RIP RBG and welcome Merrick Garland as Joe Biden’s SCOTUS nominee.

I'm sure the republicans will follow the Biden rule. Just like they did last time.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:My suspicion is that the GOP will pretend as if they care about the democracy in an attempt to hold on to the Senate majority in November and hold off on the process.

if they hold their majority, they'll continue with dismantling the democracy as usual.. if they lose their majority in November, they'll ram some misogynistic white supremacist through by years end.

They'll use this to drive their immoral, anti-traditional American values base to the polls.

By my nature, I'm an optimist.. this is probably the best case scenario.

Sounds about right

The Pantry wrote:Pretty funny how righteous all you Dems have become over the last few months. It's as if all of your party has suddenly started pooping roses.

Do you think Obama should have been allowed to nominate and have a vote for his own justice in February of 2016?

Can we get Goose back here to see how many godly and gloriously delivered babies he plans on adopting?

I sure hope supply meets demand.

kingstonlake wrote:Can we get Goose back here to see how many godly and gloriously delivered babies he plans on adopting?

I sure hope supply meets demand.

poor 'ol Guest.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:My suspicion is that the GOP will pretend as if they care about the democracy in an attempt to hold on to the Senate majority in November and hold off on the process.

if they hold their majority, they'll continue with dismantling the democracy as usual.. if they lose their majority in November, they'll ram some misogynistic white supremacist through by years end.

They'll use this to drive their immoral, anti-traditional American values base to the polls.

By my nature, I'm an optimist.. this is probably the best case scenario.

I don’t know if that would work for them though. Who exactly is the voter out there is the conservative that cares about how a Supreme Court seat gets filled, while simultaneously was a threat to not vote for them already?

I guess there’s probably someone, somewhere, that fits that mold. But I don’t think it’s very many.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:My suspicion is that the GOP will pretend as if they care about the democracy in an attempt to hold on to the Senate majority in November and hold off on the process.

if they hold their majority, they'll continue with dismantling the democracy as usual.. if they lose their majority in November, they'll ram some misogynistic white supremacist through by years end.

They'll use this to drive their immoral, anti-traditional American values base to the polls.

By my nature, I'm an optimist.. this is probably the best case scenario.

I don’t know if that would work for them though. Who exactly is the voter out there is the conservative that cares about how a Supreme Court seat gets filled, while simultaneously was a threat to not vote for them already?

I guess there’s probably someone, somewhere, that fits that mold. But I don’t think it’s very many.

I was simply thinking that with Democrat enthusiasm at what seems to be an all-time high, the GOP could hold this over their lukewarm more moderate constituents (not the hate-filled, racist misogynistic immoral base) as their last opportunity to save the (white) republic.

Yeah I guess there are some of those Republican biden people that we stupidly seem to want to rely on that could be swayed by this

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:My suspicion is that the GOP will pretend as if they care about the democracy in an attempt to hold on to the Senate majority in November and hold off on the process.

if they hold their majority, they'll continue with dismantling the democracy as usual.. if they lose their majority in November, they'll ram some misogynistic white supremacist through by years end.

They'll use this to drive their immoral, anti-traditional American values base to the polls.

By my nature, I'm an optimist.. this is probably the best case scenario.

I don’t know if that would work for them though. Who exactly is the voter out there is the conservative that cares about how a Supreme Court seat gets filled, while simultaneously was a threat to not vote for them already?

I guess there’s probably someone, somewhere, that fits that mold. But I don’t think it’s very many.

I agree. And also, if they're going to push something through before January, then it won't be an election issue. In fact, it could work against turnout among any conservatives that are so hung up on the SC, as they already have a 6-3 edge.

I'd be surprised if they force this through before Election Day. It would be a gift to the Democrat challengers in Maine, South Carolina, North Carolina, Arizona, Colorado, etc.

Then if they still lose their majority on November 3rd after holding off, confirmation hearings will start almost immediately.

Can't help but to think of all the liberal purists that just couldn't vote for Hillary Clinton or the ones that can't vote for Biden. Gotta remember elections have very real consequences and sometimes you gotta go on defense and stop the nut bags that are going to do long lasting damage to our country.

ACA is probably toast?

[tw]1307194955459375109?s=21[/tw]

Hot take....

You’re gonna see senate polls start showing vulnerable R’s closing the gap.

Lindsay Graham being his usual cocksucking self

[tw]1307340885273739275?s=21[/tw]

47 months ago I warned folks, some posters on this board that as much as you abhorred voting for Hillary Clinton the possibility of a Trump win followed by signing off on every Federal Judgeship including SCOTUS McConnell sent to him was going to send this country back to the early 1900’s politically regarding healthcare, Social Security, Medicare, worker protections and civil rights.

The floodgates were opened with Justice Kennedy’s retirement and McConnell going on a tear having Trump appoint 216 Federal Judges and possibly 14 more before November 3rd.

Don’t stay home or play high and mighty. Not voting for Clinton in 2016 has screwed over millions and if Trump is re-elected I fully expect him to purposely bankrupt Social Security and Medicare so he can hand the financial markets and Big Pharma Trillions in the next decade.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I'd be surprised if they force this through before Election Day. It would be a gift to the Democrat challengers in Maine, South Carolina, North Carolina, Arizona, Colorado, etc.

Then if they still lose their majority on November 3rd after holding off, confirmation hearings will start almost immediately.

McConnell is willing to play the long game meaning he measures his effectiveness on the long term effects of his power. Regardless of Nov 3rd election outcomes McConnell will put the SCOTUS nominee on the fast track and ram thru confirmation before Christmas.

My wife said last night that Trump might hold the nomination until after the election so that he can use it as leverage. Over who I don’t know since he already has the voters that it would matter to, but anyway today Politico published a story saying the same thing.

If he nominates Ted Cruz or another senator (weren't there one or two others on his list?), does Cruz still get a vote?

Whatever’s going on I guarantee you the GOP has their bases and scenarios covered six way to Sunday. The DNC has some very strong objections. People like Pelosi and Schumer will announce their objections while standing behind a podium. If they’re feeling really saucy they might send out a tweet or do a couple Sunday morning news shows.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I'd be surprised if they force this through before Election Day. It would be a gift to the Democrat challengers in Maine, South Carolina, North Carolina, Arizona, Colorado, etc.

Then if they still lose their majority on November 3rd after holding off, confirmation hearings will start almost immediately.

I saw a post last night on Twitter that if Kelly wins AZ, he gets sworn in immediately since he's replacing an appointment. Could help if hearings start right after the election, if true.

steveschneider wrote:ACA is probably toast?

[tw]1307194955459375109?s=21[/tw]

Don't worry, Trump has a big beautiful plan to replace it (with nothing).

Rocinante wrote:My wife said last night that Trump might hold the nomination until after the election so that he can use it as leverage.  

She's a brilliant lady.

the GOP could hold this over their lukewarm more moderate constituents

LOL, Collins in a transparent last ditch effort to save her campaign.

Mind you not saying outright she will not confirm the nominee.....

kingstonlake wrote:LOL, Collins in a transparent last ditch effort to save her campaign.

Mind you not saying outright she will not confirm the nominee.....

they're gonna all posture and position themselves. They won't have a full Senate vote before election day.

They don't want/need to remind America of the contempt they have for the country.

kingstonlake wrote:LOL, Collins in a transparent last ditch effort to save her campaign.

Mind you not saying outright she will not confirm the nominee.....

Such a fraud phrase she used. They shouldn't vote before in no way means she won't fall in line.

Prediction Trump will appoint a judge and the senate will confirm the judge. Second prediction all this talk about expanding the court will never come to fruition.

Dems will get steamrolled and my advice is win more elections.

Interesting thought. Governmental scholars of the Swill, does this idea appear to have merit?

https://sirota.substack.com/p/primary-schumer-to-guarantee-opposition

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:Interesting thought. Governmental scholars of the Swill, does this idea appear to have merit?

https://sirota.substack.com/p/primary-schumer-to-guarantee-opposition

Umm, no. At least I don't think, if I'm understanding that article. It's a bit of a meandering rant at times (not that I'm one to talk). But it seems that his logic about Shumur being able to hold it up is based on purely unanimous consent. But he didn't bother to google it. From senate.gov:

"unanimous consent - A senator may request unanimous consent on the floor to set aside a specified rule of procedure so as to expedite proceedings. If no Senator objects, the Senate permits the action, but if any one senator objects, the request is rejected. Unanimous consent requests with only immediate effects are routinely granted, but ones affecting the floor schedule, the conditions of considering a bill or other business, or the rights of other senators, are normally not offered, or a floor leader will object to it, until all senators concerned have had an opportunity to inform the leaders that they find it acceptable."

It isn't a rule. It isn't even all that much of an unofficial understanding (as if that would matter). So basically all it takes is one Senator to object to unanimous consent, and it doesn't happen.

It is also worth pointing out that, IIRC, the House Republicans wanted unanimous consent about moving forward with the impeachment hearings and didn't get it, so I doubt the House Republicans will grant it now.

Speaking of things that will never happen because everything is too polarized, here's a crazy idea (sorry if it has been discussed).

Let's have an agreement (again, yeah right!) that Trump gets to pick the nominee, they can do the back ground checks, etc.....but confirmation hearings don't start until January.

If the Republicans have a majority, they get to approve the person. If the Democrats have control, they can hear the person out, go through the hearings, and vote on merit (not just an automatic No).

Seems like a compromise....which is why it won't happen.

They will put someone semi-reasonable (like an actual judge) up pre-election. If they win they will continue, if they lose control they will pull that nom and ram through some dickhead like ted cruz.

Read some article about the house starting impeachment hearings against Barr it Trump? Does that halt the senates everyday duties?

There was also something about stacking the court if/when they eventually get back the senate... Change the supreme court to 20 judges and appoint all libs.

They already smashed all assemblage of normalcy and made the court based on hypocrisy... Minuswell fuck the whole thing up.

FDR tried it. Didn’t work

InTenSity wrote:

DWags wrote:FDR tried it.   Didn’t work

I'm not a historian, but also back then there was a lot more compromise. I'm guessing that the Democrats maybe didn't have teh same reason they would have today. Republican's aren't going to play fair or by the same set of rules, so fuck em. If the American People vote and decide to put in Democrats over evil, morally empty republican's, than so be it. And before anyone gets their panties in a bunch that I said that, our president is calling all Democrats socialist, anarchists who don't support the rule of law and are full of looters and rioters. So if the president can group a bunch of people together falsely, it is fair game.

Not only are they morally bankrupt and evil, but republicans are a very fragile bunch.

Word is that the racist bigoted christian sexual predator is like to nominate a woman.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

InTenSity wrote:
I'm not a historian, but also back then there was a lot more compromise. I'm guessing that the Democrats maybe didn't have teh same reason they would have today. Republican's aren't going to play fair or by the same set of rules, so fuck em. If the American People vote and decide to put in Democrats over evil, morally empty republican's, than so be it. And before anyone gets their panties in a bunch that I said that, our president is calling all Democrats socialist, anarchists who don't support the rule of law and are full of looters and rioters. So if the president can group a bunch of people together falsely, it is fair game.

Not only are they morally bankrupt and evil, but republicans are a very fragile bunch.

Word is that the racist bigoted christian sexual predator is like to nominate a woman.

Let me guess. She’s white?

kingstonlake wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
Not only are they morally bankrupt and evil, but republicans are a very fragile bunch.

Word is that the racist bigoted christian sexual predator is like to nominate a woman.

Let me guess. She’s white?

who probably enjoys being grabbed by the pussy by a fellow christian.