How do you think the passing of RBG is going to change up the supreme court?  Will Trump get a new member in before the election?  I'm thinking this could be big

If President Trump decides to go forward with his nomination to fill Justice Ginsberg's seat, get ready for a brawl, no matter who he chooses, but particularly if he nominates Amy Coney Barrett.  Prepare for a spectacle much worse than what we saw with Brett Kavanaugh.  We knew this day was coming.

Who ever he chooses I hope and pray for them to have thick skin like Trump does, because we all know that they will go threw hell just because he choose that person.

The way Kavanaugh was treated was one of the most vile things I've ever seen......Kamala Harris cast the first stone.  Her true colors shined through right there.

Y'all don't think he would go with a liberal to try to get some of those votes do you????

So far he has keep his word and only picked from his list. However I do think it will be a woman.

I read today that he will likely pick a woman to fill the seat in the next week.  I agree that the better be on tough hided, tough willed gal because they are going to come after her with both barrels smoking.  I just really hope and Pray that he can get one seated before the election just in case he doesn't win for some reason.  I really don't want the dems to fill the seat.

The best thing the GOP could do is appoint and confirm fast. 

Kamala will have to recuse herself from the Judicial committee and they've really used up most of their #metoo bullets against Justice Kavanaugh. A conservative woman Judge would the obvious choice here and a fast confirmation takes that bullet out of the Dem Campaign gun. 

ETA: It's time for Mitch to grow a spin and start snapping necks and cashing checks. He can push this thru if he will. And any RINO that shows thru this process should be tarred and feathered. 

A beautiful, conservative, Catholic, woman with 7 kids, a husband, and an extremely demanding career.....if Barrett is the nominee, that is.

Democrats will be out in full force against her.  They have tried to skewer her in the past for her stances on abortion, ObamaCare, etc...  Suburban women will be watching this.  Already there are threats of more violent riots and arson.  More riots is not a good thing for Democrats.  

No way.  

ok  you all know i support trump

but  when obama had the chance 

the rep raised  hell so .. with that said    are we being two face or...  personally i want consevatives  i want our values back  i want law and order

i want quick and speedy trial i want you do the crime  you are quickly  in jail or dead  30 years on death row is a traversity of justices

"Of course," said McConnell, "the American people should have a say in the court's direction. It is a president's constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice, and it is the Senate's constitutional right to act as a check on the president and withhold its consent."

Supreme Court picks have often been controversial. There have been contentious hearings and floor debates and contested votes. But to ignore the nominee entirely, as if no vacancy existed?

There was no precedent for such an action since the period around the Civil War and Reconstruction. No Democratic president had made an appointment while Republicans held the Senate since 1895.

Politics

Merrick Garland Heads To Capitol Hill For What Could Be A Futile Exercise

In a speech that August in Kentucky, McConnell would say: "One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.' "

McConnell was not alone. The 11 Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee signed a letter saying they had no intention of consenting to any nominee from Obama. No proceedings of any kind were held on Garland's appointment.

The court had to convene that October with only eight justices, divided often betwee

Here's what the Democrats are threatening to do.  Arson and riots.  Let's see how that plays out:

SCOTUS battle prompts threats, calls for arson: ‘Burn Congress down’

‘If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire f—–g thing down.’

By | Fox News September 19, 2020

“If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire f—–g thing down,” author Reza Aslan tweeted. He later responded to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s vow to hold a vote on President Trump’s nominee. “Over our dead bodies, literally,” he tweeted.

Author Aaron Gouveia similarly blasted McConnell’s statement, saying: “F–k no. Burn it all down.”

A Canadian political science professor called for arson, prompting accusations he made a terroristic threat. “Burn Congress down before letting Trump try to appoint anyone to SCOTUS,” Waterloo professor Emmett MacFarlane tweeted.

“Macfarlane is a professor at @UWaterloo, promoting violence against his political enemies,” he said. “If you were a young woman in his class who was a Trump supporter, would you risk being a target of his violent rage if he found out about you? Should you transfer to a different class?”

Ginsburg’s death came just weeks before the presidential election and opened the opportunity for Republicans to dramatically shift power on the Supreme Court by confirming another conservative justice. Democrats have long criticized McConnell, R-Ky., of hypocrisy given his previous refusal to hold a vote on Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland before the 2016 elections.

McConnell has maintained, however, that Garland’s confirmation was unique in that the Senate and executive branch were controlled by different parties. That isn’t the case in the wake of Ginsburg’s death.

The incredibly high stakes prompted what appeared to be panicked reactions from many on Twitter. Writer Beau Willimon threatened: “We’re shutting this country down if Trump and McConnell try to ram through an appointment before the election.”

A member of Wisconsin’s ethics commission, Scott Ross, ordered Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., to “burn it all down” if he couldn’t stop McConnell. “F—–g A, Ed. If you can’t shut it down, burn it down,” he said.

WHITE HOUSE SAYS BIDEN NEEDS TO RELEASE SUPREME COURT LIST

Other tweets didn’t contain violent threats but indicated opponents wouldn’t take Ginsburg’s replacement lying down.

“If McConnell jams someone through, which he will, there will be riots,” warned GQ writer Laura Bassett.

Those threats sure don't shine a good light on the mentality of a lot of the Dems!  Our country needs to get back to having Values

Now Nancy Pelosi is threatening to impeach Trump if he dares to proceed with his job and make a nomination.   The woman needs to be in a strait jacket.  She's crazy as a bag of rats.

Let the Dem's scream all they want they can only blame Harry Reed he's the one that changed all the rules in the senate. Mitch is only following he's lead.What goes around comes around. My only concern are the rino's like Mitt etc.

Nancy is something else!  I'm not that political but haven't they already impeached Trump, yet he is still in office do things for the greater good of us?  

Harry Reid years back opened the door for Trump to nominate -- and get an appointee approved.  If good for the goose, it's good for the gander. Right?

Just saying ......

2020 .... Let's nominate and confirm a new Supreme Court Judge ASAP ......

Republicans = Hypocrites

2016: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”

2018: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.”

2016: Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term - I would say that if it was a Republican president.”

2016: Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”

2016: Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”

2016: Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”

2016: Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”

2016: Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”

2016: Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”

2016: Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”

2016: Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”
________________________
** “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
-- Mitch McConnell, March 2016

@ NJJ: I'm surprised you didn't include Malcolm X.

Here's the deal.  Ask yourselves what Obama would have done under these circumstances.  Do you think Obama and Harry Reid would have done exactly what Trump and McConnell are saying they are going to do?  You bet your ass they would. 

Is it illegal to appoint and confirm a new justice during an election year?  No.  Be honest here.  
Back in 2016, Obama nominated Merrit Garland.  The Republicans held the majority.  The majority leader exercised his legal authority and didn't allow it to be considered.  Now they still hold the majority but the President is obviously also Republican.  To quote Barack Obama, "winning has consequences".  You can argue whether it's fair, but those are the rules.   Besides, it's far from a done deal.  They might not even have the votes.

Since 2016, Democrats have been threatening to "pack the courts" with liberal judges.  The SCOTUS has had 9 justices for over 150 years.  If you want to talk about "not breaking traditions", then you shouldn't threaten to break that one. That threat to retaliate by packing the courts since 2016 was how the Democrats threw down the gauntlet.  They themselves threatened to "pack the courts"...a political declaration of war.  Mark my word, that's exactly what they'll do, no matter what.  Given that, I don't blame Trump and the Republicans.  

FDR wanted to pack the courts as well.  Same with Teddy Roosevelt.  Both attempts were struck down.  Over the span of 12 years, FDR ended up appointing 8 justices.  In effect, he did it the old fashioned way.  

Oh, and guess what Justice Ginsburg said when lame duck president Obama wanted to replace conservative justice Scalia with the much more liberal Garland.  RBG publicly called on the senate to go through with the nomination. She said, "There's nothing in the constitution that says the President stops being the President in his last year."

Funny how that works.

That's the best you can do .....

Impeached president trump is the most thin skinned person to ever hold office. He acts like a child when critized. But he is Putin's man so the commies will back him no matter what. 

This supreme court position is nothing new. RBG was 87 and had terminal cancer. Everyone with a brain, that probably excludes impeached president turmp, knew this day was coming. 

Also, anyone with a brain, which still excludes impeached president trump, knows this sopt won't be filled until after the election.

Can you explain how Trump is Putin's man?

I'm of a different opinion due to the dossier has been proven false and an attorney has been indicted to falsifying court documents. Even Sally Yates said Comey went rogue. 

Truly curious of your reasoning.

He won't tell you because he doesn't know anyting except "Orange man Bad" 

Since all the commies are on the Dem side ( By thier own words) that means they are going to vote for the new justice correct nimrod. Your lack of logic is amazing.

Jd&ez you are such a joke, you always repete everything you say with so much hate, maybe loosen up your fanny pack, that might help with your anger and hate. 

Trump says bring it on.   

He cant tell because he dont even know why he keeps saying Trump is Putins man, heck he cant even tell us why he supports Biden and why Biden is so wonderful and what Biden has done in all the years being a politician.. All he can do is keep repeating his self. 

I have lost count been to many to keep up with, lol, BUttttt is this new with ole Joe saying about 200 million people have died from Covid-19 or is this old news?!!

Old news. He said it a couple weeks ago. :) 

Awww ok, thanks

No, according to Google it was yesterday in Pennsylvania.

But remember when he said 150 million Americans had died from gunshot wounds.  That was one of his anti-guns rants.  

I can see someone making a mistake like this occasionally, but this guy does it regularly.  In fact, he does it so often that people are actually getting used to it. That tells me everyone knows he's shot.

My mistake, in June he said 120 million were dead from COVID. Either way, not the first time and yes I remember the gunshot wound comment as well. 

https://dailycaller.com/2020/06/25/joe-biden-120-million-coronavirus-deaths/?utm_source=knewz

Goes right along with Joe saying "Harris-Biden administration", then Kamala saying "the Harris administration along with Joe Biden", once would be a mistake but twice makes me wonder what is being said behind closed doors.

Get out of town.  Hypocrisy in politics...  I didn't see Feinstein or Schumer on your list of hypocrites.  

LOL .... another "what about" .....but.....but....but what about the Dems ..... Good job when you can't admit that those ABOVE ARE hypocrites !!!!!!!!!!!

Bless it. Of course they are hypocrites. I do not have a problem admitting it.  The point of my response to you was you felt the need to point out the hypocrisy, as if it was a gotcha for just one politcal side. Your post read like a cut and paste from Mother Jones.

Let's see if I can do this right.  but...but...but...what about Cotton, Ernst.  

I'm not sure if we would be mortified at what was said behind doors or ****ed!  I think it would be safe to bet the farm that there is something up their sleeves and that Ol Joe isn't planning on the title for very long if he were to win.

In 2016, when Antonin Scalia died, Obama proceeded to nominate Merrit Garland to fill the vacancy.  Does anyone know what Democrat leaders said back then?  How does that compare to what they are saying now?

How soon they forget.  Schumer said there was no reason not to proceed even in an election year.  Look at how Feinstein has changed her tone after previously expressing the need for a "full" bench as quickly as possible and it was the senate's responsibility.  

The left has been melting down and spiraling out of control for years now.  This was the last straw for them.

If you go back and watch quotes from Reid, Hillary, Pelosi, Schumer, and Bernie Sanders from 2016, you'll see a striking difference versus today.  
Hypocrisy is uniform throughout both parties. 

I firmly believe the inhumane way Democrats treated Kavanaugh had a lot to do with the change in thinking with Republican Senators.  Kavanaugh had his little girls there who had to be taken out of the room because of all the vile remarks being made about their father.  The yelling and shrieking and protesters.  It's a whole new ball game now.  

In 2016 if the Dems would have had the votes they would have proeeded. FACT

Bear, rarely do I disagree with you but I do not think there will be hearings, those were caused by RINO Republicans at their request. I think this is going to happen quickly---they have the votes.

I think you may be right.  It sounds like Romney is on board.  Right now it looks like they have the votes.  The Democrats will try to drag this out as long as possible.  Hearings will be the opportunity to grandstand and attempt character assassination on Barrett (assuming she's the nominee).  Hearings will only allow people like Romney to vote against the nominee, based on some pretense the Democrats conjure up.  Both Barrett and Lagoa have already been vetted as part of their earlier confirmation process.  It would still be interesting to see the Democrats try to lampoon and destroy these two WOMEN, but trust me, they will try to walk that fine line. They did it with an African American and nearly succeeded with Clarence Thomas, so they'll try it again. They **** near derailed Kavanaugh's confirmation with baseless, debunked allegations by the likes of Christine Ballsey Ford.  

At the end of the day: 6-3.

The fireworks of the Kavanaugh Hearings were brought on by the Republicans insisting upon it---McConnell does not have to have hearings---he can send it right to the floor for a vote if he chooses and if he knows he has the votes---He Will.The Dems will kick and scream and throw their tantrums but in the end, there is not a thing they can do about it. As a man once said---elections have consequences. What gets me is all the Libs up in arms that Ginsburgh was SO concerned about her replacement--if that was truly the case, she should have retired when Obama was in office. Why didn't she ???? SIMPLE----they ALL thought Hillary would win and this would never be an issure----THEY WERE WRONG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's why I find it hard to believe that RBG would make it her last dying wish to delay her replacement until after the election.  That clearly runs completely contrary to her public statements on the same issue in 2016.  To point out the Republican's "hypocrisy" while turning a blind eye to the Democrat's hypocrisy is.....hypocritical.  Imagine that.