Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg...........

Help Support CattleToday:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Buck Randall said:
JMJ Farms said:
This could potentially be the sitting Presidents third confirmed Supreme Court Appt in a single term. No President has had more than two confirmed appointments since Reagan had 4 during his tenure. Crucial to the future of the US as we know it in my opinion. I imagine the DEMONcrats will pull all the rabbits out of the hat, if they've got any left, to prevent this from happening.

I'm not the most well-read on the topic, but my understanding is that impeachment processes supersede other congressional business, including SC nominations. Given that there were already rumors swirling about impeaching Louis DeJoy, that would seem to be a likely possibility as a stalling tactic.

Wouldn't that start in the House of Representatives? The Senate can do their job and confirm Judge Barrett.
 
TennesseeTuxedo said:
Buck Randall said:
JMJ Farms said:
This could potentially be the sitting Presidents third confirmed Supreme Court Appt in a single term. No President has had more than two confirmed appointments since Reagan had 4 during his tenure. Crucial to the future of the US as we know it in my opinion. I imagine the DEMONcrats will pull all the rabbits out of the hat, if they've got any left, to prevent this from happening.

I'm not the most well-read on the topic, but my understanding is that impeachment processes supersede other congressional business, including SC nominations. Given that there were already rumors swirling about impeaching Louis DeJoy, that would seem to be a likely possibility as a stalling tactic.

Wouldn't that start in the House of Representatives? The Senate can do their job and confirm Judge Barrett.

It would start in the House, so it depends on how quickly the Senate moves. They'll be hard-pressed to squeeze the confirmation through the Senate before election day, and I'm not sure all of the Republican Senators are going to have the stomach for it. Rushing the nomination and failing to get another Covid spending package done is going to cost them some votes in November.
 
TennesseeTuxedo said:
The world has changed quite a lot in the last 6 months. We will move forward with a nomination.

So what you are saying is that "none of them will stand by their word. And that the American people should not have a voice in who chooses the Supreme Court Nominees. If Trump wins, it is his selection, if Biden wins it should be his.
 
sstterry said:
TennesseeTuxedo said:
The world has changed quite a lot in the last 6 months. We will move forward with a nomination.

So what you are saying is that "none of them will stand by their word. And that the American people should not have a voice in who chooses the Supreme Court Nominees. If Trump wins, it is his selection, if Biden wins it should be his.

I merely asked myself, what would Chuck do? The answer was obvious.
 
sstterry said:
TennesseeTuxedo said:
The world has changed quite a lot in the last 6 months. We will move forward with a nomination.

So what you are saying is that "none of them will stand by their word. And that the American people should not have a voice in who chooses the Supreme Court Nominees. If Trump wins, it is his selection, if Biden wins it should be his.

The people spoke in 2016. Their time isn't up yet! :tiphat:
I say proceed. Swiftly.
 
JMJ Farms said:
sstterry said:
TennesseeTuxedo said:
The world has changed quite a lot in the last 6 months. We will move forward with a nomination.

So what you are saying is that "none of them will stand by their word. And that the American people should not have a voice in who chooses the Supreme Court Nominees. If Trump wins, it is his selection, if Biden wins it should be his.

The people spoke in 2016. Their time isn't up yet! :tiphat:
I say proceed. Swiftly.
They also did in 2012 and it was not respected.
 
sstterry said:
JMJ Farms said:
sstterry said:
So what you are saying is that "none of them will stand by their word. And that the American people should not have a voice in who chooses the Supreme Court Nominees. If Trump wins, it is his selection, if Biden wins it should be his.

The people spoke in 2016. Their time isn't up yet! :tiphat:
I say proceed. Swiftly.
They also did in 2012 and it was not respected.

Ah but in 2014 it flipped did it not?

https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2014/results/senate
 
sstterry said:
JMJ Farms said:
sstterry said:
So what you are saying is that "none of them will stand by their word. And that the American people should not have a voice in who chooses the Supreme Court Nominees. If Trump wins, it is his selection, if Biden wins it should be his.

The people spoke in 2016. Their time isn't up yet! :tiphat:
I say proceed. Swiftly.
They also did in 2012 and it was not respected.

Not really sure what you're referring to specifically Steve. But assuming you're 100% correct, two wrongs don't make a right.

And regarding respect... if there was an accurate way to measure which Prez received the least amount of respect... it would be the current one.
 
And that will show come November. Until he yells "rigged". He is already laying the ground work. But I predict it will not come down to mail in ballots. He will be defeated so soundly he can't yell rigged.
 
sstterry said:
TennesseeTuxedo said:
sstterry said:
I am, a steak dinner that Trump does not win in November.

I lost $500 betting against Trump in 2016. A Ryan's tough as shoe leather steak is small ball.

I was talking Jeff Ruby's.

Won't be eating it in Nashville, our crooked azz Democrat mayor will still have the city in lock down.
 
Given the lines they showed on the news of people waiting to vote yesterday on the first day of early voting the election is over everybody already voted. At least the first time anyway. Had to get there quick so they beat their mail in ballot and get their name marked off the list.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top