Thread: Ginsberg dead
View Single Post
Old 09-19-2020, 05:43 AM
  #9  
Alsatian
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 6,170
Default

Originally Posted by Valorius View Post
Mitch McConnell, "We will have a vote on a new justice before the year is over."

This means that any case that goes before the Supreme court involving the 2020 election will see Trump with a 6-3 advantage.

Head shot.
I think that is a very astute observation about the implications this has for the potential Supreme court deciding the election outcome. Bravo Valorius. I watched all of Laura Ingraham last night. She talked with many attorneys and court pundits but none of them pointed out that obviously essential linkage.

I see that Democrats are already trying to play the Jedi mind trick by talking and talking and talking and trying to make it seem that it would be beyond the pale to replace Ginsburg promptly. They have all sorts of rationales, and expect those rationales to shift around over time -- like throwing spaghetti up against the wall to see what sticks. I have a suggestion for Republicans Senators. You ought to just say "This is a f-ing political process, the appointment of judges; you Democrats have MADE it an f-ing political process; and hence don't you DARE hypocritically blame us for following your lead in this!" I advise they just say "screw off dude, this is the constitutional process. There is no provision made for all these silly-ass rules you are concocting which you yourselves have not followed." This is one of my beefs with Republicans: they are silly and play nice when the Democrats are obviously playing dirty. Just tell it like it is. This is the damn process. This is the law. We are going to do it this way -- it is lawful and we have the votes so that is going to be what happens.

Trump should appoint a replacement justice next week. The senate ought to start hearings promptly upon Trump naming his appointment. They ought to have the vote before the election. In this day of the Internet, please don't try and tell me they can't find out what they want to know about a supreme court justice candidate in the time remaining. You bloody well know that if they hold the vote AFTER the election and the election actually tips the balance of the Senate the Democrats will then demand that the vote be deferred until the new Senators are sworn in -- which takes place, by the way, very early in January -- not January 21 as does the President. These considerations, to my mind, imply we'll see a Senate vote on a Trump appointment BEFORE the election.

I would add another thought to support my prediction "vote before the election." This places pressure on Republican senators to stay loyal to the Republican party in this court appointment. If they vote against the Trump appointment, that is likely to be deleterious to them in their 2020 election.

I would say that if there are violent attempts to forestall this process, that the president and the senate majority leader sternly take things in hand. McConnell ought to exclude all non-essential personnel from the Senate building (Senators allowed, Senators' aides who comport themselves appropriately allowed, police/security allowed). If people attempt to riot on Federal grounds, like proximate to the Houses of Congress, the President should call out federal troops to quell that attempt at insurrection. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Don't even LET the damn circus begin. You know it is coming.

Last edited by Alsatian; 09-19-2020 at 05:53 AM.
Alsatian is offline