Home Off Topic

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

1356711

Replies

  • anglerplusanglerplus MiccoPosts: 754 Officer
    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.

    Your point? Ha! This is a talking point started most recently by the new Mass rep that is looking to make a name for himself after taking the position from a relative of a former potus that was assassinated. 
    Please, at least give credit where its due. 
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 32,531 AG
    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. 
    I doubt he gets the needed support before the election The question is, what happens after that, Three scenarios.

    Pres loses  and  Democrats taking control 0f Senate.  Would the Republicans push through a nominee to stop another liberal judge appointment? This I could see happening, 

    Pres loses and Republicans keep senate. Most likely Senate waits and we see a moderate appointed. 

    Pres re-elected and Republicans keep senate. It won't matter when the nominee is chosen, 

    I doubt the Senators up for re-election will want a vote until after November 3rd and turn this into a campaign issue. 

    Just my 2c


    Mini Mart Magnate

    I am just here for my amusement. 

  • Bimini_TwistedBimini_Twisted TampaPosts: 2,223 Captain
    Another wrinkle for the after the election scenario, if Kelly in AZ wins, that seat shifts in November.

    Same thing if one side can coalesce to one candidate to get 51% in Georgia as both these seats are special elections that seat in November 
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,339 Admiral
    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.
    It is a double standard, plain and simple.  We both know it.  


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

    -Walter Payton
  • King_MeKing_Me Delray Beach, FLPosts: 6,537 Admiral
    Trump said in his speech this evening he will nominate a woman next week.
  • 1outlaw1outlaw Naples FLPosts: 1,407 Officer
    King_Me said:
    Trump said in his speech this evening he will nominate a woman next week.
    Yep, likely wont go anywhere. Not worried really.... His re-election is almost certain IMO
    Jason :USA
  • dragon baitdragon bait Posts: 9,087 Admiral
    Sounds as if someone is afraid they are going to lose power in November 
  • 1outlaw1outlaw Naples FLPosts: 1,407 Officer
    Sounds as if someone is afraid they are going to lose power in November 
    In your dreams! Its his duty to select! 
    Reach for another straw.....
    Jason :USA
  • MulletMaster239MulletMaster239 Southwest FloridaPosts: 340 Deckhand
    King_Me said:
    Trump said in his speech this evening he will nominate a woman next week.
    Personally I would like to see a genderfluid non-binary openly pansexual person of color to be nominated. There’s too much cisgender heteronormative white privilege in the Supreme Court. Could use some more diversity and enrichment imho.
  • Big BatteryBig Battery Posts: 20,592 AG
    kellercl 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?

    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.
    It is a double standard, plain and simple.  We both know it.  
    You are confusing double standards with partisan politics. It was no different than the blue team passing the ACA when they controlled the house, senate and the president.  The red team blocked the scotus process when they controlled the senate. The double standard is when the blue team says one thing one year and the complete opposite 3 years later.

    in her selfishness, RBG made the wrong bet, she should have retired when the last blue president could replace her...but she, as a partisan hack that she was, thought the the blue team was going to win the last election.
  • Bimini_TwistedBimini_Twisted TampaPosts: 2,223 Captain
    edited September 20 #73
    The U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should make up the court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices. In 1807, Congress increased the number of justices to seven; in 1837, the number was bumped up to nine; and in 1863, it rose to 10. In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court. Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, where it has stood ever since.
  • jetmechjetmech On the coastPosts: 447 Deckhand
    edited September 20 #74
    kellercl said:
    We should do whatever we did last time there was a election.  If I recall correctly the argument was to wait until after the election.  I expect people to be consistent with their views.  

    They blatant hypocrisy (on both sides) needs to stop today.  
    Tell that to the 22 previous presidents that appointed SCOTUS judges in the same situation. 
  • jetmechjetmech On the coastPosts: 447 Deckhand
    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.  
    Exactly!!
     A person with integrity would have stepped down when their health or age started to deteriorate. 
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,339 Admiral
    kellercl 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?

    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.
    It is a double standard, plain and simple.  We both know it.  
    The double standard is when the blue team says one thing one year and the complete opposite 3 years later.


    "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”

    Exactly, say one thing and do the complete opposite a few years later.  Those two quotes are from the same person, one happens to be from 2020 and the other is from 2016.  And he isn't the only one who is clearly flopping like a fish out of water.  

    I don't have anything confused.  It is a double standard, there is absolutely no debate.  The quotes are out there and easy to confirm.  





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

    -Walter Payton
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,339 Admiral
    jetmech said:
    kellercl said:
    We should do whatever we did last time there was a election.  If I recall correctly the argument was to wait until after the election.  I expect people to be consistent with their views.  

    They blatant hypocrisy (on both sides) needs to stop today.  
    Tell that to the 22 previous presidents that appointed SCOTUS judges in the same situation. 
    So the last POTUS was allowed his right to appoint a SCOTUS in an election year?  

    I would have a lot more respect if some of you were honest about the situation.  Inability to acknowledge the complete position change from 2016 to 2020 just makes you guys look childish.  


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

    -Walter Payton
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,339 Admiral
    "This critical decision should be made after the upcoming presidential election so that the American people have a voice.” 

    "“I had urged the President to refrain from naming a nominee. I believe he should have left that task to the next administration.”

    “The decision to withhold advancement of Mr. Garland’s nomination isn’t about the individual, it’s about the principle. Alaskans, like all Americans, are in the midst of an important national election. The next Supreme Court justice could fundamentally change the direction of the Court for years to come. Alaskans deserve to have a voice in that direction through their vote, and we will ensure that they have one.”

    “Our country is very split and we are in the midst of a highly contested presidential election. My colleagues and I are committed to giving the American people a voice in the direction the court will take for generations to come.”

    " Why would we cut off the national debate on the next justice? Why would we squelch the voice of the populace? Why would we deny the voters a chance to weigh in on the make-up of the Supreme Court?”

    “… the next president of the United States should have the opportunity to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court.”

    “I don’t think we should be moving forward on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term. ”

    "Therefore, the current Supreme Court vacancy should be filled by an individual nominated by the next president of the United States.”

    “The next justice will have an effect on the courts for decades to come and should not be rushed through by a lame-duck president during an election year. This is not about the nominee, it is about giving the American people and the next president a role in selecting the next Supreme Court justice.” 

    “Rarely does a Supreme Court vacancy occur in the final year of a presidential term … Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in.”

    “It is crucial for Nebraskans and all Americans to have a voice in the selection of the next person to serve a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, and there is precedent to do so. Therefore, I believe this position should not be filled until the election of a new president.”

    “There is 80 years of precedent for not nominating and confirming a new justice of the Supreme Court in the final year of a president’s term so that people can have a say in
    this very important decision.”

    “During a very partisan year and a presidential election year … both for the sake of the court and the integrity of the court and the legitimacy of the candidate, it’s better to have this occur after we’re past this presidential election.”

    “With the U.S. Supreme Court’s balance at stake, and with the presidential election fewer than eight months away, it is wise to give the American people a more direct voice in the selection and confirmation of the next justice.” 

    Sadly there are more quotes.  That is about half.  

    Say it with me, double standard.  


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

    -Walter Payton
  • GarysmoGarysmo Ft. Pierce, FloridaPosts: 1,513 Captain
    Lots of interesting reading in this thread but IMO what is going to happen is clear.  There will be a nominee and then some huge political fighting resulting in no/delay in confirmation.  
  • supratentorialsupratentorial FLPosts: 574 Officer
    Garysmo said:
    Lots of interesting reading in this thread but IMO what is going to happen is clear.  There will be a nominee and then some huge political fighting resulting in no/delay in confirmation.  
    You can probably get your mortgage paid off if you claim the nominee groped you 30 years ago.
  • treemanjohntreemanjohn Posts: 5,009 Admiral
    Garysmo said:
    Lots of interesting reading in this thread but IMO what is going to happen is clear.  There will be a nominee and then some huge political fighting resulting in no/delay in confirmation.  
    You can probably get your mortgage paid off if you claim the nominee groped you 30 years ago.
    Hahah!! That's why you go with a female nominee. In the world of everything fake and everyone dumb you batter cover your bases
    We’re like the piggy bank that everybody is robbing, and that ends
  • jetmechjetmech On the coastPosts: 447 Deckhand
    kellercl said:
    jetmech said:
    kellercl said:
    We should do whatever we did last time there was a election.  If I recall correctly the argument was to wait until after the election.  I expect people to be consistent with their views.  

    They blatant hypocrisy (on both sides) needs to stop today.  
    Tell that to the 22 previous presidents that appointed SCOTUS judges in the same situation. 
    So the last POTUS was allowed his right to appoint a SCOTUS in an election year?  

    I would have a lot more respect if some of you were honest about the situation.  Inability to acknowledge the complete position change from 2016 to 2020 just makes you guys look childish.  
    I suggest you look a little closer at what the situation was at that time. 
    The Republicans were the majority in the Senate and Obama was POTUS. 
    Do you think if the Senate had a democrat majority they would not have allowed Obama to appoint a judge?
    Dream on.
  • jetmechjetmech On the coastPosts: 447 Deckhand

    What I find disgusting about the whole situation is how this country has allowed the Supreme Court to become a political weapon. The only purpose of the court is to interpret law. Not make law.
  • treemanjohntreemanjohn Posts: 5,009 Admiral
    jetmech said:

    What I find disgusting about the whole situation is how this country has allowed the Supreme Court to become a political weapon. The only purpose of the court is to interpret law. Not make law.
    The biggest issue is a lifetime appointment.  The SC has been weaponized for decades
    We’re like the piggy bank that everybody is robbing, and that ends
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 32,531 AG
    jetmech said:
    kellercl said:
    We should do whatever we did last time there was a election.  If I recall correctly the argument was to wait until after the election.  I expect people to be consistent with their views.  

    They blatant hypocrisy (on both sides) needs to stop today.  
    Tell that to the 22 previous presidents that appointed SCOTUS judges in the same situation. 

    Nominate, not appoint. Senate has the final say on who is appointed. I have no issue with the Pres nominating someone. I will be surprised if the senate confirms before election day. Can't say what might happen between then and January. 

    Mini Mart Magnate

    I am just here for my amusement. 

  • RStyleRStyle Posts: 1,482 Officer
    Funny to read all the opinions on this thread. The person making the nomination and the one getting the voting accomplished have already made their decision and as usual, could not care less about what you all think.
    The most unfortunate part of all this is that the Supreme Court has/ will become a political and religious institution. The interpretation of our Constitution as the law of the land is not fixed but variable and will not defend the rights of all.
  • dogman18dogman18 Posts: 431 Deckhand
    Term limit for Justices. Senators and Representatives as well. 
    “There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.”
    ― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
  • jetmechjetmech On the coastPosts: 447 Deckhand
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    kellercl said:
    We should do whatever we did last time there was a election.  If I recall correctly the argument was to wait until after the election.  I expect people to be consistent with their views.  

    They blatant hypocrisy (on both sides) needs to stop today.  
    Tell that to the 22 previous presidents that appointed SCOTUS judges in the same situation. 

    Nominate, not appoint. Senate has the final say on who is appointed. I have no issue with the Pres nominating someone. I will be surprised if the senate confirms before election day. Can't say what might happen between then and January. 
    Never said they appointed any justices. 
     And yes, those justices were appointed by those Senate’s. 
  • Nick NikonNick Nikon Posts: 3,264 Captain
    Go for it. Its a cultural war for the heart and soul of America. A Court that will reverse some of the evil decisions made by previous Courts is worth it. 

    How many of the "evil" decisions have you read?

    How many Supreme Court cases have you Shepardized?

    If the answer to that question is "zero", it's not too late to learn.


  • anglerplusanglerplus MiccoPosts: 754 Officer
    The reply from bullfrog should be interesting. . 
  • Big BatteryBig Battery Posts: 20,592 AG
    kellercl said:
    Absolutely NOONE said:
    kellercl said:
    We should do whatever we did last time there was a election.  If I recall correctly the argument was to wait until after the election.  I expect people to be consistent with their views.  

    They blatant hypocrisy (on both sides) needs to stop today.  
    Tell that to the 22 previous presidents that appointed SCOTUS judges in the same situation. 
    So the last POTUS was allowed his right to appoint a SCOTUS in an election year?  

    I would have a lot more respect if some of you were honest about the situation.  Inability to acknowledge the complete position change from 2016 to 2020 just makes you guys look childish.  

    Absolutely NO ONE prevented the president from making a nomination. It was a political move to block approvals. Just like it was a majority political move to pass legislation that would have to be passed to find out what was in it. There are no precedents. Didn't the blue team recently change the rules to undermine the other teams ability to block legislation????
Sign In or Register to comment.