Graham "hell bent" on replacing Supreme Court Justice

[zinfamous]

It is time for Ginsberg to retire.

you first

 

[Jaskalas]

Graham wants a conservative after Ginsberg leaves. Shocked!

It does seem morbid of Graham to speak of this prior to there being a vacancy.

 

[drifter106]

They keep going on about the popular vote, congrats to them on winning a contest that doesn't mean anything. I love the electoral college, we are a nation of states with individual laws and cultures to an extent. The only reason Clinton got the popular vote was because very blue state CA voted very blue. The electoral college has meaning and exists to buffer these things. Trump won fair and square, end of story. Now the left creates imaginary boogiemen to try and protect their bubble, they were SO sure Hillary was going to win in a landslide. They can't come to terms with the reality that Hilary was simply a bad candidate and Trump ran a great campaign. It was non-traditional, but a great campaign.

why do you think the demo's want voting rights for illegal a

you first

once again, showing your lack of being a mature adult...what does that comment have to do with the post? Growup!

 

[fskimospy]

why do you think the demo's want voting rights for illegal a

Presumably you mean 'illegal aliens'. Democrats do not want voting rights for illegal aliens, you've fallen victim to extreme right wing propaganda.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It does seem morbid of Graham to speak of this prior to there being a vacancy.

Graham has no redeeming value as an American I can see. Like Mitch the party is more important than the people who do the living, working and dying here. We are in fact, that is the nation, a distant second to his party. If that's the case then one should not expect common decency from him regarding the state of health of another. Prefacing with "I hope she recovers" doesn't mitigate that.

 

[Bitek]

So conservatives, when does the McConnell Rule kick in?

Midterms are over and POTUS election season is already underway, so surely we are in the blackout period.

Scalia did die two weeks after Iowa caucus, so is the rule the first vote must be cast?

Please feel free to clarify.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Statistics, if available or collected in the US at the time, would prove the Russian factor in the electoral college win. The Russians have those statistics; we don't. But new evidence published in the last week shows a lot more of what they did, and Manafort's actions in handing over the Trump campaign strategic poll results makes it clearer.

But an election win doesn't necessarily mean that the best decision was made in any event. It's only about perception, and perception would get closer to the Truth over a longer period of time and in historical retrospect.

ASsume, however, that Trump also squeeked by with a popular vote margin. Assume he got 51%, and Clinton received 49%. The assumption of a zero-sum game -- "we win, you lose" -- is destructive in and of itself. After all, the purpose of electing decision-makers -- legislators and the executive -- is to install people who will simply make good, common-sense decisions. The idea that an ideology determines what is good common-sense is rubbish. And that's where we've come to, over time, recently, and in the 2016 election.

If "they" won the 2016 presidential election, and "they" simply want to oppose the rest of the country on the basis of a rule-of-thumb for everything, one must then look at whether the 2018 election is simply the same type of outcome, or an outcome intended to correct the former. Which is it?

One thing that it certainly is, is a check on unfettered power of a fringe presidency.

 

[pcgeek11]

So conservatives, when does the McConnell Rule kick in?

Midterms are over and POTUS election season is already underway, so surely we are in the blackout period.

Scalia did die two weeks after Iowa caucus, so it's the rule the first vote must be cast?

Please feel free to clarify.

IMO, with less than twelve months remaining the SCOTUS should be left for the next President.

 

[dawp]

why do you think the demo's want voting rights for illegal a



once again, showing your lack of being a mature adult...what does that comment have to do with the post? Growup!

provide proof that dems was to give illegal immigrants the right to vote.

once again you show that you are a brainless idiot moron.

 

[brandonbull]

GOP senators refused to allow Obama to nominate any judges by using the filibuster. So Reid removed the filibuster for federal judges.

Mconnell then refused to perform his constitutional duty and provide advice and consent on Merrick Garland in order to steal the seat.

Finally Mconnell removed the filibuster from SCOTUS nominations. A move he would have done regardless of Reid’s early move.

Once the GOP loses the senate in 2020. Dems should remove the filibuster entirely and stack the court after it become obvious the two (+?) newest justices were nominated by an illegitimate president if they won’t voluntarily resign.

Mconnell has trashed senate rules. Dems need to do the same until the GOP is willing to come back to the table and agree to play by the rules.

Next time the GOP has control of the senate after your scenario, I'm fine with the GOP stacking even more non radicals on the court. What a wonderful little game. Everyone kept saying Trump would not accept a peaceful transition of power once he lost the election. Looks like the losers from the left are doing what the losers from the left do and that's cry and stomp because they didn't get the promised result. Elections have consequences unto the Left loses and then it's not fair. Sorry pal, but you don't get to call timeout when it ain't going your way.

 

[dainthomas]

IMO, with less than twelve months remaining the SCOTUS should be left for the next President.

If you think he wouldn't try to cram one through even a week before the election I have several bridges to sell you. He'd go through whatever convoluted mental gymnastics is required to justify it. "Oh, uh, justices are clearly allowed to be picked any time during a leap year where Mars is in Sagittarius."

 

[soundforbjt]

Next time the GOP has control of the senate after your scenario, I'm fine with the GOP stacking even more non radicals on the court. What a wonderful little game. Everyone kept saying Trump would not accept a peaceful transition of power once he lost the election. Looks like the losers from the left are doing what the losers from the left do and that's cry and stomp because they didn't get the promised result. Elections have consequences unto the Left loses and then it's not fair. Sorry pal, but you don't get to call timeout when it ain't going your way.

Like Trump and his wall?

 

[Paratus]

Next time the GOP has control of the senate after your scenario, I'm fine with the GOP stacking even more non radicals on the court. What a wonderful little game. Everyone kept saying Trump would not accept a peaceful transition of power once he lost the election. Looks like the losers from the left are doing what the losers from the left do and that's cry and stomp because they didn't get the promised result. Elections have consequences unto the Left loses and then it's not fair. Sorry pal, but you don't get to call timeout when it ain't going your way.

Everyone is fine with non-radicals. When do you suppose the GOP will nominate one?

But now you see the problem your preferred political party has sent us down. You cheered it on when McConnell refused to do his constitutional duty and instead used any method available to stack the courts in he favor.

Now I suggest the Dems use the McConnell Rule and you act all butthurt. If you wanted the Dems to play by the old rules you should have exercised some personal responsibility and voted for GOP candidates who would have done the same.

Besides in my scenario I assume the Dems would pass a significant amount of legislation aimed at removing legal election bribery and voter suppression. This should successfully de-radicalize the GOP or leave it as the perpetual minority political party its actual 30-35% support suggests.

 

[fskimospy]

Everyone is fine with non-radicals. When do you suppose the GOP will nominate one?

But now you see the problem your preferred political party has sent us down. You cheered it on when McConnell refused to do his constitutional duty and instead used any method available to stack the courts in he favor.

Now I suggest the Dems use the McConnell Rule and you act all butthurt. If you wanted the Dems to play by the old rules you should have exercised some personal responsibility and voted for GOP candidates who would have done the same.

Besides in my scenario I assume the Dems would pass a significant amount of legislation aimed at removing legal election bribery and voter suppression. This should successfully de-radicalize the GOP or leave it as the perpetual minority political party its actual 30-35% support suggests.

Yeah, I don't think he grasps the eventual consequences of his 'elections have consequences' and his endorsement of McConnell's actions. By his logic when the shoe is on the other foot the Democrats are free to pack the courts to their heart's content. You know when they do that though brandonbull will be outraged at the 'tyranny'.

 

[pcgeek11]

If you think he wouldn't try to cram one through even a week before the election I have several bridges to sell you. He'd go through whatever convoluted mental gymnastics is required to justify it. "Oh, uh, justices are clearly allowed to be picked any time during a leap year where Mars is in Sagittarius."

Bitek asked a question:

"So conservatives, when does the McConnell Rule kick in?"

I answered the question with my opinion as to when it should apply.

" IMO, with less than twelve months remaining the SCOTUS should be left for the next President. "

I did not speculate on what could or might happen. Knowing the douche bags on both sides of the aisle in DC anything could happen.

So you can keep your smart ass comments to yourself.

 

[fskimospy]

Bitek asked a question:

"So conservatives, when does the McConnell Rule kick in?"

I answered the question with my opinion as to when it should apply.

" IMO, with less than twelve months remaining the SCOTUS should be left for the next President. "

I did not speculate on what could or might happen. Knowing the douche bags on both sides of the aisle in DC anything could happen.

So you can keep your smart ass comments to yourself.

I'm still confused as to why this makes any sense. The president is elected to serve a four year term and fill any SCOTUS vacancies that occur during that time. Why on earth should the president fill vacancies that occur during the last year of his predecessor's term and the first three years of theirs? Why is that superior?

It's totally illogical and always has been, it was just a 'rule' invented by Republicans to justify stealing a seat. Also, I would bet anyone on here a large sum of money that if a seat opens up in 2020 the Republicans will fill it and then somehow blame Democrats for making them do it.

 

[pcgeek11]

I have my opinion and you have yours...

And as stated both sides only support what is good for their agenda. They do not give two shits about what either of us think.

 

[fskimospy]

I have my opinion and you have yours...

And as stated both sides only support what is good for their agenda. They do not give two shits about what either of us think.

Can you explain why in your opinion it is better for a president to fill vacancies in the last year of his predecessor's term and the first three years of his own term instead of presidents just filling vacancies while they are president as the Constitution specifies?

 

[pcgeek11]

Can you explain why in your opinion it is better for a president to fill vacancies in the last year of his predecessor's term and the first three years of his own term instead of presidents just filling vacancies while they are president as the Constitution specifies?

I didn't say it was better or worse. Allow me to say it another way:

If it is within the last 12 months of a presidents term I do not have an issue with putting off the filling of a SCOTUS Seat until after the incoming president is seated.

 

[fskimospy]

I didn't say it was better or worse. Allow me to say it another way:

If it is within the last 12 months of a presidents term I do not have an issue with putting off the filling of a SCOTUS Seat until after the incoming president is seated.

So now you're no longer saying it should be left, but that it MAY be left? That seems like a really bad precedent to set as now some presidents will have 3 year 'terms' to nominate justices and others will have 5 year 'terms'.

Relatedly, should Senators be able to vote on confirming or denying SCOTUS picks in their last year before election? Should they be able to vote on legislation?

 

[hal2kilo]

Russians have Lindsey's cabana boy pee tape. It's the only explanation for his complete turn to batshit insanity over the last 2 years.

Been wondering if his personal life will ever come to light before he retires. I'm sure his SC voters would not approve. I could care less about his personal life otherwise. Must be weird to live a life of hypocrisy.

 

[pcgeek11]

So now you're no longer saying it should be left, but that it MAY be left? That seems like a really bad precedent to set as now some presidents will have 3 year 'terms' to nominate justices and others will have 5 year 'terms'.

Relatedly, should Senators be able to vote on confirming or denying SCOTUS picks in their last year before election? Should they be able to vote on legislation?

Should was a poor choice of words. I don't have an issue with it as I said in my last post where I rephrased my opinion for clarity.

A single Presidential term is four years for all unless they are kicked out of office or they leave early for some reason. I'm not sure where you came up with the 3 and 5 years? Some presidents don't get to appoint any SCOTUS judges if there are no openings.

I'm not going to play a one sided "50 questions game" with you.

 

[pcgeek11]

Been wondering if his personal life will ever come to light before he retires. I'm sure his SC voters would not approve. I could care less about his personal life otherwise. Must be weird to live a life of hypocrisy.

I live in SC and I voted for Lindsey Graham. I do not always agree with him just as I don't always agree with anyone, ( except my wife for obvious reasons ). His personal life has nothing to do with me. I think most SC voters feel the same. That is why he is still in office.

 

[UberNeuman]

Been wondering if his personal life will ever come to light before he retires. I'm sure his SC voters would not approve. I could care less about his personal life otherwise. Must be weird to live a life of hypocrisy.

“Is it my fault that pool boys are so delicious? Yum!”

 

[fskimospy]

Should was a poor choice of words. I don't have an issue with it as I said in my last post where I rephrased my opinion for clarity.

A single Presidential term is four years for all unless they are kicked out of office or they leave early for some reason. I'm not sure where you came up with the 3 and 5 years? Some presidents don't get to appoint any SCOTUS judges if there are no openings.

Because it’s a made up standard with no basis in the law or constitution. If your party controls the senate then you get five years worth of nominations. If it doesn’t, you get three.

And honestly why stop at three? The Republicans already hinted at going down to zero years of nominations if Clinton won. That’s the eventual end game for this, after all.

I'm not going to play a one sided "50 questions game" with you.

It just seems like it would stand to reason that if some constitutional officers are prevented from performing their duties in the last year of their term that should apply to all elected officials.