SCOTUS 2020

2020 40 Comments

@PatrickRuffini – GOP holding the line means Senators with good political antenna are judging no political downside to moving ahead. The nomination will make little difference at the top of the ticket, but it may make a difference in MT, SC, & NC-SEN where the R base still has some slack.

Romney: “I intend to follow the Constitution and precedent in considering the President’s nominee. If the nominee reaches the Senate floor, I intend to vote based upon their qualifications,”

40 Replies to “SCOTUS 2020”

  1. China Joe Biden is outraged as the home care worker changes his diaper this morning in his basement. Fox News reports that Trump in his address to the UN Assembly blamed China for spreading the virus around the world. He also stated that WHO is controlled by China and blames them as well. He then denounced the UN for ranting about pollution in the U.S. but ignoring China. Its a good thing that our Great Leader called for more cooperation and money for the UN and WHO.

    1. Don’t be an idiot.
      Biden is a tough survivor and opportunist – not about to crap his depends.
      He got Trump to promise the nominee would be a woman. His interns and Kamala are briefing him regularly; giving him photos of all potential nominees. Even now he can see himself sniffing their hair and copping a feel. It’s soon time for another nap, life is good.

      1. Walter, Bin Biden didn’t get Trump to do any thing, Trump is playing 4D chess, and will use this event to firm up his win!Hold up one for the dims to find flaws with , and then nominate the Latino lady, and boom, Trump swings more latin vote his way, and if dims bash her too much, it will play into Trump’s hand

  4. The Demoncraps would not have hesitated to replace Scalia with a far-left, constitution hating liberal if they controlled the senate. They didn’t. They are screaming, “No fair!” now that Trump has the senate on side with him. The corrupt MSM and assorted left-tards are hoping the average idiot forgets that. Quite a few Kanuckleheads have already fallen for that BS.

    1. If any Canadian is whining to you about this ask them to name the SCOTUS judges and then as they hmm and haaw tell them to Shut The Fuck Up.

      1. Hell we can’t even name ours! I have maintained for years that not 1 in 100 Canadians on the street, could name one Canadian supreme court judge! They probably couldn’t tell you how many judges there are.

    2. no one has yet pointed out and someone should that the democrats did not pick the greenwood guy or what ever because they were so sure that Clinton would wipe out trump with their divine right to rule.

      1. Few are also pointing out that many US leftists were trying, in vain, to get Ginsburg to retire in Obama’s second term, so as to get a healthy, non-cancer ridden, young liberal justice onto the court. Ginsberg refused to go. Someone should ask her deluded relatives some questions about this, rather than her supposed dying words.

  5. Romney is playing cutesie still. He’s neck deep in Burisma with his fellow criminals Pigliosi, Dementia Joe and Lurch.
    Will Romney be a turncoat? Still possible.
    Collins and Murkowski will vote “present”, neither yay or nay. Any tie will be decided by Pence.

    That’s if they get to vote, apparently the Demarxists plan is to block the Senate with thousands f bodies to prevent it. And, they could also employ their Burn Loot Murder strategy as demos in Seattle, Portland, and other fine Demarxist strongholds.

    I hope the Demarxists blow their wad.

    1. Yes! Please! More RIOTS! More destruction! However! If FLA Gov. Ron DeSantis has his way … as he has just proposed ..

      Perhaps most significantly, it would allow those victimized by riots to sue government officials and obtain damages if they’re demonstrated to have failed in their duties to safeguard public safety

      Once the Lawyers can PROFIT from the Law and Order side of this Lawlessness … and Leftist city officials run out of $$$ … this entire shitshow will come to a screeching halt.

      1. I read this before, but it still applies – one word “Insurance”.

        After the floods of 2013 in Calgary, where most of the damage occurred on the natural flood plains of both the Bow and the Elbow are located (Elbow Park, most of Downtown Calgary, the Flats on the north side of the Bow River), my insurance rate went up considerably, even though I have had no claims since October 1983. When I queried my insurance provider, I was told that the liability claims had to be spread over many customers. Thankfully, I sold my house and moved to Regina.

        What killed me was the City of Calgary, allowed the “rich idiots” to re-build on the exact same spots again.

        1. And any of the insurance companies could have eliminated their risk by refusing to cover the replacement homes in the flood plain or making the price of coverage for those areas reflect the local risk, but they decided instead to spread the costs to all the customers who weren’t exposing the insurer to those risks. My father abandoned a promising career in insurance early in his life because he “didn’t like lying to people.”

    2. DanBC, that would be messy, there’s an awful lot of them. I’m wondering, if Chuck and Nancy do have a meltdown while standing close to one another, would they combine fluids and flow into a sewer, or come back as a Chuncy monster? Wassa chuncy monster? I dunno, but there’s not much chuncy of them getting their pick for the SCOTUS.

    1. Left-tard: “Don’t confuse the issue with actual real facts. What ever we, on the Left, say is the only thing that matters.”

    2. For those who don’t like their news weak, notthebee.com has the same video:
      https://notthebee.com/article/this-new-gop-ad-showing-dems-in-2016-demanding-vacant-scotus-seat-be-filled-is-simply-devastating

      And news weak is also gutting their own story about “Amy Coney Barrett was a member of the group that inspired “A Handmaid’s Tale”.
      https://notthebee.com/article/newsweek-runs-correction-on-amy-coney-barrett-story-that-contradicts-the-entire-story

      1. LOL.
        Leftist-extraordinaire Margaret Atwood, of one of the better neighbourhoods of Toronto, wrote “A Handmaid’s Tale.” Maggie, I’m sure, has never heard of Amy Coney Barrett.

  8. Thing is, Democrats will lose their minds no matter who’s up for consideration, so pick the most conservative candidate you have and let the games begin.
    And choose wisely because the U.S. can’t possibly survive with another Roberts.

      2. But Romney needs to get reelected next time. His support has already dropped a lot. And Utah voters will remember if he screws them/ us on this.

    2. Latitude, Romney is a freaking liberal democrat to the core. Jezz man the state of Mass has socialized medicine courtesy of the Mormon. The guy has been a rino all his life. He has done some very good things that tend to take people away from the underlying socialism that he truly believes in.

  10. Let’s see if the Republicans actually use their spines and grow a pair. There are a number of Republican squishes.
    If they had any guts, they would forego the hearings – no reason to put another nominee through the hell that Kavanaugh faced.
    The Democrats would be even more unhinged.

  11. The constitution and the law is on the Presidents side. Put the nominee up and call a vote. Boomba. By the way, this can be done.

  13. I don’t care who it is. As long as they get a hard line constitutional second amendment Supreme, I’m good with that, I also think that Gorsuch could have been a better Supreme than he’s been so far, and my judgement is still out on Kavanaugh, but he stood his ground during that intense vilification, so I’m fairly impressed with him so far. They need someone on the right of those two, to hold the SCOTUS for the next forty years. Just get er done now!

  14. Bend over liberals, this one is coming in like Sea Biscuit.

    Payback for all their lies about Kavenaugh.

    1. Bill Whittle has a great video on just that topic. paraphrasing, There is a case to be made for waiting until after the election. The reason that conservatives should ignore them (and follow the case for “we have the elected bodies to do this, so we should”) is that the most contentious changes to the US legal system haven’t been passed by congress, they’ve been read into being (or re-interpreted contrary to the written bills before them) by the supreme court.

      To keep lawmaking in the realm of the lawmakers, and not the court, you need voices on the court who will follow the correct legal order and not make law. That’s not the Progressives, they know that their biggest wants will lose every election. So they depend on convincing 5 people in black over convincing 130 million citizens.

  15. If Nancy Pelosi believes that she has a duty to impeach President Trump for simply nominating a Supreme Court judge then why didn’t she impeach Borat Obama when Merrick Garland was nominated?

  16. Obama put his nominee forward in his final year, when he not running for re-election, expecting a GOP Senate to confirm.

    Many are calling McConnell a hypocrite, while ignoring all the Dem hypocrites who said it was imperative to proceed in 2016.

    This time the President is up for re-election and the Senate is controlled by the same party as him. This is not like 2016.

    I checked McConnnell’s actual comments in 2016 to see who is telling the truth about the “rule,” he supposedly invoked.

    For context, what Obama said in 2016 on his Garland nomination: “A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment. The rule of law, the legitimacy of our courts, the fundamental workings of our democracy all depend on that basic principle. As votes are already being cast in this election, Republican Senators are now called to apply that standard.”

    McConnell’s response (my emphasis added in caps): “Of course it’s within the president’s authority to nominate a successor even in this very rare circumstance — remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was DIVIDED GOVERNMENT since 1888, almost 130 years ago — but we also know that Article II, Section II of the Constitution grants the Senate the right to withhold its consent, as it deems necessary.”

    Who are the hypocrites again? It is patently obvious Democrats would confirm their SCOTUS pick if they controlled the Senate.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/09/19/what-mcconnell-said-merrick-garland-vs-after-ginsburgs-death/5837543002/

  19. I was under the impression that, having arrived from Heaven, the engraved tablet containing Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s dying words has replaced the US Constitution.
    I can’t wait for President Biden to nominate Justice Danny Glover for SCOTUS.

    (sarc)

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation