Home Off Topic

Will we see a replacement Supreme Court Justice before January 20th?

2456711

Replies

  • Big BatteryBig Battery Posts: 20,592 AG
    If a new precedent contrary to what has been stated before by those calling the shots is set this year, if power should shift in the election all bets on precedent and decorum will be off the table next year.

    The Court could easily be expanded to balance power, or even largely expanded to shift power. Puerto Rico and DC could be forced through as states, and the filibuster rule could be out the window.

     If that happens, those that broke it, will have no leg to stand on or cry foul.

    No legal precedent to waiting. I'll be curious to the nominee and look forward to the majority in the senate affirming her.
  • treemanjohntreemanjohn Posts: 5,025 Admiral
    I can't wait for the chatroom legal analysts ramblings over the next 60 days
    We’re like the piggy bank that everybody is robbing, and that ends
  • supratentorialsupratentorial FLPosts: 587 Officer
    dave44 said:
    If a new precedent contrary to what has been stated before by those calling the shots is set this year, if power should shift in the election all bets on precedent and decorum will be off the table next year.

    The Court could easily be expanded to balance power, or even largely expanded to shift power. Puerto Rico and DC could be forced through as states, and the filibuster rule could be out the window.

     If that happens, those that broke it, will have no leg to stand on or cry foul.
    What the devil are you talking about, that’s not a new plan for getting even, it’s the original plan.
    Perhaps, and perhaps not, no way to know for sure. But it will be a lot easier if they are given all the cover they need.

    First thing, add a district, and expand the court to thirteen.
    Inventing a "precedent" to give cover for an accelerated progressive agenda isn't decorous.
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,375 Admiral
    edited September 19 #35
    Bummer.... the constitution says the potus nominates and the senate affirms. No rule about election year or waiting.  That method has been affirmed by the previous White House occupant and the nominee of the blue party.

    There is plenty of time.
    Huh, so odd considering that wasn't the stance in 2016.  Bunch of hypocrites.

    Those who took the "wait" stance in 2016 should have the balls in 2020 to take the same stance. 

    At this point I have zero respect for politicians anymore.  Nothing but a bunch of a 2 faced liars.   


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • Bimini_TwistedBimini_Twisted TampaPosts: 2,267 Captain
    If a new precedent contrary to what has been stated before by those calling the shots is set this year, if power should shift in the election all bets on precedent and decorum will be off the table next year.

    The Court could easily be expanded to balance power, or even largely expanded to shift power. Puerto Rico and DC could be forced through as states, and the filibuster rule could be out the window.

     If that happens, those that broke it, will have no leg to stand on or cry foul.

    No legal precedent to waiting. I'll be curious to the nominee and look forward to the majority in the senate affirming her.
    Of course they are welcome to try, but it's far from a slam dunk as there are many tactics available to stall the process to January.
      
     
  • dave44dave44 Posts: 11,544 AG
    If a new precedent contrary to what has been stated before by those calling the shots is set this year, if power should shift in the election all bets on precedent and decorum will be off the table next year.

    The Court could easily be expanded to balance power, or even largely expanded to shift power. Puerto Rico and DC could be forced through as states, and the filibuster rule could be out the window.

     If that happens, those that broke it, will have no leg to stand on or cry foul.

    No legal precedent to waiting. I'll be curious to the nominee and look forward to the majority in the senate affirming her.
    Of course they are welcome to try, but it's far from a slam dunk as there are many tactics available to stall the process to January.
      
     
    Probably has something to do with that guy saying “we are in control now, y’all just sit in the back seat.”
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,375 Admiral
    "A four-four court that is equally divided cannot decide anything. And I think we risk a constitutional crisis if we do not have a nine-justice Supreme Court, particularly when there is such a risk of a contested election."

    “There will be plenty of time for debate on that issue, there is long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices”

    Same person, two drastically different positions.  Absolutely shameful.  


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • YnotjaxYnotjax Posts: 331 Deckhand
    i Hate politics they don’t give a chance for the family to morn and celebrate her accomplishments.  

    You only hear about the upcoming election and the impact and only having a tie with 4 Supreme Court Justices.

    Jerks are making a political statement about al of this.

    Bless her soul, Rest In Peace 

    I personally think another person needs to be nominated now not 9:months later.




  • Bimini_TwistedBimini_Twisted TampaPosts: 2,267 Captain
    edited September 19 #41
    If she would have retired under ***** this wouldn’t have been an issue. But she selfishly held on for far longer than she should have. Choices have consequences. 

    I guess she exercised her right to choose. Now ***** gets to exercise his.  
    On this we agree, the court should start construction on four new chambers now.
  • anglerplusanglerplus MiccoPosts: 772 Officer
    What a great fantasy world you live in twisted. 😂
  • Big BatteryBig Battery Posts: 20,592 AG
    Fdr threatened that to get his horrible new deal passed.... typical fascist blue team.
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 32,633 AG
    If she would have retired under Obama this wouldn’t have been an issue. But she selfishly held on for far longer than she should have. Choices have consequences. 

    I guess she exercised her right to choose. Now Trump gets to exercise his.  
    He has every right to. The final decision is not his, I doubt they can push a nominee through before the election and depending on that, it may or may not happen. 

    Mini Mart Magnate

    I am just here for my amusement. 

  • VolFanVolFan Posts: 58 Deckhand
    Twenty-Nine times in American history there has been an open Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential election year, or in a lame-duck session before the next presidential inauguration... The president made a nomination in all 29 cases.
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,375 Admiral
    VolFan said:
    Twenty-Nine times in American history there has been an open Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential election year, or in a lame-duck session before the next presidential inauguration... The president made a nomination in all 29 cases.

    If she would have retired under Obama this wouldn’t have been an issue. But she selfishly held on for far longer than she should have. Choices have consequences. 

    I guess she exercised her right to choose. Now Trump gets to exercise his.  
    And did the senate have hearings in all 29 cases?  Or was there a time when they refused to have a hearing?


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 32,633 AG
    How many were confirmed?

    Mini Mart Magnate

    I am just here for my amusement. 

  • supratentorialsupratentorial FLPosts: 587 Officer
    When the president has a majority senate, it's their duty to nominate and confirm. The people have spoken.
  • anglerplusanglerplus MiccoPosts: 772 Officer
    If she would have retired under Obama this wouldn’t have been an issue. But she selfishly held on for far longer than she should have. Choices have consequences. 

    I guess she exercised her right to choose. Now Trump gets to exercise his.  
    This. She chose to hang in there, but no one knows the time they have left. She made a political gamble and lost. The president has a Constitutional duty to nominate a replacement in a timely manner. I believe a nomination is forthcoming. Confirmation will play out as it always does. Election issues aside.  
  • Bimini_TwistedBimini_Twisted TampaPosts: 2,267 Captain
    I'm willing to let them roll the dice and sacrifice a little short term pain for an future expanded court and four new Senate seats.

    I can live with that trade off, not to mention giving someone a righteous cause to justify anything they may do.
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 32,633 AG
    I'm willing to let them roll the dice and sacrifice a little short term pain for an future expanded court and four new Senate seats.

    I can live with that trade off, not to mention giving someone a righteous cause to justify anything they may do.
    Stop with the nonsense. 

    Mini Mart Magnate

    I am just here for my amusement. 

  • VolFanVolFan Posts: 58 Deckhand
    kellercl said:
    VolFan said:
    Twenty-Nine times in American history there has been an open Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential election year, or in a lame-duck session before the next presidential inauguration... The president made a nomination in all 29 cases.

    If she would have retired under Obama this wouldn’t have been an issue. But she selfishly held on for far longer than she should have. Choices have consequences. 

    I guess she exercised her right to choose. Now Trump gets to exercise his.  
    And did the senate have hearings in all 29 cases?  Or was there a time when they refused to have a hearing?
    Re-read my post. I said nothing about hearings, just that a president made a nomination in all 29 cases.
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 32,633 AG
    edited September 19 #53
    VolFan said:
    kellercl said:
    VolFan said:
    Twenty-Nine times in American history there has been an open Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential election year, or in a lame-duck session before the next presidential inauguration... The president made a nomination in all 29 cases.

    If she would have retired under Obama this wouldn’t have been an issue. But she selfishly held on for far longer than she should have. Choices have consequences. 

    I guess she exercised her right to choose. Now Trump gets to exercise his.  
    And did the senate have hearings in all 29 cases?  Or was there a time when they refused to have a hearing?
    Re-read my post. I said nothing about hearings, just that a president made a nomination in all 29 cases.
    That is not the question. Should the Senate confirm or have hearing regarding a nominee before the Presidential term?

    Mini Mart Magnate

    I am just here for my amusement. 

  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,375 Admiral
    VolFan said:
    kellercl said:
    VolFan said:
    Twenty-Nine times in American history there has been an open Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential election year, or in a lame-duck session before the next presidential inauguration... The president made a nomination in all 29 cases.

    If she would have retired under Obama this wouldn’t have been an issue. But she selfishly held on for far longer than she should have. Choices have consequences. 

    I guess she exercised her right to choose. Now Trump gets to exercise his.  
    And did the senate have hearings in all 29 cases?  Or was there a time when they refused to have a hearing?
    Re-read my post. I said nothing about hearings, just that a president made a nomination in all 29 cases.
    I read your post and you missed my point.  There was a party that was adamant that you do not replace a justice in an election year, even when there is 8 months.  Now that tune has changed and two months is plenty of time.  Flip flop that nobody wants to admit is happening.  


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • Bimini_TwistedBimini_Twisted TampaPosts: 2,267 Captain
    cadman said:
    I'm willing to let them roll the dice and sacrifice a little short term pain for an future expanded court and four new Senate seats.

    I can live with that trade off, not to mention giving someone a righteous cause to justify anything they may do.
    Stop with the nonsense. 
    Not nonsense at all, very plausible in fact. The Senate determines the number of justiices, and can readily expand it and add another district. DC and Puerto Rico statehood means four more Senators.

    Cramming a nominee through now under these circumstances will have the consequence of putting everything on the table for a future majority, including everything I mentioned and then some, like getting rid of the filibuster.

    All those steps would be constitutional considering the size of the Supreme Court has been changed by the Senate seven times. One more time would be justified under the circumstances.

    You may not like it, but it’s not foolishness at all since there is plenty of historical precedence.

    All very cool, and very legal.
  • ScminnowScminnow Posts: 4,094 Captain
    A black president once said “ elections have consequences”
    lol
  • Florida BullfrogFlorida Bullfrog Posts: 3,449 Captain
    cadman said:
    If she would have retired under Obama this wouldn’t have been an issue. But she selfishly held on for far longer than she should have. Choices have consequences. 

    I guess she exercised her right to choose. Now Trump gets to exercise his.  
    He has every right to. The final decision is not his, I doubt they can push a nominee through before the election and depending on that, it may or may not happen. 
    I have my doubts the Republicans in the Senate will back him up. 
  • treemanjohntreemanjohn Posts: 5,025 Admiral
    I'm willing to let them roll the dice and sacrifice a little short term pain for an future expanded court and four new Senate seats.

    I can live with that trade off, not to mention giving someone a righteous cause to justify anything they may do.
    Jesus man come back to earth! You earned a LOL from me. 
    We’re like the piggy bank that everybody is robbing, and that ends
  • Bimini_TwistedBimini_Twisted TampaPosts: 2,267 Captain
    I'm willing to let them roll the dice and sacrifice a little short term pain for an future expanded court and four new Senate seats.

    I can live with that trade off, not to mention giving someone a righteous cause to justify anything they may do.
    Jesus man come back to earth! You earned a LOL from me. 
    I have history on the side of my point.

    Like I said, the Senate has changed the size of the Supreme Court seven times before.

    You may not like it, but that’s what happens when precidence and decorum go by the wayside.

    You think that just one side can play hardball?
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,375 Admiral
    It is an interesting theory.  I'm not convinced it will happen, but people tend to respond to fire with fire.


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • supratentorialsupratentorial FLPosts: 587 Officer
    kellercl said:
    VolFan said:
    Twenty-Nine times in American history there has been an open Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential election year, or in a lame-duck session before the next presidential inauguration... The president made a nomination in all 29 cases.

    If she would have retired under Obama this wouldn’t have been an issue. But she selfishly held on for far longer than she should have. Choices have consequences. 

    I guess she exercised her right to choose. Now Trump gets to exercise his.  
    And did the senate have hearings in all 29 cases?  Or was there a time when they refused to have a hearing?

    Elections in 2010 and 2014 were clear rejections of the then president's agenda.  The senate was bound to the will of the people in 2016.
Sign In or Register to comment.