. Mitch was around thru all of it and hasn't forgotten. Your side is in no way clean of this. Popular vote doesn't mean squat in US Presidential elections. It's nothing more than a consolation prize. Nothing in the constitution says that they can't. I have no doubt that if the election doesn't go the Dems way that we will continue seeing divided government for another four years. That is if they don't set the country on fire in that time. And if what he did was impeachable, what difference does a Supreme Court pick make? Dangling that out there as a threat only makes Pelosi look bad, not Trump.
That's not my interpretation of the rules: https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/3_1986SenatesImpeachmentRules.pdf
