Supreme Court vacancy
 

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: [URL="https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/05/politics/chuck-schumer-trump-supreme-court-nominee/index.html"]Chuck Schumer appealed to Trump to pick Merrick Garland for Supreme Court[/URL]

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.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1196252]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: [URL="https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/05/politics/chuck-schumer-trump-supreme-court-nominee/index.html"]Chuck Schumer appealed to Trump to pick Merrick Garland for Supreme Court[/URL]

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.[/quote]

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.

Supreme Court vacancy
 

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

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=mooby;1196256]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.[/quote]

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.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

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!

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

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



:grouphug:

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

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

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[IMG]https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/atd-roeder-trump-final-three.png?w=575[/IMG]

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,[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/03/30/new-data-show-how-liberal-merrick-garland-really-is/?utm_term=.63fb4e0bcd2f[/url] Garland was not nearly as "swing" as the liberals would want people to believe.

[IMG]https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/files/2016/03/Figrue-1.jpg[/IMG]

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.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1196327]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[/quote]
None of them.

This is the man deserving of the position.

[url]https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256/what-happened-with-merrick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now[/url]

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=Giantone;1196329]None of them.

This is the man deserving of the position.

[url]https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256/what-happened-with-merrick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now[/url][/quote]

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.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1196333]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.[/quote]

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

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=Giantone;1196337]Yeh , I am , I will admit to not being in a cult like you and Chico though.[/quote]

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.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[URL]https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/07/09/opinion/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-trump.html[/URL]

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

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1196349][URL]https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/07/09/opinion/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-trump.html[/URL]

How deep will the mud go or will liberals abide this writer's opinion?[/quote]

LOL MSNBC and the NY Times:doh:......but ,but media bias but but lying media. :laughing2. You and Chico never go with a left sided "opinion" now you want the left to side with the right?????

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=Chico23231;1196326]Envelope please...And the winner is..............The United States of America!



:grouphug:[/quote]
........the trump cult,"fixed for reality"

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

The mud will go deep and it's already starting. This is going to be a nasty process which is why I think Trump ultimately picked someone familiar with the sausage grinder that the confirmation process will be.

Get ready for some serious scare-mongering and demagoguery from the left. Ultimately, I think it will backfire on them IF Kavanaugh is honest, reasonable and circumspect in his answers. From what I have read, he will be just that.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

... and, as a practical matter, because is his a reasonable and qualified jurist, I do not think that the key Republican senators will vote against him. I find it likely that certain key Democrats will be sorely tested to vote against him.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

These are the games that are played when you steal a seat. It’s all for show, he’ll get through.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

Not entirely disagreeing. When the Republicans did it, it was wrong and contrary to the Constitutional intent. I have no doubt, however, a sizable faction of those yelling that the Republicans "stole a seat" would have had no problem doing the same if the positions had been reversed. It's the politics of a divided nation.

... and, yes, he'll get through. How fast he does so and the ramifications of that time-line will have a significant impact on the mid-terms. Personally, I believe that any significant delay that doesn't ultimately postpone the appointment until after the election is likely to harm Dems more than Republicans. Particularly, if Kavanaugh doesn't give any sound bites (which, again, I doubt he will).

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

The major fear mongering card the Dems have attempted to play is Roe vs Wade overturned. They have effectively fund raised off this garbage.

The big fucking problem is this...Kavanaugh has already passed the test with previous confirmation hearings: Kavanaugh has said that he believes Roe V. Wade is "binding precedent of the court" and would follow such a ruling and not move to undo the landmark abortion case.

Anything reporting something other than that is simply fake news...the media or Dems.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=Chico23231;1196368]The major fear mongering card the Dems have attempted to play is Roe vs Wade overturned. They have effectively fund raised off this garbage.

The big fucking problem is this...Kavanaugh has already passed the test with previous confirmation hearings: Kavanaugh has said that he believes Roe V. Wade is "binding precedent of the court" and would follow such a ruling and not move to undo the landmark abortion case.

Anything reporting something other than that is simply fake news...the media or Dems.[/quote]

Well, he has said that the SC set it, not necessarily that it passes constitutional tests. WHEN you are an appellate judge, the SC saying it makes it fact. When you want to become a SC court justice your view on the underlying cases and how the constitution and precedence was applied DOES play a factor. He won't get away with simply saying it's settled law and moving on, without a lot of justification of his past cases that found exceptions to it.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=MTK;1196366]These are the games that are played when you steal a seat. It’s all for show, he’ll get through.[/quote]

I am just curious, how long will the stolen seat card be played. The seat that was stolen, and again I think Garland should have gotten a vote, was Scalia's. Scalia's, while stolen, was not really an expected seat to be released before Pres Obama's term ended. It was a tragedy that Antonia Scalia died when he did, and in the end, he was replaced by someone who likely votes along the same lines as he would have, as opposed to someone with diametrically opposed views.

So while it's a cute narrative about a stolen seat, how long and how much validity do you think it will carry going forward. Or is it just going to be an ongoing liberal thing?

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1196370]I am just curious, how long will the stolen seat card be played. The seat that was stolen, and again I think Garland should have gotten a vote, was Scalia's. Scalia's, while stolen, was not really an expected seat to be released before Pres Obama's term ended. It was a tragedy that Antonia Scalia died when he did, and in the end, he was replaced by someone who likely votes along the same lines as he would have, as opposed to someone with diametrically opposed views.

So while it's a cute narrative about a stolen seat, how long and how much validity do you think it will carry going forward. Or is it just going to be an ongoing liberal thing?[/quote]

Seriously?

Shoe on the other foot and the Dems pulled this stunt on a Republican President, how long would you keep going with this so called "cute narrative".

Stealing the seat that was 110% Obama's choice to make was pure garbage, and it should always be remembered that way.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=MTK;1196372]Seriously?

Shoe on the other foot and the Dems pulled this stunt on a Republican President, how long would you keep going with this so called "cute narrative".

Stealing the seat that was 110% Obama's choice to make was pure garbage, and it should always be remembered that way.[/quote]

I get that it will always be remembered as a stolen seat. High school history books will likely have a chapter on the Stolen seat. I agree it was a stolen seat.

But that does that make every seat from now on part of the "games that are played". Or just Trump's presidency? Or is it as long as McConnell is in the Senate? Or do you expect that at some point the Republican caucus will go, hey you got us, let's strip Gorsuch of his seat and give it to Garland.

Don't get me wrong, if the Dems take the senate, and the shoe [U]is[/U] on the other foot, you will not hear me complain, I promise, the Republicans made their bed. But right now, it's just a narrative that means nothing in terms of affecting Kavanaugh's path to confirmation.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

Right now I'd say it's still pretty fresh so the Dems aren't going to let it go, so the games continue. Will it ever end? I'm sure there will be a whole new ballgame to play after this one.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[QUOTE=MTK;1196374]Right now I'd say it's still pretty fresh so the Dems aren't going to let it go, so the games continue. Will it ever end? I'm sure there will be a whole new ballgame to play after this one.[/QUOTE]Would you agree that McConnell and the Republicans took a huge risk on the Garland nomination move and could easily have had HRC or Sanders making these appointments?

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[QUOTE=CRedskinsRule;1196375]Would you agree that McConnell and the Republicans took a huge risk on the Garland nomination move and could easily have had HRC or Sanders making these appointments?[/QUOTE]


They did, just as the Dems took a huge chance by assuming it would be HRC making the picks and not putting up a bigger fight over the block

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

Actually no one is talking the stolen seat right now. Channel 4 in DC just had a guy on and he brought up a good point about the Mueller investigation and how this pick had already said he believes a president can not be charged with a crime and that could very well be a factor pro or against him in the nominating process.



Seems the theory is picking up steam


[url]https://www.thedailybeast.com/joe-scarborough-make-no-mistake-trump-only-picked-brett-kavanaugh-to-protect-himself[/url]


Practically in the same breath Tuesday morning, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough both praised Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s “character” and argued that by choosing him to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, Donald Trump proved himself to be “the most self-serving” president of our time.

The Morning Joe host was referring to a 2009 article Kavanaugh wrote for the Minnesota Law Review that argued for Congress to pass a law exempting sitting presidents from “criminal prosecution and investigation.” As many observers have acknowledged, this position could have major implications on the outcome of the Russia investigation.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

The slime is coming to the top,as I said before the trump cult says fuck you America.


[url]https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/419defbc-6d37-38ac-a6f8-d8a010975fc6/ss_white-house-doesn%E2%80%99t-deny.html[/url]



During an CNN interview on Tuesday morning, White House deputy press secretary Raj Shah did not deny an NBC report that outgoing Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy “received assurances” from President Trump that if he retired, Judge Brett Kavanaugh — one of Kennedy’s former clerks — would be nominated to be his replacement.
Asked repeatedly if some sort of deal between Trump and Kennedy was struck before Kennedy announced his retirement, Shah dodged, saying things like “I’m not going to read out private conversations that Justice Kennedy had with either members of the White House or the president,” and, “Justice Kennedy can speak for himself.” But what Shah didn’t do is deny the NBC report


The theory seems to be picking up steam.............


[url]https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/0af2e765-ee63-3485-b424-875afa4b0ab1/ss_joe-scarborough%3A-%E2%80%98make-no.html[/url]

The Morning Joe host was referring to a 2009 article Kavanaugh wrote for the Minnesota Law Review that argued for Congress to pass a law exempting sitting presidents from “criminal prosecution and investigation.” As many observers have acknowledged, this position could have major implications on the outcome of the Russia investigation. Noting that Kavanaugh wrote the article “at the dawn of the Obama administration,”

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=Giantone;1196385]The slime is coming to the top,as I said before the trump cult says fuck you America.


[url]https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/419defbc-6d37-38ac-a6f8-d8a010975fc6/ss_white-house-doesn%E2%80%99t-deny.html[/url]



During an CNN interview on Tuesday morning, White House deputy press secretary Raj Shah did not deny an NBC report that outgoing Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy “received assurances” from President Trump that if he retired, Judge Brett Kavanaugh — one of Kennedy’s former clerks — would be nominated to be his replacement.
Asked repeatedly if some sort of deal between Trump and Kennedy was struck before Kennedy announced his retirement, Shah dodged, saying things like “I’m not going to read out private conversations that Justice Kennedy had with either members of the White House or the president,” and, “Justice Kennedy can speak for himself.” But what Shah didn’t do is deny the NBC report.[/quote]

How is it wrong for a sitting president to ask a resigning Justice who he would favor for his replacement?

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=MTK;1196379]They did, just as the Dems took a huge chance by assuming it would be HRC making the picks and not putting up a bigger fight over the block[/quote]

But the Republicans had to know the risk based on all the polling was much larger for them. In fact the Democrats probably loved the thought that HRC would put a replacement candidate up, and the Republicans would have no out on it.

Seems like the major risk was on the Republican side.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[QUOTE=CRedskinsRule;1196387]But the Republicans had to know the risk based on all the polling was much larger for them. In fact the Democrats probably loved the thought that HRC would put a replacement candidate up, and the Republicans would have no out on it.



Seems like the major risk was on the Republican side.[/QUOTE]



No doubt, the risk paid off, and the Dems slept on Trump and lost bigly

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1196386]How is it wrong for a sitting president to ask a resigning Justice who he would favor for his replacement?[/quote]

I respect you to much to believe you are as naive as you are pretending to be.Be respectful.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=Giantone;1196389]I respect you to much to believe you are as naive as you are pretending to be.Be respectful.[/quote]

G1 with so many conspiracy theories pushed by the mainstream several times a week, it’s easy to manipulate headlines to make up stories that simply aren’t there.

It’s been out of control of conspiracy theories with this Supreme Court event the last couple weeks...let’s be honest. And what is even more hilarious is people actually believe trump would have the capacity to mastermind it. Really folks?

I’m really surprised some buy into it...it’s on the same level as birther conspiracies.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[QUOTE=Chico23231;1196391]G1 with so many conspiracy theories pushed by the mainstream several times a week, it’s easy to manipulate headlines to make up stories that simply aren’t there.

It’s been out of control of conspiracy theories with this Supreme Court event the last couple weeks...let’s be honest. And what is even more hilarious is people actually believe trump would have the capacity to mastermind it. Really folks?

I’m really surprised some buy into it...it’s on the same level as birther conspiracies.[/QUOTE]I really am lost on this one. What is Trump supposedly masterminding by allowing a retiring justice have a say in his replacement.

I would get it if there was an implication Trump forced Kennedy to resign. But everything I see seems to go to Kennedy forcing Trump to nominate Kavanaugh, and Kennedy's son loaning money to Trump. Unless the claim is that justice Kennedy is a dirty judge or that Kennedy is trying to protwct his son, thats all bass ackwards of Trump masterminding some dasterdly plot.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=Chico23231;1196391]G1 with so many conspiracy theories pushed by the mainstream several times a week, it’s easy to manipulate headlines to make up stories that simply aren’t there.

It’s been out of control of conspiracy theories with this Supreme Court event the last couple weeks...let’s be honest. And what is even more hilarious is people actually believe trump would have the capacity to mastermind it. Really folks?

I’m really surprised some buy into it...it’s on the same level as birther conspiracies.[/quote]

Then you haven't payed attention to your tangerine president.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1196392]I really am lost on this one. What is Trump supposedly masterminding by allowing a retiring justice have a say in his replacement.

I would get it if there was an implication Trump forced Kennedy to resign. But everything I see seems to go to Kennedy forcing Trump to nominate Kavanaugh, and Kennedy's son loaning money to Trump. Unless the claim is that justice Kennedy is a dirty judge or that Kennedy is trying to protwct his son, thats all bass ackwards of Trump masterminding some dasterdly plot.[/quote]

Trump never forced to Kennedy to resign, there was never a back room deal for Kennedy to pick his replacement, no Kennedy son and cash payment/loan has nothing to do with anything and no there isn’t any dark money involved in the process.

All conspiracy theories pushed by mainstream media sources this past 10 days that people somehow continue to buy into.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=Chico23231;1196399]Trump never forced to Kennedy to resign, there was never a back room deal for Kennedy to pick his replacement, no Kennedy son and cash payment has nothing to do with anything and no there isn’t any dark money involved in the process.

All conspiracy theories pushed by mainstream media sources this past 10 days that people somehow continue to buy into.[/quote]
Look who is in denial right now?! #triggered

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=Giantone;1196400]Look who is in denial right now?! #triggered[/quote]

Im not mad about it...but it just continues to prove that major news sources continue to develop false narratives that now are moving into conspiracy theory zone. I never thought Huff Post/Politico/Yahoo new was "Infowars" territory but they certainly have changed my mind this week. They are certainly on the same level now.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=Chico23231;1196404]Im not mad about it...but it just continues to prove that major news sources continue to develop false narratives that now are moving into conspiracy theory zone. I never thought Huff Post/Politico/Yahoo new was "Infowars" territory but they certainly have changed my mind this week. They are certainly on the same level now.[/quote]



LOL, sure you're not. That's why all of a sudden "news source's " you respected are now crap becuase they don't fit your narrative ,don't look now but that is a trump cult thing to do .