Ruth Bader Ginsberg died

mwulf

Graduate Assistant
Dec 15, 2013
5,161
3,054
113
Thigh Land
I dont disagree one bit. Will they wait until Feb or Monday? Precedent says Feb reality says Monday

Mitch McConnell in 2016: “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."
 

jmliehr

All-American
Nov 1, 2009
4,443
2,996
113
They already told you the plan

"If you're asking me a hypothetical about whether this Republican Senate would confirm a member of the Supreme Court due to a vacancy created this year — yeah, we would fill it."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sinomatic

GBRforLife1

Senior
Feb 18, 2020
2,505
3,681
113
I dont disagree one bit. Will they wait until Feb or Monday? Precedent says Feb reality says Monday

Mitch McConnell in 2016: “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."
Why wait til Monday?
 

VandallHuskerJulie

Blackshirt
Oct 13, 2001
3,190
614
113
But even before Obama had named Garland, and in fact only hours after Scalia's death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president — to be elected later that year.

"Of course," said McConnell, "the American people should have a say in the court's direction. It is a president's constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice, and it is the Senate's constitutional right to act as a check on the president and withhold its consent." https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/6244...errick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now
 

Antwill

Blackshirt
Dec 18, 2004
3,378
1,953
113
But even before Obama had named Garland, and in fact only hours after Scalia's death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president — to be elected later that year.

"Of course," said McConnell, "the American people should have a say in the court's direction. It is a president's constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice, and it is the Senate's constitutional right to act as a check on the president and withhold its consent." https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/6244...errick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now
Both parties are hypocritical. If you want to list the examples, we'll be here all night.
 

HuskerO

Recruiting Coordinator
Sep 11, 2006
6,343
2,017
113
I dont disagree one bit. Will they wait until Feb or Monday? Precedent says Feb reality says Monday

Mitch McConnell in 2016: “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."
It's pretty clear he meant that for a lame duck presidency.
 

dinglefritz

Nebraska Legend
Jan 14, 2011
26,216
21,312
113
I dont disagree one bit. Will they wait until Feb or Monday? Precedent says Feb reality says Monday

Mitch McConnell in 2016: “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."
Kind of ironic that the left will be quoting Mitchie.
 

Baxter48

Graduate Assistant
Sep 22, 2010
5,016
5,170
113
58
Gods country
I don’t buy this notion that this country was ever united except maybe world war 2. There has always been a division it just one sect of people except defeat and wait till the next election and the other sect are spoiled brats that has a meltdown and riots
 

dinglefritz

Nebraska Legend
Jan 14, 2011
26,216
21,312
113
First...May she rest in peace.

Second...She did the country no favors, she should of retired along time ago. Now they will be fighting over this.

Third....This is what she will be remembered for.
She SHOULD have retired during Obama's tenure IF she was really concerned about maintaining her far left spot on the court. I'm sure the thought that the HRC could lose never crossed her mind. She's been dead as far as any rational thought for a long long time. Her assistants have been writing everything for her for several years.
 

Reditus

Redshirt Freshman
Jun 20, 2019
541
759
93
She SHOULD have retired during Obama's tenure IF she was really concerned about maintaining her far left spot on the court. I'm sure the thought that the HRC could lose never crossed her mind. She's been dead as far as any rational thought for a long long time. Her assistants have been writing everything for her for several years.
Agree, it's too bad that it's come to this.

I think they should have some sort of fitness level (mental/physical) that a judge must qualify for each year.

When the institution was created people were more than willing to step down when they got to a certain point because it was hard to get around in those days! Modern technology and creature comforts have eliminated that self realization.
 

Reditus

Redshirt Freshman
Jun 20, 2019
541
759
93
We will need a full Supreme Court before the election. There will be court challenges no matter who wins. A 4-4 Supreme Court wouldn’t decide anything
Wow, that's a good point. Trump should nominate someone on Monday. That will give them at least a little time to vet them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BleedRed78

dinglefritz

Nebraska Legend
Jan 14, 2011
26,216
21,312
113
12 year term limits lets a president nominate a judge every term
I don't have a problem of not having term limits. The Supreme Court was meant to be a slow moving entity unfazed by short term political swings in the other branches. RBG I think was hoping the Dems would re-take the senate on Hillary's coat tails so they could nominate an ultra-liberal such as herself as her replacement. I think she would have retired IF HRC had won and they had taken the Senate.
 

GretnaShawn

Graduate Assistant
Sep 28, 2010
5,715
5,318
113
Wow, that's a good point. Trump should nominate someone on Monday. That will give them at least a little time to vet them.
If he is going to nominate somebody, he’d be smart to nominate Amy Coney Barrett. He needs the white suburban female vote to win. Coney Barrett is a Catholic mother of a bunch of kids. The optics of her getting put through the ringer will be a bad look for the left and could possibly swing him votes. But that’s if he’s smart. I doubt he does it and we get another crap nominee more like Kavanaugh and less like Goursech.