Scotus

[Aglaopheme]

Why is that?


Also 'stick it to the left' because those who are absolutely against individual liberty in favor of collective authority, especially in direct defiance of the Bill of Rights....shouldn't be calling themselves liberals.

There is little to nothing liberal about the "libs" anymore.....because they are leftist, not liberals.

You did not make multiple selections an options.

The bottom three options are correct, yes Trump should, it would be precedence (for when a party controls the White house and the Senate) and it would be delightful to stick it to the "libs"<sic> (who are manifestly illiberal) because they are still whinging about Garland who was never going to be confirmed, election year or not.

Ideally Amy Comey Barrett for the Notorious RBG, who was actually a good Justice even if I don't agree with her point of view.

I’m old enough to remember when Republicans tossed the label liberal around like a dirty word. Ya’ll make Lindsey proud.

Furthermore, “stick it to the libs” is not a phrase coined by Democrats, but thanks for playing.

 

[FlowersForFun]

People in general are lazy. They default to the "easy" way of getting by. Which is why they like handouts because they don't have to work for them.

Socialism appeals to them because it's "easy". At least that's how it's billed.

Which to me is backwards.

Shit if you were lazy you would think everyone being allowed to have their own hustle would be the priority!

But no.....they gotta do it the hard way, like lazy people always do.

It's like messy vs. neat people. The neat people are actually the lazy ones.

Being messy/unorganized/unsystematic is HARD, that's why people like that never get shit done.

Anyone care to guess what happens when a socialist state determines that there aren't enough earners?

The communist utopia is REALIZED comrade!

Actual slave labor is probably a good deal in comparison to what happens then.

RACIST!!!! WHITE NATIONALIST!!!! LIAR!!!
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!
https://thecromerreader.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Dark-Age-of-Denouncement-2.jpg

 

[Aglaopheme]

It's such a crapshoot, honestly. Can't say I'm displeased with the recent rulings that have been made even if I'm not necessarily a fan of the individuals.

Whoever is appointed, by whomever, I'd just like them to be sane. I can't believe that's my baseline at this point.

I agree with that first bit. The conscience of nation is shifting, as it does, and I believe the recent rulings are a reflection of that.

That is a low bar, for sure. Given the recent rulings, of Trump had the chance to make a nomination would he put up an absolute fanatic?

 

[Rightguide]

So, we can all agree if a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court the nomination should come from the next administration, correct?

No, the next justice should and will be chosen by the current President at the time of her retirement.

 

[Rightguide]

I agree with that first bit. The conscience of nation is shifting, as it does, and I believe the recent rulings are a reflection of that.

That is a low bar, for sure. Given the recent rulings, of Trump had the chance to make a nomination would he put up an absolute fanatic?

He will appoint a judge that will enforce the Constitution and not a legislator in a black robe.

 

[Aglaopheme]

There's a fairly long tradition of justices not timing their retirements for an election year, because it would look unavoidably political (Thurgood Marshall is the last justice to even retire in the third year of a presidential term, and he definitely would have preferred not to give Bush the chance to name his replacement, but he couldn't go on any longer). Earl Warren called it quits in 1968 because he was worried Nixon would pick his successor, and his proposed replacement was filibustered as a response.

That has mostly dissuaded anyone else from trying it, but the filibuster is gone now, so I'm not convinced Thomas, Alito, or both won't pull off the ultra-weaselly move given the unlikelihood Trump will be around after January. There would be nothing but shame to stop Trump and McConnell from even doing it in a lame duck session, and both are shameless. The Dems could promise to retaliate, but they aren't very good at that traditionally.

As far as a vacancy due to someone's death, those used to be filled by the incumbent president without question regardless of when the death occurred, but I'm certainly not going to endorse one set of rules for Obama and another for Trump.

So yes: next administration.

I had to read up on Warren. Interesting stuff.

I agree that they are shameless, so nothing is off the table. I suspect if Trump is defeated, they will go to great lengths to do as much as is humanly possible to push their agenda on their way out the door.

 

[Adre]

He will appoint a judge that will enforce the Constitution and not a legislator in a black robe.

Or at least your interpretation of it.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Even John Revolta will wait weeks or months to begin the search for a new breast cancer beard.

This OP can't even show the courtesy of waiting for Ruth to die.

Rape boi by any other name is still rape boi.

*waves*

 

[Aglaopheme]

He will appoint a judge that will enforce the Constitution and not a legislator in a black robe.

Which of the current Justices are which?

 

[FlowersForFun]

I’m old enough to remember when Republicans tossed the label liberal around like a dirty word. Ya’ll make Lindsey proud.

Back when drugs, sex, Eminem, Marilyn Manson and naughty video games were the nations biggest threats?

Back when "libs" used to actually support liberalism...like free speech and equality or "alt-Reich hellscape of systemic, institutional and personal Nazism inherent to whiteness" by 2020 standards.

Yea...I'd like to go back to fighting for legal drugs and blow jobs instead of trying to figure out how to take my party (D'eez) back from the authoritarian ethno-socialist whack jobs.

Furthermore, “stick it to the libs” is not a phrase coined by Democrats, but thanks for playing.

NEVER said it was, you're welcome!!!

What I am saying is that it's being incorrectly used by leftist currently as they try to hide behind the false nomenclature of "liberal" or "libs".

The progressive left is overwhelmingly authoritarian in their politics, many of their organizations and groups have gotten downright terroristic lately.

There is nothing liberal about the (D)'s or the leftist they currently represent.

 

[Wrong Element]

There's a school of thought that if a vacancy opens up prior to the election, the GOP will actually not move to fill it right away, as incentive to get their people to the polls (as the existence of Jill Stein proves, it's pretty obvious by now that conservatives take court appointments into effect on Election Day more often than lefties do). If things don't go well in the election, they can always use the lame duck session.

Just some friendly advice: relying on the courts to enforce your policy preferences, as opposed to winning electoral majorities for them, is a delaying action only.

 

[Aglaopheme]

This election isn't a presidential election.

The dems are certain to bring Garland up. They'd have a stronger case if this were a presidential election year. But it isn't, so they don't have the case

It's been almost 80 years since a SCOTUS nominee has been nominated and confirmed in an election year. I know the truth is hard to take, and with Democrat hypocrites like Schumer vowing in 2007 not to confirm any Bush SCOTUS nominee with 18 months left in his term, the stage will be set for another 80 years of the same. Your crap filled talking point notwithstanding.

No, the next justice should and will be chosen by the current President at the time of her retirement.

Sure...

 

[Aglaopheme]

Back when drugs, sex, Eminem, Marilyn Manson and naughty video games were the nations biggest threats?

Back when "libs" used to actually support liberalism...like free speech and equality or "alt-Reich hellscape of systemic, institutional and personal Nazism inherent to whiteness" by 2020 standards.

Yea...I'd like to go back to fighting for legal drugs and blow jobs instead of trying to figure out how to take my party (D'eez) back from the authoritarian ethno-socialist whack jobs.



NEVER said it was, you're welcome!!!

What I am saying is that it's being incorrectly used by leftist currently as they try to hide behind the false nomenclature of "liberal" or "libs".

The progressive left is overwhelmingly authoritarian in their politics, many of their organizations and groups have gotten downright terroristic lately.

There is nothing liberal about the (D)'s or the leftist they currently represent.

You’ve changed the labels, but the game remains the same.
That last bit was for Que, not you.

 

[Aglaopheme]

There's a school of thought that if a vacancy opens up prior to the election, the GOP will actually not move to fill it right away, as incentive to get their people to the polls (as the existence of Jill Stein proves, it's pretty obvious by now that conservatives take court appointments into effect on Election Day more often than lefties do). If things don't go well in the election, they can always use the lame duck session.

Just some friendly advice: relying on the courts to enforce your policy preferences, as opposed to winning electoral majorities for them, is a delaying action only.

This is so true. I was chanting SCOTUS to voters in 2015 nonstop, and I really don’t think it hit home. Republicans used to be better at messaging, and we’ll see how this cycle goes, but they are still better at playing the long game.

 

[KeithD]

it wasnt!

I'm not surprised that you would seriously propose it.

 

[FlowersForFun]

You’ve changed the labels, but the game remains the same.
That last bit was for Que, not you.

So why quote me if you're talking to Que?

Never mind...IDC, if you want to pretend you're a liberal go right ahead, you've already ruined the term anyhow.

 

[adrina]

To be clear, I took "follow precedence" as the one that Mr McConnell set with the last election cycle.

Of course McConnell has already admitted - and gleefully so - that what is good for the goose is indeed not good for the gander.

 

[HisArpy]

There's a school of thought that if a vacancy opens up prior to the election, the GOP will actually not move to fill it right away, as incentive to get their people to the polls (as the existence of Jill Stein proves, it's pretty obvious by now that conservatives take court appointments into effect on Election Day more often than lefties do). If things don't go well in the election, they can always use the lame duck session.

Just some friendly advice: relying on the courts to enforce your policy preferences, as opposed to winning electoral majorities for them, is a delaying action only.

There's not enough time left under this term to nominate anyone and get them confirmed. No matter what happens, if an appointment is to be made it will be made after the election.

 

[Wrong Element]

There's not enough time left under this term to nominate anyone and get them confirmed. No matter what happens, if an appointment is to be made it will be made after the election.

Oh, I think they would find a way to squeeze it in, especially if Trump appears to be a goner. Late September/early October is the most common time for justices to be confirmed, even in an election year (though my initial belief that Thomas and/or Alito might retire is looking less likely, as the last opinions were released 6 days ago, and this term ended later than most).

Roberts was confirmed later in the same month that Rehnquist died. Time was of the essence because a new term was about to commence, but that shows it can be done quickly it need be.

 

[Rightguide]

Which of the current Justices are which?

John Roberts and the four liberals.

 

[Aglaopheme]

According to the Congressional Research Service, the average number of days from nomination to final Senate vote since 1975 is 67 days (2.2 months), while the median is 71 days (or 2.3 months)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/App...preme_Court_of_the_United_States#Confirmation

 

[Aglaopheme]

So why quote me if you're talking to Que?

Never mind...IDC, if you want to pretend you're a liberal go right ahead, you've already ruined the term anyhow.

I quoted both of you.

 

[SpeareChucker]

So, you’re going with stick it to the libs. Got it.




Sorry, you’re only allowed to vote once.

Cue up some White Zombie...

More stupid than stupid
More stupid than stupid
More stupid than stupid
More stupid than stupid
.
.
.

 

[HisArpy]

Oh, I think they would find a way to squeeze it in, especially if Trump appears to be a goner. Late September/early October is the most common time for justices to be confirmed, even in an election year (though my initial belief that Thomas and/or Alito might retire is looking less likely, as the last opinions were released 6 days ago, and this term ended later than most).

Roberts was confirmed later in the same month that Rehnquist died. Time was of the essence because a new term was about to commence, but that shows it can be done quickly it need be.

From what I understand, Robert's was originally nominated to replace O'Conner when she retired. When Reinquist died, Bush withdrew his name as a nominee for Supreme Court Justice and, again from what I understand, because Congress was out of session at the time, Bush II appointed him as Chief Justice without a confirmation hearing.

I want to call it an Interim Appointment but that's not what it's called. Sorry, I'm mentally exhausted from writing and can't think of the correct term.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Cue up some White Zombie...

More stupid than stupid
More stupid than stupid
More stupid than stupid
More stupid than stupid
.
.
.

Someone is lashing out. There, there...it’ll be okay, fella.