riflebear said:

---

Dems are like 3yr olds w/ no parental guidance - if they don't get their way they throw a fit or burn the place down until Mommy gives in.

I'm afraid this is going to end in something really disastrous.

---

A complete lack of integrity or respect for our Republic.

bear2be2 said:

---

riflebear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FWBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

The Senate must not have approved of his selection. So the nomination wasn't presented. It's that simple

---

Bull**** . He was never presented. The constitutional process was not followed and you guys know it. You just don't care.

---

Having a hissy fit doesn't change that the Constitution doesn't say whatever you think it says.

---

The constitution was interpreted the same way on this issue from its ratification in 1788 until Mitch McConnell unilaterally decided to change it in 2016. To pretend or suggest otherwise is willful ignorance.

---

Lets not forget it was Harry Reed who changed the 'rules' and flipped everything upside down. Mitch was only following what Harry Reed did. A

nd then lets not forget what The Dems did in 2015/2016 to Trump - they took the gloves off and did one of the worst most corrupt things in history. The Dems went along w/ it and not only didn't condemn it they doubled down and instead of investigating their own party, blamed Trump so a Mueller investigation could begin and then Kavanaugh & then Impeachment. The problem is this is snowballing into something that will end in a disaster because neither party will stop it. I don't like it at all. It was only 20+ years ago that some SCOTUS nominees didn't even show up to the hearings and were voted in unanimously. That will never happen again.

---

And those things were wrong. Those types of congressional shortcuts are not only constitutionally questionable IMO, they're really short-sighted because anything you use against your opposition can and will eventually be used against you.

I'm just not one who believes two wrongs make a right. And if we're ever going to get to a point as a nation where our government functions as it was intended to by the founders, we're going to need one party or the other to end this eternal tit for tat.

---

I agree but after watching what the Dems have done the last 4-5 years you really think they are going to stop?

After Kavanaugh they were already talking about packing the court and adding SCOTUS picks, plus the filibuster.
I'm not for playing dirty at all but playing games is fine if they want to do that. The problem is Dems will do illegal and corrupt things and the press will cover for them. Doesn't matter if Trump/Senate nominates someone or not, if the Dems win they will do everything they've threatened anyway. Yesterday I wasn't for the nominee but seeing every President in history has nominated someone in the last year of a Presidency then there is literally no reason not to this time.

riflebear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

riflebear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FWBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

The Senate must not have approved of his selection. So the nomination wasn't presented. It's that simple

---

Bull**** . He was never presented. The constitutional process was not followed and you guys know it. You just don't care.

---

Having a hissy fit doesn't change that the Constitution doesn't say whatever you think it says.

---

The constitution was interpreted the same way on this issue from its ratification in 1788 until Mitch McConnell unilaterally decided to change it in 2016. To pretend or suggest otherwise is willful ignorance.

---

Lets not forget it was Harry Reed who changed the 'rules' and flipped everything upside down. Mitch was only following what Harry Reed did. A

nd then lets not forget what The Dems did in 2015/2016 to Trump - they took the gloves off and did one of the worst most corrupt things in history. The Dems went along w/ it and not only didn't condemn it they doubled down and instead of investigating their own party, blamed Trump so a Mueller investigation could begin and then Kavanaugh & then Impeachment. The problem is this is snowballing into something that will end in a disaster because neither party will stop it. I don't like it at all. It was only 20+ years ago that some SCOTUS nominees didn't even show up to the hearings and were voted in unanimously. That will never happen again.

---

And those things were wrong. Those types of congressional shortcuts are not only constitutionally questionable IMO, they're really short-sighted because anything you use against your opposition can and will eventually be used against you.

I'm just not one who believes two wrongs make a right. And if we're ever going to get to a point as a nation where our government functions as it was intended to by the founders, we're going to need one party or the other to end this eternal tit for tat.

---

I agree but after watching what the Dems have done the last 4-5 years you really think they are going to stop?

After Kavanaugh they were already talking about packing the court and adding SCOTUS picks, plus the filibuster.
I'm not for playing dirty at all but playing games is fine if they want to do that. The problem is Dems will do illegal and corrupt things and the press will cover for them. Doesn't matter if Trump/Senate nominates someone or not, if the Dems win they will do everything they've threatened anyway. Yesterday I wasn't for the nominee but seeing every President in history has nominated someone in the last year of a Presidency then there is literally no reason not to this time.

---

The problem is Republicans have too much dirt on their hands to claim innocence. Both parties take part in this nonsense. And as long as they do -- and their voters are content to let/defend them -- nothing will change.

I'm afraid someone is going to get seriously hurt or killed before this is all over. And the media will completely ignore all the Dems telling their radical liberals to go after and attack Trump supporters.

bear2be2 said:

---

FWBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

The difference between Republicans and Democrats with this next Supreme Court justice is this
Repub want someone to uphold the constitution
Dems want someone to change it.
Which side are you on?

---

The constitution says that Obama's nominee in 2016 should have gotten a hearing. Don't pretend to care about the constitution now.

---

lol wut

---

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, AKA the Appointments Clause

---

Where is the part about a hearing or a vote?

Section 2

• Clause 2
• He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Osodecentx said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FWBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

The difference between Republicans and Democrats with this next Supreme Court justice is this
Repub want someone to uphold the constitution
Dems want someone to change it.
Which side are you on?

---

The constitution says that Obama's nominee in 2016 should have gotten a hearing. Don't pretend to care about the constitution now.

---

lol wut

---

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, AKA the Appointments Clause

---

Where is the part about a hearing or a vote?

Section 2
• Clause 2
• He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

---

It says "with the advice and consent of the senate," not "at the unilateral discretion of the senate majority leader" ... Actual advice and consent would require the senate, as a body, to hear and vote on the nominee. McConnell subverted the constitution when he denied his colleagues the right to fulfill their constitutional duties.

bear2be2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FWBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

The difference between Republicans and Democrats with this next Supreme Court justice is this
Repub want someone to uphold the constitution
Dems want someone to change it.
Which side are you on?

---

The constitution says that Obama's nominee in 2016 should have gotten a hearing. Don't pretend to care about the constitution now.

---

lol wut

---

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, AKA the Appointments Clause

---

Where is the part about a hearing or a vote?

Section 2
• Clause 2
• He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

---

It says "with the advice and consent of the senate," not "at the unilateral discretion of the senate majority leader" ... Advice and consent would require the senate as a body to hear and vote on the nominee. McConnell subverted the constitution when he denied his colleagues the right to fulfill their constitutional duties.

---

My copy says: "and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate in a manner and according to a timeline demanded by the Rachel Maddows of the world, shall appoint" ...

riflebear said:

---

Cinque & Jinx just posted their reaction...
**Warning - language

---

Contrast that reaction to Trump's first reaction to Ginsberg passing. And I'm not a Trump fan. I'm guessing those women were not unique in how they reacted.

bear2be2 said:

---

FWBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FWBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

The difference between Republicans and Democrats with this next Supreme Court justice is this
Repub want someone to uphold the constitution
Dems want someone to change it.
Which side are you on?

---

The constitution says that Obama's nominee in 2016 should have gotten a hearing. Don't pretend to care about the constitution now.

---

lol wut

---

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, AKA the Appointments Clause

---

Where is the part about a hearing or a vote?

Section 2
• Clause 2
• He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

---

It says "with the advice and consent of the senate," not "at the unilateral discretion of the senate majority leader" ... Advice and consent would require the senate as a body to hear and vote on the nominee. McConnell subverted the constitution when he denied his colleagues the right to fulfill their constitutional duties.

---

My copy says: "and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate in a manner and according to a timeline demanded by the Rachel Maddows of the world, shall appoint" ...

---

The last unconfirmed conservative nominee that didn't withdraw his/her own name was Robert Bork in 1987. And he was a very problematic nominee. To act as though there's an extensive recent history of conservatives being denied spots on the court by Rachel Maddow types is fiction.

---

What exactly was "problematic" about Bork?

blackie said:

---

Both parties have engaged in whatever they could do to thwart the other once partisanship took over. Neither has the moral high ground on this. They both need to also be careful to change things (filibuster rule, number of Supreme Court justices, etc) as history has shown that situations get reversed and you then end up on the short end of the stick and it bites you in the a**..

End of the two party system would seem to help, but doubt it will ever come, certainly in my lifetime. We need more options. The Reps and Dems have both lost it.

---

I love you blackie. You sound like my 19 year old son. I just try to tell him, we gotta keep the Republic in place and hold our nose and vote for Trump to survive the next four years. Both decks gets reshuffled in 2024. We need a third party to step up. The bat**** crazy Libertarian Party is not the answer.

JXL said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FWBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FWBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

The difference between Republicans and Democrats with this next Supreme Court justice is this
Repub want someone to uphold the constitution
Dems want someone to change it.
Which side are you on?

---

The constitution says that Obama's nominee in 2016 should have gotten a hearing. Don't pretend to care about the constitution now.

---

lol wut

---

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, AKA the Appointments Clause

---

Where is the part about a hearing or a vote?

Section 2

• Clause 2
• He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

---

It says "with the advice and consent of the senate," not "at the unilateral discretion of the senate majority leader" ... Advice and consent would require the senate as a body to hear and vote on the nominee. McConnell subverted the constitution when he denied his colleagues the right to fulfill their constitutional duties.

---

My copy says: "and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate in a manner and according to a timeline demanded by the Rachel Maddows of the world, shall appoint" ...

---

The last unconfirmed conservative nominee that didn't withdraw his/her own name was Robert Bork in 1987. And he was a very problematic nominee. To act as though there's an extensive recent history of conservatives being denied spots on the court by Rachel Maddow types is fiction.

---

What exactly was "problematic" about Bork?

---

Too qualified

The main problem with the Supreme Court and to some extent the Presidency is the legislative (particularly the house) abdicating it's responsibilities. Neither Rep or Dem houses have executed on a high level since maybe the Clinton presidency.

The public wants us to move forward with hearings https://law.marquette.edu/poll/2020/09/19/public-views-of-justice-ginsburg-and-appointments-to-the-supreme-court/

fubar said:

---

william said:

---

Baylor3216 said:

---

They're not going to try to rush it through.

Trump now wins in a bigger landslide though.

---

just the opposite. I would think.

this motivates the moderate middle left-ish woman - at least those for whom (varoom) abortion is a top 2 or 3 itthue - to vote for Plugs and Pal.

- KKM

---

Yep. The kooky man nailed it.

---

p*igs of a p*collar
p*flock p*together.......

- tbp*

{ sipping coffee }

{ eating cupcake }

Jack Bauer said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

---

Hot, smart, religious, and honest about our Constitution. She's the anti-RBG. What a wonderful pick for a new shift of the court toward actual justice.

---

Nothing pisses off a feminist more than an attractive conservative family woman.

---

You thought Beckie Falwell was too.

Ski8103 said:

---

The main problem with the Supreme Court and to some extent the Presidency is the legislative (particularly the house) abdicating it's responsibilities. Neither Rep or Dem houses have executed on a high level since maybe the Clinton presidency.

---

Agree completely.

Those in both houses of congress have become shameless lapdogs or roadblocks to the executive depending on the president's party at the time, and they've left us plebs to deal with the consequences of their fecklessness. These *******s are so afraid to step out of line with their party boss because actually doing their jobs as representatives might cost them their seats. But that body doesn't solve anything anymore. Outside of healthcare, which was a massive failure, none of the biggest issues facing this nation have even been addressed in 20-plus years, much less solved. That's because complex problems can't be solved on a partisan basis and neither of these ****ty parties have any willingness or desire to find middle ground.

bear2be2 said:

---

FWBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FWBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

The difference between Republicans and Democrats with this next Supreme Court justice is this
Repub want someone to uphold the constitution
Dems want someone to change it.
Which side are you on?

---

The constitution says that Obama's nominee in 2016 should have gotten a hearing. Don't pretend to care about the constitution now.

---

lol wut

---

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, AKA the Appointments Clause

---

Where is the part about a hearing or a vote?

Section 2
• Clause 2
• He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

---

It says "with the advice and consent of the senate," not "at the unilateral discretion of the senate majority leader" ... Advice and consent would require the senate as a body to hear and vote on the nominee. McConnell subverted the constitution when he denied his colleagues the right to fulfill their constitutional duties.

---

My copy says: "and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate in a manner and according to a timeline demanded by the Rachel Maddows of the world, shall appoint" ...

---

The last unconfirmed conservative nominee that didn't withdraw his/her own name was Robert Bork in 1987. And he was a very problematic nominee. To act as though there's an extensive recent history of conservatives being denied spots on the court by Rachel Maddow types is fiction.

---

lmfao

Gruvin said:

---

The public wants us to move forward with hearings https://law.marquette.edu/poll/2020/09/19/public-views-of-justice-ginsburg-and-appointments-to-the-supreme-court/

---

So if I'm reading that correctly, only 25 percent of all people polled said that a hearing should not have been held in 2016, compared to 32 percent now.

So this is yet another example of congress ignoring their constituents to fight petty partisan battles.

FWBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FWBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FWBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

The difference between Republicans and Democrats with this next Supreme Court justice is this
Repub want someone to uphold the constitution
Dems want someone to change it.
Which side are you on?

---

The constitution says that Obama's nominee in 2016 should have gotten a hearing. Don't pretend to care about the constitution now.

---

lol wut

---

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, AKA the Appointments Clause

---

Where is the part about a hearing or a vote?

Section 2

• Clause 2
• He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

---

It says "with the advice and consent of the senate," not "at the unilateral discretion of the senate majority leader" ... Advice and consent would require the senate as a body to hear and vote on the nominee. McConnell subverted the constitution when he denied his colleagues the right to fulfill their constitutional duties.

---

My copy says: "and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate in a manner and according to a timeline demanded by the Rachel Maddows of the world, shall appoint" ...

---

The last unconfirmed conservative nominee that didn't withdraw his/her own name was Robert Bork in 1987. And he was a very problematic nominee. To act as though there's an extensive recent history of conservatives being denied spots on the court by Rachel Maddow types is fiction.

---

lmfao

---

At which part specifically? You're not adding much to this conversation as is.

So.... any chance Trump could nominate Judge Wapner?

HashTag said:

---

So.... any chance Trump could nominate Judge Wapner?

---

Silly. Its going to be a female so Judge Judy!

Dumb move by Republicans to attempt to fill the Supreme Court seat prior to the election .

Dumb move by Dems to threaten to expand the number of seats on the Court . If only because it tips their hand .

Dems will do ANYTHING to retain power .

Washington DC to become a STATE ?
Puerto Rico another sick move .

Unfortunately most Americans simply don't comprehend the mechanics involved.

Jack Bauer said:

---

HashTag said:

---

So.... any chance Trump could nominate Judge Wapner?

---

Silly. Its going to be a female so Judge Judy!

---

Ah! That makes total sense!

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FWBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

The Senate must not have approved of his selection. So the nomination wasn't presented. It's that simple

---

Bull**** . He was never presented. The constitutional process was not followed and you guys know it. You just don't care.

---

Having a hissy fit doesn't change that the Constitution doesn't say whatever you think it says.

---

The constitution was interpreted the same way on this issue from its ratification in 1788 until Mitch McConnell unilaterally decided to change it in 2016. To pretend or suggest otherwise is willful ignorance.

---

I know you're genuinely concerned about fairness and the Constitution, but I couldn't disagree more with this post. McConnell didn't change anything. In these circumstances it has always been difficult for a president to appoint a justice when his party didn't control the Senate. When they do control the Senate, it's a completely different matter. Like it or not, the Republicans are acting consistently and according to precedent.

---

There is no precedent one can point to for McConnell's decision to ignore a duly appointed supreme court nominee without so much as a vote on the senate floor. The only thing anyone can throw out there is the so-called Biden Rule, which was never actually tested ... and which McConnell/the Republicans have refused to make official senate policy.

If the Republicans had voted and chosen not to confirm Garland, which they had the votes to do, it would have been one thing. Still wrong IMO, given that he was both duly appointed and extremely well qualified, but it would have been consistent with the senate's constitutional duties. To ignore the appointment entirely as though it never happened with eight months remaining in a sitting president's term and leave the court short a justice for more than a year was an unprecedented (and IMO chicken****) move by a chicken**** politician who has done as much as anyone in either house of congress to create the toxic partisan climate that has paralyzed and essentially delegitimized our legislature.

So while, yes, it is always difficult for a president to appoint a justice without control of the senate, we have never seen a senate majority leader act as childishly as McConnell did in 2016 -- a move that is all but guaranteed to make an overt hypocrite of him and his fellow Republican partisans.

And if you look at the confirmation vote tallies of justices before and after the Merrick Garland incident, I don't see any way one can conclude that McConnell's actions in 2016 have done anything but further partisanize the supreme court appointment process -- a development that will have devastating consequences for this country.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

blackie said:

---

Both parties have engaged in whatever they could do to thwart the other once partisanship took over. Neither has the moral high ground on this. They both need to also be careful to change things (filibuster rule, number of Supreme Court justices, etc) as history has shown that situations get reversed and you then end up on the short end of the stick and it bites you in the a**..

End of the two party system would seem to help, but doubt it will ever come, certainly in my lifetime. We need more options. The Reps and Dems have both lost it.

---

I love you blackie. You sound like my 19 year old son. I just try to tell him, we gotta keep the Republic in place and hold our nose and vote for Trump to survive the next four years. Both decks gets reshuffled in 2024. We need a third party to step up. The bat**** crazy Libertarian Party is not the answer.

---

You'll say the same thing in 2024 and be just as wrong.