Will be a brilliant move politically when Trump names a woman For SCOTUS

[Darryl]

How will the liberals trash her and try to vote against her without turning off 40% of their voting base? A minority woman....even better.

Darryl

[KeithKSR]

Liberals have no qualms with trashing conservative women.

[Doc]

I think it is a mistake to pick based on gender. Felt it, and stated so when Biden based his pick on "female of color". Now if one of the most qualified is female, then great. I wish he had framed it as "I will pick from the most qualified, and hope it is a female", etc. I don't like the gender being the first quailifier. Ditto for race, sexual orientation, etc....

[KeithKSR]

I think it is a mistake to pick based on gender. Felt it, and stated so when Biden based his pick on "female of color". Now if one of the most qualified is female, then great. I wish he had framed it as "I will pick from the most qualified, and hope it is a female", etc. I don't like the gender being the first quailifier. Ditto for race, sexual orientation, etc....

I think he may go with Amy Coney Barrett, who was strongly considered when Kavanaugh was nominated.

[catmanjack]

I see it going to the lady from Florida for many reasons.

[Doc]

I think he may go with Amy Coney Barrett, who was strongly considered when Kavanaugh was nominated.

Barrett. I agree

[dan_bgblue]

Barrett. I agree

Good idea. It will take her 4 months of testimony to prove to the senate that not all Catholics are bad people or are named Kennedy.

[Doc]

Good idea. It will take her 4 months of testimony to prove to the senate that not all Catholics are bad people or are named Kennedy.

Also be hard to find somebody who claimed she raped them.

[dan_bgblue]

Also be hard to find somebody who claimed she raped them.

[KeithKSR]

Good idea. It will take her 4 months of testimony to prove to the senate that not all Catholics are bad people or are named Kennedy.

Without claims like we had with Kavanaugh the hearing would only be a day long, and the judiciary hearing would also be a day in length.

There have been same day confirmations, where the President nominated the candidate and they were voted on that day.

The lengthy process is really unnecessary. The media cites Kavanaugh, but conveniently fails to mention that there was a month long recess included in the timeline.

[CitizenBBN]

Also be hard to find somebody who claimed she raped them.

Are you saying women can't do the same job as men? Sexist.

Trump's best political choice is the lady from Florida. If she would take the nomination under these circumstances (likely would, you don't turn down a chance to be a SCOTUS justice), and I haven't read a thing on the records of the two frontrunners.

But the politics of it is obvious.

[dan_bgblue]

Reports are coming out that Barrett is Mitch's first choice.

[suncat05]

Good idea. It will take her 4 months of testimony to prove to the senate that not all Catholics are bad people or are named Kennedy.

Or Biden. Or Pelosi.

[Crazy4Blue]

It blows my mind that we have conservative and liberal judges, that causes subjection. If we rule by law, it shouldn't matter. How they vote on their own is their business, when it comes to the law, judge by the law.

[catmanjack]

Each seems to interpret the law with their opinions.

[Doc]

The way I see this happening is the Trump makes the nomination and the Mitch and GOP sit on it until after the election. If Biden wins, they move forward asap and JAM it thru. If Trump they progress at a normal. pace. If Biden wins, the pressure on the GOP who are reluctant will be incredible, far more than the democrats who are bullying them now



This way the voters know who will be elected without have it done, and its used as an enticement for the GOP to vote for Trump.

[KeithKSR]

It blows my mind that we have conservative and liberal judges, that causes subjection. If we rule by law, it shouldn't matter. How they vote on their own is their business, when it comes to the law, judge by the law.

Two conflicting theories. The liberals see the Constitution as a document that can be stretched by judges to include things that are there, and the constructionists on the right who see the Constitution as a document that says what it says.

[KeithKSR]

The way I see this happening is the Trump makes the nomination and the Mitch and GOP sit on it until after the election. If Biden wins, they move forward asap and JAM it thru. If Trump they progress at a normal. pace. If Biden wins, the pressure on the GOP who are reluctant will be incredible, far more than the democrats who are bullying them now



This way the voters know who will be elected without have it done, and its used as an enticement for the GOP to vote for Trump.

The GOP doesn’t need the carrot of this appointment dangled in front of them as enticement to vote thanks to the Left’s threat of loading the court.

The GOP is intent on confirmation prior to the election to prevent any possible 4-4 ties from election lawsuits. The DNC had hired hundreds of lawyers to litigate in as many jurisdictions as they can.

[CitizenBBN]

What Keith said.

While using the pick as incentive for a Trump vote is true, it's also an incentive for the left, so not sure how that nets out.

The Senate may lose at least one GOP seat, maybe 2-3, if so they are in far worse position to push this through, and one of those seats, Arizona, will actually be seated November 30ths. it would be super high risk.

The biggest reason to get another pick on there now is as Keith said if these state votes start going to SCOTUS for decisions.

The political ramifications of all of this are huge, and I expect the bloodiest next 3-4 months we have ever seen in politics. If the GOP doesn't at least hold the Senate then it won't end there either.

[Doc]

The GOP doesn’t need the carrot of this appointment dangled in front of them as enticement to vote thanks to the Left’s threat of loading the court.

The GOP is intent on confirmation prior to the election to prevent any possible 4-4 ties from election lawsuits. The DNC had hired hundreds of lawyers to litigate in as many jurisdictions as they can.

True.....

[Doc]

Two conflicting theories. The liberals see the Constitution as a document that can be stretched by judges to include things that are there, and the constructionists on the right who see the Constitution as a document that says what it says.

Or things they believe the congress wanted because congress frequently writes bad laws that the courts believe they need to clean up.

of course the other side of that is the congress could intentionally write bad laws so that the courts can interpret them as they want.

[Doc]

Now, what I would do were I Mitch would be to get the SCOTUS Justice confirmed before the election, then in the lame duck session, repeal Reid's "Nuclear Option" which allows confirmation by 51% to the old 67%.

That would certainly cause the democrats heads to go "nuclear", as well as prevent packing the court.

[Darryl]

Now, what I would do were I Mitch would be to get the SCOTUS Justice confirmed before the election, then in the lame duck session, repeal Reid's "Nuclear Option" which allows confirmation by 51% to the old 67%.

That would certainly cause the democrats heads to go "nuclear", as well as prevent packing the court.

Incredibly brilliant idea.

Darryl

[catmanjack]

Still think Trumps best move is Lagoa.
From Florida and is Cuban-American.

[CitizenBBN]

Still think Trumps best move is Lagoa.
From Florida and is Cuban-American.

Havent' heard if she's interviewed yet, but politically it's a great choice.

Very tough to attack her with the smears, have to be very careful b/c of the Florida vote.

IMO it's a no brainer, but I haven't studied either candidate.

[dan_bgblue]

That would certainly cause the democrats heads to go "nuclear", as well as prevent packing the court.

[dan_bgblue]

Or Biden. Or Pelosi.

RIGHT: She has already been vetted with full investigation from the Senate committee and FBI, and other agencies, and congressional investigators, etc. when she was put on the appellate court in 2017. If I were the GOP I would put a measure into the committee and pass it on a party line to not consider any of the items that were previously investigated or items that were previously questioned in the confirmation hearings process in 2017. I would add in that measure that any attempt to do so will result in immediate dismissal from the committee and no new members will be seated in the committee until after this process is complete. President Wilson got a SCOTUS approved and put on the court in 10 days. I would love to hear this in the confirmation process:

Feinstein: Judge Barrett, I would like to ask you about your faith and how it will affect your decisions on the court....

Graham: The gentle congress woman is out of order. This subject was illegally covered in the hearings in 2017 and is unconstitutional, per Article IV, section 3 of the US constitution. While this committee deplores the illegal and disingenuous question, we refer the committee members to the answers given in the 2017 proceedings, we will however allow the judge to add further comments on this issue if she wishes, but no questions will be allowed on this issue or the added comments.

Barrett: I stand by my previous comments.