Supreme Court vacancy

[CRedskinsRule]

Rather than jamming everything into the when is enough enough thread, I thought this upcoming nomination/senate battle could use it's own thread.

To start with here is an appeal from Schumer to Trump: Chuck Schumer appealed to Trump to pick Merrick Garland for Supreme Court

I have to say it's a good play by Schumer. One I could support. Ok, not really, not at this moment. BUT, if I were Trump I would let Schumer know that if this nominee (whoever it is) gets through with some, not all Dem support, then Garland would be Trump's nominee if a 3rd vacancy (RBG) opens up.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Rather than jamming everything into the when is enough enough thread, I thought this upcoming nomination/senate battle could use it's own thread.

To start with here is an appeal from Schumer to Trump: Chuck Schumer appealed to Trump to pick Merrick Garland for Supreme Court

I have to say it's a good play by Schumer. One I could support. Ok, not really, not at this moment. BUT, if I were Trump I would let Schumer know that if this nominee (whoever it is) gets through with some, not all Dem support, then Garland would be Trump's nominee if a 3rd vacancy (RBG) opens up.

LOL, it's hard for me to take this conversation seriously when you don't throw out any reasons why Garland is a bad candidate. I guess because he's Obama's boy it's an automatic strike.

Two can play this game. I look forward to seeing whatever bastardized anti-justice system candidate Trump decides to nominate for the swing vote of the SC.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

LOL, it's hard for me to take this conversation seriously when you don't throw out any reasons why Garland is a bad candidate. I guess because he's Obama's boy it's an automatic strike.

Two can play this game. I look forward to seeing whatever bastardized anti-justice system candidate Trump decides to nominate for the swing vote of the SC.

I didn't say Garland was a bad candidate - in the other thread I said that the Republicans in the Senate should have put his nomination to a vote back then. But time isn't stagnant, and Trump is going to go to his voters for this vacancy. From a political leanings discussion, this was a Reagan appointee that was expected to be more conservative, and his base would be up in arms about a Garland nomination.

I think you make an offer that Garland will be the next nominee if a spot opens, and try to find something to move forward with.

[MTK]

Honestly feel bad for Garland getting fucked out of his opportunity. Wasn’t long ago he would have been a well supported pick for the right but god forbid he was tapped by Obama so that went right out the window

[CRedskinsRule]

If you really want to get sketchy draft a bill temporarily expanding the court to 11 and put Garland, Trumps pick, and a consensus liberal pick, with the court collapsing back to 9 on the next 2 resignations/vacancies.

Very similar to what FDR tried to do way back in the day, but in this case you actually try to get past the politics of the now, and build consensus.

LOL
ok, i stopped eating brownies!

[Chico23231]

Envelope please...And the winner is..............The United States of America!

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Envelope please...And the winner is..............The United States of America!

........the trump cult,"fixed for reality"

[CRedskinsRule]

Question for G1.

You have multiple times stated you are a republican. Which of the 4 potential nominees do you support, which ones do you not. This isn't a Trump based question, it's about 4 judges who have been vetted by a conservative forum and found to be worthy.

Brett Kavanaugh
Raymond Kethledge
Amy Coney Barrett
Thomas Hardiman

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Question for G1.

You have multiple times stated you are a republican. Which of the 4 potential nominees do you support, which ones do you not. This isn't a Trump based question, it's about 4 judges who have been vetted by a conservative forum and found to be worthy.

Brett Kavanaugh
Raymond Kethledge
Amy Coney Barrett
Thomas Hardiman

None of them.

This is the man deserving of the position.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/62446...it-matters-now

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

None of them.

This is the man deserving of the position.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/62446...it-matters-now

So you aren't a Republican, in the party-line sense, or policy sense. So I ask, knowing no straightforward answer will be given, In what sense do you see yourself as a Republican?

(You ought to learn to correctly self-identify).

As for the pick, the 4 nominees suggested are clearly as capable as Garland, the only reason Garland's name is in the mix is because Republicans (before Trump, and who you have tried to claim you are one) held up his nomination in a tactic I felt was wrong.

The new nominee is going to very likely come from the list of 4 that I listed, and he/she likely will have broad Republican support.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

So you aren't a Republican, in the party-line sense, or policy sense. So I ask, knowing no straightforward answer will be given, In what sense do you see yourself as a Republican?

(You ought to learn to correctly self-identify).

As for the pick, the 4 nominees suggested are clearly as capable as Garland, the only reason Garland's name is in the mix is because Republicans (before Trump, and who you have tried to claim you are one) held up his nomination in a tactic I felt was wrong.

The new nominee is going to very likely come from the list of 4 that I listed, and he/she likely will have broad Republican support.

Yeh , I am , I will admit to not being in a cult like you and Chico though.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Yeh , I am , I will admit to not being in a cult like you and Chico though.

But again, The decision to block Garland's nomination was pre Trump, and even as a member of the "Trump cult" I have said it was bad policy by the Republicans.

The list of these 4 potential nominees is from a conservative think tank and will have near unanimous Republican support.

I only care what you call yourself to the extent that I am amazed that you think you are a Republican.

[CRedskinsRule]

for all the hollering about the conservative nature of this appointment, keep in mind that Pres Obama's first two appointments are 2 highly liberal judges by their voting above. And per this WPost article,https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.63fb4e0bcd2f Garland was not nearly as "swing" as the liberals would want people to believe.



Trump needs to appoint a constitutional conservative regardless of what the liberals in the Senate, and in the media would have people think.

IF the country is going to be a socialist country it should be because the liberal progressives win at the ballot box, not because they put 5 highly liberal justices on the court.

[CRedskinsRule]

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/07/0...urt-trump.html

How deep will the mud go or will liberals abide this writer's opinion?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/07/0...urt-trump.html

How deep will the mud go or will liberals abide this writer's opinion?

LOL MSNBC and the NY Times......but ,but media bias but but lying media. . You and Chico never go with a left sided "opinion" now you want the left to side with the right?????