For Gator: Clear as crystal. Thanks Barry
- Thread starter Sanctions Stand
- Start date
Not in favor of another lib on the SCOTUS, but in the best interest of our country, we would be better off if we had a consistent president around the issue of nominating a justice with a imminent presidential election.
I understand this has happened 19 times in US history. Anyone familiar with what we have done before the partisanship of 2016? Seems like we should have enough of a precedent to guide us by now.
I understand this has happened 19 times in US history. Anyone familiar with what we have done before the partisanship of 2016? Seems like we should have enough of a precedent to guide us by now.
Constitution says the POTUS nominates and the Senate confirms. It seems pretty simple to me. Why should an election matter? They happen every 4 years. Senators have a 6 year term, they are not elected at the same time and they are part of this process as well.
2016 was not surprising. We had a lib president nominating a lib SCOTUS to a Republican senate. The senate didn’t have to approve of the nomination so they played keep-away till the time ran out. If you don’t think Dems would’ve done the same (or will do the same) you’re naive. This time we have a republican President nominating a conservative SCOTUS that will be approved by a republican senate. “Elections have consequences.”
RBG should have resigned her seat a couple of years ago tbh. She was trying to hold out to step down while a Democrat was President. She was playing politics. Trump will nominate as he should, just as Obama did, and the Senate will move from there.
Yep, my question is around what has typically happened in the past. It can go one of three ways 1) president nominates/congress approved quickly regardless of election, 2) wait until after election, 3) discretion of president and Congress, ie elections have consequences as you mentioned.
#3 is what is outlined in the constitution. I’m not sure short of 2016 and 2020 if there has been debate about the timeframe with an upcoming election, or if there is a historical precedent. My guess is no and it’s the haves and have nots arguing their position so the 100 million constitutional scholars on social media can blast their opinions all over the landscape like a cow with the green grass shits.
Based on the threat of litigation after the election, the decision might ultimately be in the hands of the SCOTUS. 4-4 does nobody any good. Fill the position.
Ohhh don't you know the leftys know this and will have a come apart when it happens. Elections have consequences
Correct... kinda like a 49+ year old fart tring to win the POTUS for a woman VP. Playing politics... sometimes it works, sometimes not
Agreed. We already know this election is going to be a shitshow. Need 9 sitting justices so we aren’t in limbo for months after November.
My original question was looking at the situation generically as opposed to what I’d prefer - next time the shoe might be on the other foot (see 2016)
When y’all say “after the election”, you mean 11/4/2020 - 1/7/2021? What difference does it make as long as Trump gets it done before he leaves office (if he loses)?
None. After the election really means whoever is inagurated on 1/20/21. Realistically, it would only matter if Biden wins or if there was a significant shift in the Republican seats in the senate.
Why would the republicans agree to wait till after inauguration day? We’ve got this one in the bag so why risk it with nothing to gain and all to lose?
They wouldn't. As I mentioned, it's comparing historical precedent. Mainly because it has become an issue over the last two presidential election cycles. We didn't have this kind of drama in the past. I'm betting because before now we let the Constitution work as designed.
I agree 100% that POTUS select SCOTUS anytime without exceptions. Moscow Mitch should have allowed the same. This will blow up in their face. The Senate will now flip to Dems for a couple of years.
President Biden and Congress will add 2 seats to rebalance SCOTUS.
The takeover of my Republican Party by the tea party / Freedom caucus has given too much power to an extremist wing which enables dictatorial abuse of POTUS to maintain their seats.
Trumpsky is going to lose bigly and he knows it. The clear War plan is to contest the election results and let the SCOTUS appointees in his pocket appoint POTUS. This precedent will destroy our democracy as we know it by allowing 6 party members to select future POTUS. It has to end.
here’s a bit of trivia for ye.Trumskys present term expires at noon on 1/20/21. If the electoral college is upheld for any reason the stand in POTUS goes to rules of succession. Do you know who would be Sworn in??
Im always impressed by how much BS you can pack into one post. It’s like an art form
Made a liberal’s head blow off this week when I said her immense ego is why the court hangs in thebalance
I heard today that RBG is the first person since March to not die of Covid-19. 😂 😂 😂
If Trump could “stop the testing” as he requested-no one would die from it. If he would stop doing pregnancy tests, we can reduce the birth rate too. It a Dem hoax.
Maybe she panicked?
Similar threads
