Should the winner of the election make the next supreme court pick?

[adrina]

GOP in 2016:

"The American people should have a voice."

"We are changing the rules, we are setting a new precedent, during an election year the American people should and will have a voice."


GOP in 2020:

“President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

 

[Ziggins]

Any election result will probably get a court challenge. A 4-4 tie would reach a new level of fuckup.

 

[FescueFan]

GOP in 2016:

"The American people should have a voice."

"We are changing the rules, we are setting a new precedent, during an election year the American people should and will have a voice."


GOP in 2020:

“President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

For this election? There needs to be an odd number of justices....

As already pointed out a tied court in such a hotly contested election is not a good thing.

Also, privilege of the senate....tough tits.

 

[coati]

A court tied during a hotly contested election is a very good thing-- say hello to America's first female President.

President Pelosi will hold down the fort until the election issues are duly resolved. And, she can depend on the newly elected Senate to fill that pesky vacancy on the Supreme Court with her nominee.

 

[FescueFan]

A court tied during a hotly contested election is a very good thing-- say hello to America's first female President.

President Pelosi will hold down the fort until the election issues are duly resolved. And, she can depend on the newly elected Senate to fill that pesky vacancy on the Supreme Court with her nominee.

Pelosi is one of the most VILE elitist DC has seen since Clinton.

She would be a terrible POTUS and appoint an anti-American justice no doubt.-

Which is why they must appoint a new justice IMMIDIATELY

 

[Fuzzy1975]

A court tied during a hotly contested election is a very good thing-- say hello to America's first female President.

President Pelosi will hold down the fort until the election issues are duly resolved. And, she can depend on the newly elected Senate to fill that pesky vacancy on the Supreme Court with her nominee.

Actually it is not for sure to be Pelosi, since she is up for election.

 

[coati]

Actually it is not for sure to be Pelosi, since she is up for election.

OK, how about President AOC?

She or another Squad member would make BoBo happy as Speaker of the House.

If we don't have an elected President by inauguration day, the Speaker takes over!

 

[Comshaw]

OK, how about President AOC?

She or another Squad member would make BoBo happy as Speaker of the House.

If we don't have an elected President by inauguration day, the Speaker takes over!

WTF's wrong with you? Trying to give our ultra-conservative right-wing bretheran apoplexy? Speaker AOC indeed!!!


Comshaw

 

[butters]

i voted 'yes'

this close to an election, there will always be controversy. and the republicans should reap what they sowed when they made it the new norm to not vote on nominees till after an election in an election year.

whoever wins the election this time should be the one to nominate rbg's replacement, the will of the people and all that. it'd be one less distraction from the real issues facing the populace: a pandemic, lack of leadership, an ailing economy, racism, police brutality, poor education, the needed reforms for those and the healthcare system. no 'side' should be able to pack a court with a person whose loyalties (and self-interest) reside wholly with a current president; their loyalty should be to upholding justice and creating a more fair/equal society... their loyalty should be to the people of america, not to whomever holds the postion of president.

ANY side talking about 'packing the court' sows mistrust for me in the system

 

[butters]

WTF's wrong with you? Trying to give our ultra-conservative right-wing bretheran apoplexy? Speaker AOC indeed!!!


Comshaw

you say that like it's a bad thing

 

[Lazaran]

.

A O C!!! A O C!!!