GlockTalk Forum banner

Should Trump nominate a replacement for Ginsburg?

  • Yes, nominate someone immediately and begin hearings

    Votes: 281 93.4%
  • No, wait until after inauguration

    Votes: 20 6.6%
1 - 20 of 211 Posts

·
Making America great again!
Joined
·
16,208 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
To me, the arguments for nominating someone immediately:
  • There's a high probability that there will be legal fights in several key states, requiring the SCOTUS to weigh in
  • In case Trump does not win, we need to get a majority of conservatives on the high court
The arguments against:
  • Democrats will be outraged, and will be more motivated to vote, no matter how bad Biden is as a candidate
  • Since Garland's nomination was held up by Republicans in 2016 (in March, 8 months before the election), this will look like Trump and Republicans trying to pull a fast one
My vote is no, Trump should not nominate anyone before the election. As I've said numerous times, this election is all about voter turnout. Right now, Biden looks like a bumbling fool, and many Democrats and independents that don't like Trump are not motivated enough to even vote. If Trump tries to push a nominee through, the leftwing media will have a feeding frenzy, casting him as a dictator, as trying to take over all of government. This will motivate the low-information idiots who were going to stay home to vote for Biden. I'd say even a few Trump voters may be turned off.

Sure, we all know there's a high probability of legal challenges winding up in the high court. But I believe if Trump keeps calm and doesn't try to do anything risky in the last month of this campaign, he stands a better chance of winning, and winning by a margin that won't require long, drawn out legal fights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,947 Posts
Can't say I agree with your reasoning.

If he doesn't nominate then the same low info voters will be coming out because that seat is "on the line!!!!!" (Which of course it always was).

It's Trump's obligation to nominate, and the Senate to vote. If they don't want to confirm until after the election, then that's the process.

I felt the same the last time around, even though it was a bit different with Obama not being on the ballot at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,858 Posts
If the left was all above board, I'd say no, wait until after the election. However the are a greasing, slick bunch that have shown time and time again, they will do anything to derail Trump.

It's a tough situation
 

·
Making America great again!
Joined
·
16,208 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
If he doesn't nominate then the same low info voters will be coming out because that seat is "on the line!!!!!" (Which of course it always was).
Good point. Almost everyone knew Ginsburg wouldn't last another 4 years. But this thrusts the issue into the spotlight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,867 Posts
I feel that it is the Presidents responsibility to fill any gap in the SC as quickly as possible, but I also know that there are those that will do anything they can to obstruct that process.

When the republicans blocked Obamas attempts to nominate a court justice, I knew then that it would come back around to bite us in the a$$ and now, here it comes!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,604 Posts
My response is yes and is essentially non political.

There is an expression: "the business of America is business". Having a full and competent judiciary is important to the health of America, not just in "business", also in the functioning of society.

We have had quite a few vacancies in the federal judiciary leading to overloading. When the overloading happens, trial and decisions are slowed down. This is not desirable if you expect people to settle disputes in the courts and not elsewhere. Elsewhere can be in the streets or subjecting people to very expensive private arbitration.

From the perspective of a nominee for a federal judgeship, it means filling out many forms, an investigation by political operatives of both political parties, being subjected to asked to commit how a case will be decided by politicians crafting questions designed to embarrass. Then you wait a year or so for a perfunctory public committee hearing, if ever. If you are a competent lawyer in private practice, you are asked to take a substantial income reduction in the name of public service.

This is why I favor straight up and down votes on nominees. Mr. Garland deserved an up and down vote and should not have been denied the same for those reasons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,092 Posts
I vote yes. The likelihood that the SC will be needed to rule on legal challenges is very high.
The Democrats will be more motivated regardless the threat to them is the same before or after.
I think as long as Trump picks a pragmatic constitutional juror, that will be the best for most. Socialists only want a new government. They will fight against everything. If the Democrats take control they will fight them too, if they don't bow to their complete socialist agenda.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,240 Posts
I’m not doing anything. Maybe I’ll give The Donald a call
 
  • Like
Reactions: tuica and captcurly

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,171 Posts
I didn't vote. I would have chosen option 1.5. Wait until after Nov. 3rd. We don't need another distraction before the election. On the other hand if it were settled before the election and if somehow the supreme court got involved with the election results we'd have a better chance of surviving any No Malarkey type of storm.

Wider optic. First we have to keep the White House. Second, it would be nice to own all of Congo....erm, I mean Congress. You know, the Monkey House. Come on, man.

If we gain a new conservative justice now and still lost the election, at least there may still be some form of sanity for the country until either we get our well deserved dirt nap or they get theirs. :eagle:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
787 Posts
I feel that it is the Presidents responsibility to fill any gap in the SC as quickly as possible, but I also know that there are those that will do anything they can to obstruct that process.

When the republicans blocked Obamas attempts to nominate a court justice, I knew then that it would come back around to bite us in the a$$ and now, here it comes!
Or mitch McConnell is the master of winning political fights and knows how to win the game
 

·
Wallbuilder and Weapon Bearer
Joined
·
116,456 Posts
I don't care what it looks like, and neither does my enemy.

One reason to wait would be the possibility of failure, caused by traitorous RINOs like Collins, Murkowski, Romney, and whoever smells blood in the water.

This might be overshadowed by the probability of a disputed election needing SCOTUS involvement. There will be recounts and runoffs in numerous elections.

So I'm undecided, but leaning towards do it now, before the murder hornets attack.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,326 Posts
In a fair world, waiting until after the election would be the right thing to do. Since the communists have shown themselves to be the rabid animals they are, all bets are off.
Marquis de Queensbury rules don’t apply in a street fight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,943 Posts
With all of RGB's known health issues, I'm shocked that her replacement wasn't already selected. Since trump has a list of nominees that in many cases have already been evaluated I can see no reason not to have made a just in case determination. He knew she would die during his second term and had to have considered the possibility that it would happen this term.

My choice would be judge Amy Barrett.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jeanderson

·
Come on man!!
Joined
·
14,364 Posts
Hell yes, he should nominate someone and 2016 has nothing to do with this.

First, the Constitution doesn't say anything election-year politics. As Schumer said in 2016, the Senate has a job to do and should do it. It's literally Trump's job to fill this position and it's the Senate's job to either confirm or reject the nominee, the upcoming election has nothing to do with that.

Second, the reason I said 2016 doesn't have anything to do with this is that the people of America spoke loudly and clearly in 2014, 2016, and 2018 when they gave Republicans control of the Senate, originally as a check against Barack Obama's excessive power grabs, and as a sign of support for the Trump agenda. In 2016 the American people spoke when they elected Donald Trump. If the American people didn't want Trump picking Supreme Court justices, they could have flipped the Senate in 2018, but that didn't happen.

Third, this pick will flip the court solidly Red. That's a huge swing and will effectively nullify Roberts' liberal leanings. This pick has the potential to affect America for generations, and quite frankly, this pick is more important than the upcoming Presidential election.

Fourth, Creepy Joe has already hired an army of lawyers to challenge the election results at every turn. Hillary has already told him not to concede and there is a strong likelihood the election results will end up in front of SCOTUS just like they did in 2000. An even number of justices could spell disaster for America.

Trump needs to fill this seat, fast.
 
1 - 20 of 211 Posts
Top