In Scalia's case, his death occurred just as primaries were starting. RBG's was just over a month from election day. Makes a bit of a difference.THE 2020 DEMOCRATS SHOULD LISTEN TO THE 2016 DEMOCRATS.
...
Just the kind of Sanders supporting judge you've been looking for?Reports out Trump met Barrett at the WH today.
Too bad that Trump, Cruz, McConnell ,Graham and Rubio all waxed poetic 4 years ago about letting the people decide in an election year.....making them liars, in denial AND willfully ignorant hypocrites. But we already knew that, didn't we.Trump said last month that he would “absolutely” try to fill a vacancy if one came up before the end of his first term.
“I would move quickly, “ Trump said in an interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt.
“Why not? I mean, they would. The Democrats would if they were in this position.”
^^Anyone who refutes this is either: 1) lying 2) in denial 3) being wilfully ignorant
In Scalia's case, his death occurred just as primaries were starting. RBG's was just over a month from election day. Makes a bit of a difference.
Too bad that Trump, Cruz, McConnell ,Graham and Rubio all waxed poetic 4 years ago about letting the people decide in an election year.....making them liars, in denial AND willfully ignorant hypocrites. But we already knew that, didn't we.
On the flip side this lets Biden put out ads saying that Trump is going to make abortion illegal and kill the remains of health care.Too bad that Trump, Cruz, McConnell ,Graham and Rubio all waxed poetic 4 years ago about letting the people decide in an election year.....making them liars, in denial AND willfully ignorant hypocrites. But we already knew that, didn't we.
Or the Republicans can simply hold a vote next week and be done with it. The Constitution calls on the Senate to advise and consent. Nowhere does it state that the Senate must hold hearings.It's not like it hasn't been done before:
SCOTUS Confirmation by Nov. 3 Would Be Difficult But Not Unprecedented
LAURA DAVISON SEPTEMBER 21, 2020
The U.S. Senate would have to move unusually quickly to confirm President Donald Trump’s planned replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court before Election Day.
Trump said he planned to announce his nominee on Friday or Saturday, which would be less than 40 days until the Nov. 3 election. Only two times since 1975 has the chamber been able to confirm a Supreme Court pick in less time.
The late John Paul Stevens’s confirmation in 1975 took just 19 days, while former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor saw 33 days elapse from when she was nominated until a Senate vote in 1981.
Ginsburg herself had the third-shortest wait in that time -- 42 days.
SCOTUS Confirmation by Nov. 3 Would Be Difficult But Not Unprecedented
The U.S. Senate would have to move unusually quickly to confirm President Donald Trump’s planned replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court before Election Day.www.bloomberg.com
They should totally do it, would let the dems impeach Trump's choice in Feb.Or the Republicans can simply hold a vote next week and be done with it. The Constitution calls on the Senate to advise and consent. Nowhere does it state that the Senate must hold hearings.
Impeach for what; acting within the law? I see that fascism is taking a real hold on the left.They should totally do it, would let the dems impeach Trump's choice in Feb.
If the Dems ever went through with this charade, the next constitutional amendment would be the repeal of the impeachment clause.Impeach for what; acting within the law? I see that fascism is taking a real hold on the left.
Family run corrupt no oversight constant lies. That's what's in fascism.Impeach for what; acting within the law? I see that fascism is taking a real hold on the left.
You can't ignore 2 realities here:Rules norms laws and ethics only apply to non republicans. The rule isn't the problem, its the application of the rule. Repub presidents can fill during an election year. Dem presidents cannot. Either both can, or both can't.
Both realities irrelevant. The constitution says president nominates. Not a lame duck, not a first term. President.You can't ignore 2 realities here:
1) Obama was serving a second term. There was NO prospect of his administration continuing. Even a succeeding DEM president may have nominated someone different.
2) The GOP controlled the Senate and there was no propect of Garland's nomination being approved.
Neither of these facts are currently in play.
The DEMs should be reserving the criticism for themselves. They appointed a judge who overstayed her ability to serve by 7 years. Maybe they should make better selections when they are in power. Maybe they should appoint people who will step down before their death to allow for a more orderly transition.
Trump tweeted it will be Saturday.Romney is voting yes. He wrote something more mealy mouthed, but he said he is fine with them confirming before the election.
So that's that then.
I still expect announcement today or tomorrow and votes by next Friday at the latest.