Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Replaced by Amy Coney Barrett)(Now Abortion Discussion) (1 Viewer)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    superchuck500 said:
    I suppose the timeline is short, but they’re going to try their arse off.
    Click to expand...
    My rather limited knowledge opinion: They will not try. Too many incumbent Republican Senators are in tight battles and will express their desire not to see this fight come up and may even tell Mitch they want to be out in front with the opinion that the vote should occur after the new Senate convenes.
     
    JimEverett said:
    My rather limited knowledge opinion: They will not try. Too many incumbent Republican Senators are in tight battles and will express their desire not to see this fight come up and may even tell Mitch they want to be out in front with the opinion that the vote should occur after the new Senate convenes.
    Click to expand...
    No chance. This is the appointment that solidifies the conservative court for a generation.
     
    JimEverett said:
    My rather limited knowledge opinion: They will not try. Too many incumbent Republican Senators are in tight battles and will express their desire not to see this fight come up and may even tell Mitch they want to be out in front with the opinion that the vote should occur after the new Senate convenes.
    Click to expand...
    Agree. Trump supporter are reveling in her death and begging for it to happen. Less than 60 days to vet a justice would drive out every Dem to vote.
     
    B4YOU said:
    Agree. Trump supporter are reveling in her death and begging for it to happen. Less than 60 days to vet a justice would drive out every Dem to vote.
    Click to expand...

    Just trying to think it through:
    Odds are Collins and Murkowski are going to say delay.

    That gives Republicans 2 vote lead (with Pence as the tiebreaker).
    I think Gardner is likely to say wait till after new Senate and want to broadcast that as a campaign point. Should know pretty soon on that.
    What are the dynamics in Iowa with Ernst and in Arizona with McSally? In some ways - McSally being down so much might make her go with a vote, but not sure. Have no idea about Iowa. What about North Carolina? Tillis is in trouble. Again - is the SCOTUS nominee a hail mary for him or does he feel it would push up Democratic enthusiasm?

    And you have such a razor thin shot - how likely will the entire caucus (minus Murkowski and Collins) get on board? I guess I am not familiar enough with every Republican Senator to even hazard a guess, but I mean it seems more than possible someone has an objection.
     
    A sad day. Such a giant of a woman in such a tiny body. The passing of great Americans like her should transcend partisanship as we all recognize the contributions she made as a staunch defender of women’s rights. Her interviews with Scalia were something to see. As much as I disagreed with her position on some decisions, I respected her intellect and she will be missed on the Court.

    While she and I did not have any one on one conversations, I met her in 1980 when she came to my now ex-sister-in-law’s birthday party. My ex-brother-in-law clerked for her when she was on the DC appeals court bench. I had no idea who she was at the time; she was just one of 15-20 other lawyers and judges in the room. Nice lady.
     
    B4YOU said:
    If Dems win the presidency and senate, then the SC goes to 11. There’s no way after Garland and RBG get replaced with Republican picks that Dems don’t take that action if they can.
    Click to expand...

    That's just dumb. If R's get if back and odds are at some point they will then they'll just raise it again.
     
    BobE said:
    That's just dumb. If R's get if back and odds are at some point they will then they'll just raise it again.
    Click to expand...
    What alternative do D’s have? If Republicans had simply given Obama his appointment, there would be no issues here. It would, and should be Trump’s appointment to make. But Republicans set this precedent. If they go full, blatant hypocrite and try to make this appointment, Dems have to do something. They can’t just roll over and take it on two justices.
     
    B4YOU said:
    Dumb was blocking Garland. That action plus a nomination prior to the election would justify it.
    Click to expand...
    brandon said:
    What alternative do D’s have? If Republicans had simply given Obama his appointment, there would be no issues here. It would, and should be Trump’s appointment to make. But Republicans set this precedent. If they go full, blatant hypocrite and try to make this appointment, Dems have to do something. They can’t just roll over and take it on two justices.
    Click to expand...

    Then Rs win and make it 13. Ds win make it 15. Rs win make it 17. On and on. Hell maybe us 3 will be on the bench when it gets big enough. It's dumb. I also think the Garland fiasco was dumb.
     
    JimEverett said:
    My rather limited knowledge opinion: They will not try. Too many incumbent Republican Senators are in tight battles and will express their desire not to see this fight come up and may even tell Mitch they want to be out in front with the opinion that the vote should occur after the new Senate convenes.
    Click to expand...

    you would think that. But. *gestures wildly around*
     
    Garland was dirty pool, and if they do it again now, the Dems have to respond.

    There’s one. Question is, after everything we’ve seen, are there three more with a spine? I doubt it.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom