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%
141 - 160 of 211 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
747 Posts
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.

While I was campaigning for TRUMP in 2016, I was astonished at just how many people I met who were voting for DJT solely on the grounds that he'd be better positioned to appoint conservative SC judges than leftist Hillary Rodham Klinton.

Let President TRUMP do the job he was elected to do and never give an inch to appease the obstructionist Left. When you obey these principles, US politics becomes more clear and the nation is much better off as a result.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,780 Posts
If this was a Democrat Presidents nomination for SCOTUS, and they had a majority in the Senate, does anyone even imagine they would give a flying damn about what the Republicans thought in regards to waiting 2 months for an election to pass before nominating? Hell no they wouldn't wait. They'd ram it through so fast it'd make our heads spin. And with 100 Per Cent of the democrats on board with the vote. None of the weak spined crap RINO garbage we have to contend with in the GOP.
 

·
Come on man!!
Joined
·
14,374 Posts
Really? From the now overt racists democrats? Remember, they positively shudder in ecstasy to accuse others of their own behavior.
Well, if one of them wants to accuse her of being racist, they can feel free to do so, but once she holds up a picture of her two black adopted children while eviscerating said Democrat, that person will have proven to the entire world what a fool they are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,198 Posts
Finally, it's a cheap shot. We set the rules saying you can't confirm during an election year.
The mainstream media is getting this wrong as well. I’d say they are doing so intentionally.

The rule set in 2016 was when the senate & the presidency were held by opposing political parties. Had Chuck & the Dems controlled the senate in 2016, I don’t think they would have hesitated a day to push Merrick Garland through.
 

·
Aw sheet main
Joined
·
1,553 Posts
The mainstream media is getting this wrong as well. I’d say they are doing so intentionally.

The rule set in 2016 was when the senate & the presidency were held by opposing political parties. Had Chuck & the Dems controlled the senate in 2016, I don’t think they would have hesitated a day to push Merrick Garland through.
And the precedent went back even further. In the not so distant past, a vacancy came open in the last year year of a republican president and the democrats said they should\would wait for a new president. It might have been Reagan. It seems like it was Bidens idea back then. In Obama's last year, McConnell used that precedent to hold off until Trump won, and that is said to have helped Trump because it made a lot of right wing fence sitters more open to Trump.

It doesn't really matter. If election issues go to the SCOTUS, democrats have one less vote, and we might be better off like that instead of another judge who goes rogue after getting in. If the incentive helps Trump win, he still gets to fill the position.

There is absolutely no doubt the democrats would fill it if the positions were reversed. But unlike republicans, democrats don't have turncoats who sabotage the agenda, and if they do, they pay dearly. Nutless McConnell isn't a threat to saboteurs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,271 Posts
Well, if one of them wants to accuse her of being racist, they can feel free to do so, but once she holds up a picture of her two black adopted children while eviscerating said Democrat, that person will have proven to the entire world what a fool they are.
The left will equate it as the same as Jefferson sleeping with Sallie Hemmings, it doesn’t prove they aren’t racists.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,271 Posts
And the precedent went back even further. In the not so distant past, a vacancy came open in the last year year of a republican president and the democrats said they should\would wait for a new president. It might have been Reagan. It seems like it was Bidens idea back then. In Obama's last year, McConnell used that precedent to hold off until Trump won, and that is said to have helped Trump because it made a lot of right wing fence sitters more open to Trump.

It doesn't really matter. If election issues go to the SCOTUS, democrats have one less vote, and we might be better off like that instead of another judge who goes rogue after getting in. If the incentive helps Trump win, he still gets to fill the position.

There is absolutely no doubt the democrats would fill it if the positions were reversed. But unlike republicans, democrats don't have turncoats who sabotage the agenda, and if they do, they pay dearly. Nutless McConnell isn't a threat to saboteurs.
The republicans need to follow suit!
 

·
Aw sheet main
Joined
·
1,553 Posts
Funny to hear a man who weaponized large portions of the federal government for use against the people, lecture us on what the Constitution says and the rule of law.
 

·
Wallbuilder and Weapon Bearer
Joined
·
116,456 Posts
Where is it written that a President is prevented from appointing a judge?

If it's buried somewhere in the fine print of the Constitution, it can be amended.
If it's just a verbal statement from a politician, it can be ignored;
if you leftists don't like it, you can elect a different politician.

One Congress can't bind the hands of a subsequent congress.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,241 Posts
Trump will likely nominate Judge Barbara Lagoa. There's a high degree of communication occurring this weekend between DC and Judge Lagoa.
 

·
Making America great again!
Joined
·
16,215 Posts
Discussion Starter #157
Looking back over the many responses, I perhaps should have phrased my question differently. It's clear that a president is obligated, under the Constitution, to nominate a SCOTUS justice. I don't disagree there. My question was more one of the politics of it, and its effect on the election. Should hearings and a vote be rushed before the election? That has the optics of trying to pull a fast one. That will fire up Democrats.

I wish nothing more than to see a 6-3 (or 5-4, if you discount Roberts) conservative majority. I want to see the 2A defended as well as the rights of the unborn. I want to see sanity restored in our immigration system and I want to see the wall built. If we can get Donald Trump re-elected and hold on to the Senate (and maybe pick up a seat or two), this will happen. I don't see it as urgent to replace Ginsburg right this very minute. Just my $.02
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,076 Posts
This is a street fight, there are no rules. Fair? When have the democrats EVER been fair? Ever! No, gloves are off. The time for fair play died in the 80’s along with common sense.
If the Senate does not confirm a new SCOTUS seat they will be guilty of giving aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war. This is war.
 

·
Wut?
Joined
·
2,331 Posts
All this crap about hypocrisy is nothing but partisans BSing the ignorant. In '92, Biden announced that a Dem Senate would not confirm a Republican nominee in the last year. In '07, Schumer announced the same. Then in 2016, McConnell announced that a Republican Senate would not confirm a Dem nominee under the same circumstances. Whether any of us like it or not, the Senate is not a rubber stamp for the Executive, and all 3 of those men we're acting in accordance with the constitution. And right now, with the Senate and the Executive controlled by the same party, McConnell is also acting in accordance with the constitution.

If you want someone to blame, Harry Reid is your man. McConnell warned him that nuking the judicial filibuster would blow up in the Dems' faces, but their philosophy for the past few decades at least, has been that they will do whatever it takes to win today, and they'll worry about tomorrow when it gets here.

Well, that cigar exploded on the evening of November 8th, 2016, when Trump was elected President.

And if Trump fills the nomination and the voters don't like it, they're free to throw the bums out. If the founders are looking down on us right now, they know that everything is going according to plan.
 

·
I'm your huckleberry....
Joined
·
17,485 Posts
Why can’t we just confirm her now, then have hearing later, like the passage of the unaffordable care act, a la pelosi.
That's an interesting thought. "We'll have to confirm and seat her before you get to see what qualifications she has." D's would implode!!!
 
141 - 160 of 211 Posts
Top