Previous post
Next post
The gauntlet has been thrown. Within minutes of the notification of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing, Chuck Schumer attempted to troll Mitch McConnell.
“”The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,” Schumer tweeted, quoting McConnell, who made the same statement during Barack Obama’s presidency after Justice Antonin Scalia died in 2016.”
Yes, he had to do THAT before offering condolences to Ruth’s family. Well, Cocaine Mitch laid down the fire. He issued a lovely statement about Justice Ginsburg. Then he made a VERY clear statement of intent.
“In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia’s death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president’s second term. We kept our promise. Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year.
By contrast, Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary. Once again, we will keep our promise.
President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”
Needless to say, as of last night, there are a LOT of pissed of Democrats, leftists, and socialists around the country.
If McConnell jams someone through, which he will, there will be riots.
— Laura Bassett (@LEBassett) September 18, 2020
Laura is a reporter for the Washington Post. Others have responded with the idea that, if Trump does nominate someone now, this will be grounds for civil war. There are some really classy folks out there.
Things are going to get even more sporty out there in light of RBG’s passing and the political maneuvering regarding the next Supreme Court nominee. However, the fact is, given the upcoming election, it makes sense that we have a new Supreme Court Justice in place prior to the election.
The Court must be at a full compliment should any election disputes such as Bush v Gore occur.
— John Fund (@johnfund) September 19, 2020
Considering that the media and Democrats have been warning for weeks that the election results will be in doubt because of Trump, having a fully seated Supreme Court is a damned good idea.
President Trump has already provided a list prior to the 2016 election. Then there were more lists. The third included Amy Coney Barrett, who is looking strong at the moment. However, just a few days ago, a fourth list was added to the mix. Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz have already taken themselves off the list, even as Ted put forth a damned good case as to why a Supreme Court judge needs to be appointed now.
In the coming days and weeks, it is crap like this that we will have to deal with.
Let's put it this way. If Trump wins re-election, there won't be a need for the Supreme Court, because the rule of law in the United States will be dead. If Trump loses, there will be a need for the Supreme Court because the rule of law will still be in effect.
— Steverino247 (@Steverino247) September 19, 2020
Love how Steverino believes the rule of law will go by the wayside if the vote doesn’t go the way he wants. Evidently there are quite a few people prepared to continue their four year tantrum into infinity should Biden lose.
While everyone speculates as to whom President Trump will nominate, he had this to say upon hearing the news of her passing.
The coming days and weeks won’t be pretty. But given the current state of affairs, we need to have a nominee soon.
VG Deanna suggested a damned good strategy: Trump should frame this as “Here is who I want. Let the process begin now. No vote until after the election.” Then go straight to the base. “This is who I am nominating. The vote won’t happen unless I am re-elected, because it will get blocked unless I’m re-elected. GOTV.”
I couldn’t agree more. Not only that, but given that Trump has come up with FOUR lists of potential nominees…where is Biden’s list? There are plenty of activist jurists out there right now. Just look at the judges in Pennsylvania and Michigan.
“A judge on Friday cleared the way for more absentee ballots to be counted in Michigan, saying envelopes postmarked by the eve of the Nov. 3 election are eligible, even if they show up days later.
The decision is significant in a state that is anticipating waves of absentee ballots this fall; about 2.3 million have already been requested. For absentee ballots to be counted, Michigan law requires them to be received by the time polls close on Election Day.”
They’d fit right in with the Democrat agenda! Meanwhile calls for riots are escalating, which makes the case for having a full Court even more imperative.
https://twitter.com/FroggyRuminates/status/1307143939468664833
Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a pretty amazing lady, that is for certain. However, her last wish is very concerning.
I'll add on RBG: If reports of her "last wish" are true, then she had a fundamental misunderstanding of her role. She didn't own her seat — merely had the privilege of filling it for many, many years — and had no business telling the political branches how it should be filled.
— Carrie Lukas (@carrielukas) September 19, 2020
Mitch McConnell was right to throw down the gauntlet. Why? The Biden-Harris/Harris-Biden ticket for one.
“On an Instagram Live session with singer Lizzo moments before news of Ginsburg’s death broke, Democratic vice-presidential candidate Kamala D. Harris declared that she and her running mate, Joe Biden, “have a commitment that we will name to the United States Supreme Court a Black woman. We’ve never had a Black woman on the United States Supreme Court — you hear me?””
Yep. Check the boxes and forget about actual qualifications. That’s Kamala for you.
The Democrat left is threatening violence and riots if they don’t get their way and Kamala is demanding preferential treatment for a court nominee. Is it any wonder that Mitch has thrown down the gauntlet??
Feature Photo Credit: Original photo by Victory Girls Darleen Click
Quentin-Q Quill says: I doubt that Trump came up with the lists of potential nominees for the Supreme Court. It’s much more likely other people and organizations came up with these lists and gave them to Trump. I doubt Trump has the necessary knowledge to choose most of the nominees. I find all the rationalizing why a Supreme Court Justice should be put into place while Trump is still serving his first term amusing given that Republicans wouldn’t let Obama put in a new justice with many more months left in his term. Of course people will try to rationalize this, but it’s simply just another example of political hypocrisy. It’s fine if Trump wants to announce his nominee, but the appointemt should take place after the election.
A friend told me yesterday that one of her relatives is moving. Her relative went to the post office to get a change of address form. The post office was out of forms and said they had called other post offices to try to get more forms but the other post offices they had called were also out of forms. I’m going to my local post office to see if they have forms. If they do, I will pick one up for my friend’s relative and mail it to her because we live in a state that is vote by mail so she needs to have her address changed with the post office.She was told at the post office that the only way to change her mailing address was to fill out one of the forms which they are out of. In addition, my sister owns a small business and she has noted a marked slow down in their mail service. I’m not saying there is any kind of conspiracy, but I’m skeptical with those in power say there hasn’t been a slow down of mail service. I know people who are choosing to vote in person or are hand delivering their ballots just to be sure their ballot arrives in time and is counted. It’s probably a good idea to do this just to avoid any potential confusion if you are able to do so.
Nina Bookout says: Hi Quentin!
In regards to the post office and change of address… the USPS has change of address forms online.
Cheers! Nina
GWB says: it’s simply just another example of political hypocrisy
Well, no, it isn’t. There actually is a difference between a guaranteed lame duck and a president actually facing election.
(Oh, and the “people will rationalize” is a really nice bit of debate tom-foolery. Basically, no matter what anyone says in response to your claim, it can be dismissed.)
the appointemt
Do you mean the vote in the Senate? Or the actual swearing-in?
she needs to have her address changed with the post office
It’s likely too late (or getting very close to it). We’re fewer than 45 days from the election. A lot of places restrict your ability to change your voting precinct anywhere from 2 weeks to 30 days to even longer before the election. (Precisely because it prevents fraud and screw-ups.)
Personally, I would go and vote absentee (in person) because I would be “unavailable” because I was moving.
I know people who are choosing to vote in person or are hand delivering their ballots just to be sure their ballot arrives in time and is counted.
Hey, now there’s an idea!
Quentin-Q Quill says: Yes, I talked to my friend and she said her relative eventually found out she was able to do it online. I don’t know why they didn’t tell her that at the post office.I’ts odd because they told her they had contacted other post offices for the paper forms and they didn’t have any. Anyway, she was able to do it online.
GWB says: I don’t know why they didn’t tell her that at the post office.
Simplest answer: because they’re morons. We tried to mail a package to a friend in Germany back in April, iirc. Was told at the PO that it was perfectly fine, no restrictions. Then, lo and behold, the box gets returned to sender because there ARE restrictions. And three different calls to the local PO and the headquarters gets four different answers on all that.
So, we should get our money back. Well, the PO can take up to 180 days to refund your money. Yes, they can basically keep your money for ONE HALF OF A YEAR. We’re nearing that 180 days and no refund, yet. I anticipate it will take some phone calls – likely to a congressman – to actually get the money.
So, yes, BECAUSE THEY’RE MORONS is the answer to your question.
GWB says: there will be riots
WILL be?!?
The Court must be at a full compliment should any election disputes such as Bush v Gore occur.
Yes, but…. It really is a balance of “optics” and fighting the revolutionaries who would overthrow our republic. How much does being “presidential” gain of the swing vote, vice how much does it drive away? How much margin does President Trump really have, with which to work?
Let’s put it this way.
Project much, Steverino? Or do you not know what “rule of law” means? (I’m going to embrace the power of “and” here.)
VG Deanna suggested a damned good strategy:
Good strategy. Except we need the full court because we know the Dems are going to try to steal this election. If the Senate starts trying to push in a nominee on Nov 4th, while mail-in ballots are still pending, it will give fuel to the progs. If they wait until the election is called, it will be kinda pointless to do it right after the election.
even if they show up days later
And I say the only way to make that fair is to not count any of the ballots until that mail-in deadline.
Michigan law requires them to be received by the time polls close on Election Day.
After the above, then impeach the judge for violating the law as written in PA. Or arrest him under federal law for violating the rights of the citizens.
she had a fundamental misunderstanding of her role
Well, yeah, we knew that before that “last statement.” She didn’t see herself as an impartial interpreter of the law. She had an agenda, and she was going to work to make it happen. The difference between her (for most of her career) and the progs now (like the 9th Circus and her in the last few years) is that she normally tried to bend the Constitution, rather than simply pitch it out. She found penumbras and emanations. They just say “Electoral college? F* that.”
Check the boxes and forget about actual qualifications.
Oh, c’mon, Nina! You don’t believe that! There are absolute qualifications for that black woman judge: VOTE PROG. Accrue more power for the progs and maintain the power they have. She has to be the right kind of black and right kind of woman, and she’s in. You don’t think they would nominate Kimberly Klacik, do you?
(Oh my… a thought…. Does she qualify? There’s no real minimums for SCOTUS in the Constitution. And she’s a black conservative woman who is NOT going to win that Baltimore race [’cause stupid voters in Baltimore]. Could Trump? Would he? SHOULD he?)
Quentin-Q Quill says: Hi GWB,
Thanks for your response. You sure seem to be an expert on just about everything!
370H55V says: QQQ
And you seem to be an expert on nothing.
8 Comments