I can't get enough of watching thse peaceful protests

SCOTUS battle prompts threats, calls for arson: 'Burn Congress down'
'If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire f-----g thing down

A member of Wisconsin's ethics commission, Scott Ross, ordered Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., to "burn it all down" if he couldn't stop McConnell. "F-----g A, Ed. If you can't shut it down, burn it down," he said.

Other tweets didn't contain violent threats but indicated opponents wouldn't take Ginsburg's replacement lying down.

"If McConnell jams someone through, which he will, there will be riots," warned GQ writer Laura Bassett.

Jams it thru?

Trump makes the nomination. The Senate confirms or rejects it. If the dems don't like the pick they can do whatever is in their legal bag to stop it. Fortunately for the GOP, Dirty Harry Reid changed the rules to a simple majority despite the right warning him it would come back to bite him. If it happens, the left has nobody to blame but themselves. The left will bring up Garland, which the right was able to block legally based on votes and procedures. They are free to attempt to do the same.

IMO it is Trumps job and obligation to put forth a viable nominee as soon as possible. That is his responsibility, and one he keeps until at least Jan 20 of 2021. Just because there is an upcoming election does not mean he does nothing for the last 6 months. He is still working Covid, trade, peace, the economy, etc.....those are all part of the job, just like filling an opening in the SCOTUS

People elected Trump and the GOP Senate in many instances for this very situation, those voters wouldn’t be happy if they abdicated the opportunity to add another possible Constitutional conservative to the court. I have high hopes that this justice will be extremely supportive of the 2A.

You may be right.

But a couple of republican senators have already stated they will not support it. And at least one or two others will follow suit. While many others have their political necks on the line in need of bipartisan votes and have a hard decision to make.

And they realize that if they lose both the majority in the senate and the White House, it's all for naught anyway. Whether we like it or not, all options have been put on the table to balance the court including changing it's basic look and impeachment.
Many will have to weigh the short and long term effects of such a vote.

While it appears favorable for conservatives, it also supplies a huge amount of ammunition in the form of documented
and outright lies to the American people in 2016.
The irony is, those (read below) were probably unnecessary lies. Lies that likely do not have universal support within the republican party..although I sometimes wonder if the Ninth has been removed from ultra conservative list of commandments..

Lindsey Graham..
"I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say, 'Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination."

I've pretty much said all I want to say on this matter, and the upcoming elections.
My current feelings are that God will set things in the way that suits Him, as we are quickly approaching Christs victorious return.

That leaves me excited for all of us going forward, and this secular stuff means less and less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

You may be right.

But a couple of republican senators have already stated they will not support it. And at least one or two others will follow suit. While many others have their political necks on the line in need of bipartisan votes and have a hard decision to make.

And they realize that if they lose both the majority in the senate and the White House, it's all for naught anyway. Whether we like it or not, all options have been put on the table to balance the court including changing it's basic look and impeachment.
Many will have to weigh the short and long term effects of such a vote.

While it appears favorable for conservatives, it also supplies a huge amount of ammunition in the form of documented
and outright lies to the American people in 2016.
The irony is, those (read below) were probably unnecessary lies. Lies that likely do not have universal support within the republican party..although I sometimes wonder if the Ninth has been removed from ultra conservative list of commandments..

Lindsey Graham..
"I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say, 'Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination."

---

It doesn’t matter who said what when. It doesn’t matter that McConnell in 2016 rationalized blocking Garland by claiming that the issue of replacing Scalia should be settled by the imminent presidential election. It doesn’t matter that Democrats demanded that Garland get a vote. It doesn’t matter that Joe Biden, when he was Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, said he would not consider any Supreme Court nomination made by President George H. W. Bush in the presidential-election year of 1992 but then in 2016, as Obama’s vice president, inveighed against the Senate for refusing to consider Garland’s nomination. It doesn’t matter that Obama nominated Garland before the last election but now says Trump must not try to replace Ginsburg before the coming election.

You surely see the difference in the 2 scenarios.

Over a year before the 2016 election that one was Dan.

But thirty years can make a younger man admit his mistakes. And even I thought Milli Vanilli were legit, and the republican party defended truth and integrity in government. I was proven wrong and changed my mind a couple of years later.

This quote is however current (and was actually suggested to be brought up if the current situation arose), leaving us quickly aging dudes to decide if speaking the truth and following one's own measure of what's right, really matters.

Love ya' partner, but sadly, you and I both know that even we've never been above giving it a pass, only when it suits us. But how brazen lies affect a soon upcoming election is another matter. The passage of time and reality demands one can say, I was wrong back then and the other must say..I lied.. and actually invited you to call me on it. ;)

Generally speaking the question is, do any republicans care? The Dems have been scolded and held to high standards in past discussions here on similar matters.
Will more than a handful of republicans also feel compelled to pass on a SCOTUS nomination at this time?

I think it's a legitimate question.

Thats OK. Even the icon who died, Justice Ginsberg, stated that the process should go forward regardless of any pending election.

Flashback: In 2016, Ginsburg said Senate should hold SCOTUS confirmation hearing during election year

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fla...n-year-vacancy

I believe six months ago there would have been no question. You move forward with it.

But with the election only weeks away, at the dying request of the late Justice, and to maintain some level of political integrity; those few weeks are easy enough to wait. If the American people can be trusted to make such a decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

You may be right.

But a couple of republican senators have already stated they will not support it. And at least one or two others will follow suit. While many others have their political necks on the line in need of bipartisan votes and have a hard decision to make.

And they realize that if they lose both the majority in the senate and the White House, it's all for naught anyway. Whether we like it or not, all options have been put on the table to balance the court including changing it's basic look and impeachment.
Many will have to weigh the short and long term effects of such a vote.

While it appears favorable for conservatives, it also supplies a huge amount of ammunition in the form of documented
and outright lies to the American people in 2016.
The irony is, those (read below) were probably unnecessary lies. Lies that likely do not have universal support within the republican party..although I sometimes wonder if the Ninth has been removed from ultra conservative list of commandments..

Lindsey Graham..
"I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say, 'Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination."

---

"lies". How quaint. Do you believe what either side says in a bare knuckle poltiical fight?

Biden said the same in 1996 with Bush I, then reversed himself. Was he "lying"?

RGB herself defended the Garland lame duck appointment, saying the POTUS doesn't stop being POTUS just b/c his term is nearing an end, then she wants this POTUS to wait. IS she "lying"?

Of course, not it's just politics.


As for those GOP senators, in at least 2 of those cases that's just smart politics. They didn't say they won't vote for the nominee, they said they support waiting until after the election. That way they can appear to be very moderate for their states in an election year, and even if they end up voting for the pick they can defend it as the candidate being a good one, etc.

It keeps their options open to say that right now. Keeps them distanced from Trump but doesn't commit them to any particular action.


Again, this is politics, not a question of "lying", b/c none of it is the truth. It's ALL lies by definition, by all of them. These are just the things both sides have to say to placate the masses who don't know this just just bare knuckle politics and nothing more. THe reasons they use are irrelevant, they just need a reason to make their political self interests sound more palatable.

If the situation were 100% reversed all of them would 100% reverse their arguments. So the actual arguments are meaningless.

If the Senate was controlled by the DNC in 2016 Schumer would be doing what McConnell is doing now. If Schumer were in control now he would do exactly what McConnell did in 2016. Anyone who thinks differently is being blatantly dishonest with themselves. It’s perfectly within the leader of the Senate’s purview to take these stances, and there is precedent for each of these options.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

As for those GOP senators, in at least 2 of those cases that's just smart politics. They didn't say they won't vote for the nominee, they said they support waiting until after the election. That way they can appear to be very moderate for their states in an election year, and even if they end up voting for the pick they can defend it as the candidate being a good one, etc.

It keeps their options open to say that right now. Keeps them distanced from Trump but doesn't commit them to any particular action.

---

It wouldn’t surprise me to see Murkowski to ultimately vote for confirmation. She is facing re-election in two years and Alaskans are fond of the 2A.