Guess when Ruth Bader Ginsburg will die

[Goggins 146]

Collins coming in hot

 

[Baker Boy 1,477]

48 minutes ago, titans&bucs&bearsohmy! said:

Yeah. They can. And they will look like complete doosh bags doing it.

This isn't even 9 months out like it was with Obama. The election is in less than 60 days.

The new president should fill this void. I disapprove of Trump and McConnell ramming one through, but they likely will.

Obama didn’t nominate because he didn’t control the senate so there would never be a confirmation. Besides they thought Hillary would win. We need a 9 judge SCOTUS when the law suits come pouring in over the farce the next election will be. He has no choice.

[FlyinHeadlock 459]

Obama tried to get her to step down. She refused because she was a selfish old hag. I hope that is brought up in the media. Shouldn't even be in this situation. They could have got another younger lefty. She may end up handing Trump her worse nightmare all by herself.  

[Utilit99 4,099]

29 minutes ago, Goggins said:

So 2025? We are supposed to go 4.5 years with only 8 justices because she disagreed with Trump's politics?

What a dumb biotch, although I highly doubt she said that because she has been on her death bed for 2 years and was most likely hopped up on morphine and other drugs. If she did say that then she is a disgrace to the court. Justices are supposed to be apolitical. 

Yep. And she wasn't even up to her dying breath on this earth.

[Goggins 146]

It sounds like this needs to be clarified for the casual observers.

In 2016, Obama was a Democratic president. The Senate was controlled by Republicans, because the American people spoke in 2014 and voted them in to a 54-46 majority. We have 3 branches of government to provide checks and balances, and the American people voted overwhelmingly for Republicans to control one of the houses of Congress to provide a check on Obama after 6 years of his presidency.

The president only nominates a justice, the senate confirms the justice. There has not been a confirmation by the senate of an opposing party president's nominee during an election year since the 1880s. (I don't know how many times that specific scenario has come up, but it is a fact). Given the 54-46 makeup of the senate it is reasonable to assume Garland would not have been confirmed. McConnell merely exercised the rights granted to the senate in the constitution. Was it a dik move? Sure. Was it unprecedented or unethical or illegal? Absolutely not.

It was not a "we won't confirm a judge during an election year" stance by McConnell, it was a "we will not confirm a judge from the opposing party in an election year, for a lame duck president much less, as has been tradition for the last 135 years".

Currently the president, Trump, is a Republican (and running for a second term) and Republicans control the senate. Because of that distinction, this is nothing like the Garland situation. 

Despite how emotional the talking heads and chinese bots on twitter get over this, facts are facts, fock their feelings.

[Goggins 146]

3 minutes ago, FlyinHeadlock said:

Obama tried to get her to step down. She refused because she was a selfish old hag. I hope that is brought up in the media. Shouldn't even be in this situation. They could have got another younger lefty. She may end up handing Trump her worse nightmare all by herself.  

She was appointed by Clinton in 1993. She had colon cancer in 1999. She had pancreatic cancer in 2009. She had a stent put in in 2014. At this point she was 81 years old and had already served 21 years on the bench. If she was concerned about her replacement she should have stepped down prior to the 2014 midterms and allowed Obama to nominate and the Democratic controlled Senate to confirm her replacement. But she did not, she chose to roll the dice because she wanted to stay on the bench.

Then in late 2018 she fell and broke some ribs and they found lung cancer. The summer of 2019 she was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Then in May 2020 she was diagnosed again with cancer. She could have easily stepped down for health reasons in 2018, 2019, or even May 2020 and allowed the confirmation process to be carried out well before the election. But no, either for personal reasons or external pressure she refused to step down, and now she has put the country in  a potential crisis. 

 

 

[Voltaire 4,552]

1 hour ago, Fireballer said:

Dems shoulda talked her into retiring under Obama.  Everyone literally saw it coming.

Sure, RBG's deteriorating health they saw coming. It was something else that they didn't see coming at all. 

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

2 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

In a stable society I would agree. We are not a stable society right now. Bad looks are not important. I wish that weren’t the case. 

And that is how society became unstable in the first place. Both sides doing things they know damn well aren't right because it is expedient.

Juat 3 years ago McConnell refused to confirm a nominee nine months before an election. If he does so now, 50 days before an election, he is, not surprisingly, a partisan hack hypocrite.

This seat should be filled by whomever the voters choose in 50 odd days.

[drobeski 3,061]

Just now, titans&bucs&bearsohmy! said:

And that is how society became unstable in the first place. Both sides doing things they know damn well aren't right because it is expedient.

Juat 3 years ago McConnell refused to confirm a nominee nine months before an election. If he does so now, 50 days before an election, he is, not surprisingly, a partisan hack hypocrite.

This seat should be filled by whomever the voters choose in 50 odd days.

Nope, different scenarios. You can stop pretending its not. 

 

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

1 hour ago, Baker Boy said:

Obama didn’t nominate because he didn’t control the senate so there would never be a confirmation. Besides they thought Hillary would win. We need a 9 judge SCOTUS when the law suits come pouring in over the farce the next election will be. He has no choice.

Yeah. That will really help stabilize society and bring people together. Have the guy Trump hypocritically rammed through mere weeks before the election be a deciding vote on the election.

I have little sympathy for the left these days, but if they riot over that, they have a valid point.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

1 minute ago, drobeski said:

Nope, different scenarios. You can stop pretending its not. 

 

No, it isn't. In fact, it's an even worse scenario, as it's much closer to an election. You're just ok with it because it's your team this time.

If you support this quick confirmation, you have no right to ever complain about partisan hackery again.

[lickin_starfish 1,477]

11 minutes ago, titans&bucs&bearsohmy! said:

No, it isn't. In fact, it's an even worse scenario, as it's much closer to an election. You're just ok with it because it's your team this time.

If you support this quick confirmation, you have no right to ever complain about partisan hackery again.

Sad Leftist seems sad.

It's okay to mourn, bro. She's down there with her maker now.

[iam90sbaby 2,120]

I hope he picks the most conservative judge available as quickly as possible. And not a woman.

[Voltaire 4,552]

13 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

I hope he picks the most conservative judge available as quickly as possible. And not a woman.

The replacement is as easy as a dyslexic's ABC.

[FlyinHeadlock 459]

27 minutes ago, titans&bucs&bearsohmy! said:

And that is how society became unstable in the first place. Both sides doing things they know damn well aren't right because it is expedient.

Juat 3 years ago McConnell refused to confirm a nominee nine months before an election. If he does so now, 50 days before an election, he is, not surprisingly, a partisan hack hypocrite.

This seat should be filled by whomever the voters choose in 50 odd days.

Nothing stopping the President from nominating someone 50, 40 or 2 weeks before the election. It's not against the rules. I don't like Obama but if he did it then so be it. He could have done it.  

Here's the thing though. If the rule is changed you would be crying about that new rule if it hurt your political leanings...meh. 

Nice try though with the political pious honor system rant. There is no honor system in Congress. Look what these MF'er did to Kavenaugh. Total bs and payback is a b@#$%.

 

 

[DonS 3,063]

2 hours ago, Fireballer said:

Theyve made a "Liberals Only" RBG/SCOTUS thread.

Is that like the "He Man Woman Haters Club" from the Little Rascals? 

[Beaker15 111]

3 hours ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

just got suspended at antifa guys for bringing up Weekend at Bernies by that p@nzy Clayton. 

I'm almost positive Squizturd reported me.  The dude was crying about anything that didn't honor RBG.

That was pretty funny but I am not shocked that asshat Clayton suspended you.  How long did he suspend you?

[Fireballer 2,369]

1 hour ago, Voltaire said:

Sure, RBG's deteriorating health they saw coming. It was something else that they didn't see coming at all. 

Yep. But it was her turn!  RBG over played her hand because she saw absolutely no issue with Hillary choosing her successor.

[JustinCharge 2,397]

2 hours ago, Goggins said:

It sounds like this needs to be clarified for the casual observers.

In 2016, Obama was a Democratic president. The Senate was controlled by Republicans, because the American people spoke in 2014 and voted them in to a 54-46 majority. We have 3 branches of government to provide checks and balances, and the American people voted overwhelmingly for Republicans to control one of the houses of Congress to provide a check on Obama after 6 years of his presidency.

The president only nominates a justice, the senate confirms the justice. There has not been a confirmation by the senate of an opposing party president's nominee during an election year since the 1880s. (I don't know how many times that specific scenario has come up, but it is a fact). Given the 54-46 makeup of the senate it is reasonable to assume Garland would not have been confirmed. McConnell merely exercised the rights granted to the senate in the constitution. Was it a dik move? Sure. Was it unprecedented or unethical or illegal? Absolutely not.

It was not a "we won't confirm a judge during an election year" stance by McConnell, it was a "we will not confirm a judge from the opposing party in an election year, for a lame duck president much less, as has been tradition for the last 135 years".

Currently the president, Trump, is a Republican (and running for a second term) and Republicans control the senate. Because of that distinction, this is nothing like the Garland situation. 

Despite how emotional the talking heads and chinese bots on twitter get over this, facts are facts, fock their feelings.

And the democrats today hate filibusters and want everything to be given simple majority vote.  So they should be very VERY happy that they are unable to block a Trump SCOTUS pick to replace RBG.  This is the style of government they WANT.  So, give it to them good and hard.

[Patented Phil 823]

10 minutes ago, Beaker15 said:

That was pretty funny but I am not shocked that asshat Clayton suspended you.  How long did he suspend you?

It was funny, and I knew either Comrade Clayton or Joetard would pinch him.  I laughed.  

[JustinCharge 2,397]

Ted Cruz made a good point that with everyone fearing a contested election in the courts with the pandemic and mail-in ballots, maybe the election gets litigated and we get tuck with 8 justices for a long time.  Better to fill the seat now and avoid that problem.

[JustinCharge 2,397]

I think I can accurately predict that, no matter WHAT happens, the next several days will be focused on democrats being incredibly offended by the opinions of republicans and Trump regard RBG and filling the vacancy.  The posture will be "You offend us! We must protest! Call for action!"  It won't matter if the reason makes sense or not.  It won't matter if they are hypocrites in how they are feel offended.  It will be shout and scream and silence the opposition and get out the vote.

[SUXBNME 1,319]

5 hours ago, RLLD said:

I never agreed with not letting Obama appoint, waiting for the next president, but I bet the dems suddenly support that now

I was with you on this back then, and am still with you on this. I don't think there should be an appointment until the election is decided. 

[SUXBNME 1,319]

5 hours ago, fandandy said:

Can you imagine these pussyhat wearing fools reaction if ever Roe v Wade is ever overturned?  They would set everything on fire.  

I, for one, hope it never happens.  R v W overturned, that is. 

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

1 hour ago, lickin_starfish said:

Sad Leftist seems sad.

It's okay to mourn, bro. She's down there with her maker now.

I'm not a leftist. I hope Trump wins and appoints a successor then.

1 hour ago, FlyinHeadlock said:

Nothing stopping the President from nominating someone 50, 40 or 2 weeks before the election. It's not against the rules. I don't like Obama but if he did it then so be it. He could have done it.  

Here's the thing though. If the rule is changed you would be crying about that new rule if it hurt your political leanings...meh. 

Nice try though with the political pious honor system rant. There is no honor system in Congress. Look what these MF'er did to Kavenaugh. Total bs and payback is a b@#$%.

 

 

Just remember this the next time you call congressional Dems out for being scumbags. You're no better.

[SUXBNME 1,319]

5 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Philosophically honest? Are you kidding me? Do you see what the left is currently doing to our country? Have you watched the riots? Have you not  heard leftist leaders egging it on, condoning it? You still think this is a philosophical battle? Come on man. 

Uhh...What he is saying is that's what separates US from THEM.  Even if they win, we can still look at ourselves in the mirror every morning and know what our moral values are. 
Well, some of us, anyhoo

[SUXBNME 1,319]

1 hour ago, iam90sbaby said:

I hope he picks the most conservative judge available as quickly as possible. And not a woman.

What about a little girl?

 

eta: HAWT 80s 90s rocker girls in below vid. Use the pause button often :spank:

 

[Utilit99 4,099]

She died of Trump Virus.

[Voltaire 4,552]

Can't let this wonderful moment pass without some Motown.

[drobeski 3,061]

The seat must be filled before the election.  The democrats made it clear they intend on challenging this election and not accept the results. This need to fill immediately is on them.  

 

[BiffTannen 651]

When I started this thread I didn’t think it would take this long. Still hope he replaces her with a white male.  

[Voltaire 4,552]

1 hour ago, drobeski said:

The seat must be filled before the election.  The democrats made it clear they intend on challenging this election and not accept the results. This need to fill immediately is on them.  

As you note what Cruz says, it's a great point. The Dems have changed the voting rules and are threatening to not concede this election. There's likely to be chaos. The country will be better off with a full court before that happens with a president and a Senate that isn't contested. Of course, it helps greatly that we highly likely to agree with the judicial philosophy of the potential new Justice.

The hysterical screaming from the left will be like nothing we have ever seen and make the Kavenaugh hearings look like Candyland but the Senate GOP could really use a spine and hold firm (for once), this is why we voted them into office.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

I assume this is the nail in the coffin of BLM. 

 

[Boots11234 107]

5 hours ago, SUXBNME said:

I was with you on this back then, and am still with you on this. I don't think there should be an appointment until the election is decided. 

I don’t get this. You don’t stop being the president 60 days prior to the election. He doesn’t lose some of his powers now. He’s the  President, there is a vacancy, he should do his job and fill it. Is it lucky the Republicans have the Senate?  Sure it  is. Just like it was unlucky when Obama was President.  I expect him to do his job.  Fate is funny sometimes.  
 

plus with the way Roberts votes they already have their liberal on the bench.  

[TimmySmith 2,782]

There are still 3 MORE SC appointments that could be made by the next President.  Make this one quick and let the chips fall where they may. Planning for the "Political future" is beyond ridiculous.  The Dems did it in 2016 and look at then now. 

 

[Fireballer 2,369]

6 hours ago, SUXBNME said:

Uhh...What he is saying is that's what separates US from THEM.  Even if they win, we can still look at ourselves in the mirror every morning and know what our moral values are. 
Well, some of us, anyhoo

I get what youre saying, but being a gentleman gets you nowhere.  The TDS is too strong.  At this point, if you dont get down and sling mud with them, you are left high and dry for years.  

[Baker Boy 1,477]

8 hours ago, titans&bucs&bearsohmy! said:

Yeah. That will really help stabilize society and bring people together. Have the guy Trump hypocritically rammed through mere weeks before the election be a deciding vote on the election.

I have little sympathy for the left these days, but if they riot over that, they have a valid point.

Nothing any Republican does will bring the country together. We are in the middle of a socialist revolution and if Biden wins it is all over.
 

If the court is split 4-4 who will cast the deciding vote? Did you forget the Dems are the ones screwing around with the election and changing voting rules days before the election. Why are you OK with that?

[TimmySmith 2,782]

5 minutes ago, Baker Boy said:

 

If the court is split 4-4 who will cast the deciding vote? Did you forget the Dems are the ones screwing around with the election and changing voting rules days before the election. Why are you OK with that?

Roberts would not allow a 4-4. If he feels his job is to maintain the integrity of the court, that would destroy it.

[Voltaire 4,552]

1 hour ago, Boots11234 said:

I don’t get this. You don’t stop being the president 60 days prior to the election. He doesn’t lose some of his powers now. He’s the  President, there is a vacancy, he should do his job and fill it. Is it lucky the Republicans have the Senate?  Sure it  is. Just like it was unlucky when Obama was President.  I expect him to do his job.  Fate is funny sometimes.  
 

plus with the way Roberts votes they already have their liberal on the bench.  

Luck has nothing to do with it. It's the people who chose to put the Senate in GOP hands in later Obama years and keep it that way through Trump.

[Boots11234 107]

28 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

Luck has nothing to do with it. It's the people who chose to put the Senate in GOP hands in later Obama years and keep it that way through Trump.

Some would say it was lucky she passed now and not 8 weeks from now.