If RBG retitres should Donald Trump under impeachment be allowed to install her replacement?

This to me seems to be Pelosi's ultimate strategy and it's a canny one, I'm not sure if there is any precedent but if she does go should a president under impeachment be allowed to replace her?

For my money yes, the charges against Trump are so thin and ultimately irrelevant, the Senate will never convict him. So why should he be prevented?

 

Until/unless the President of the United States is actually impeached AND REMOVED after a trial in the U. S. Senate, that president is able to use all of the powers of the presidency -- period....

 

Obama shouldn’t be allowed to nominate a SCOTUS replacement because the election is “too close”
trump should be allowed to nominate a SCOTUS replacement irregardless if the election is “too close” or is impeached

Anyone notice the hypocrisy?

 

Obama was not allowed to install a SCOTUS Justice because he was already months into the very LAST year of his SECOND term. Trump, by contrast, is not even at the end of the third year of his FIRST term in office!

This 'impeachment' fart-in-the-bathtub has nothing whatever to do with presidential prerogatives and constitutional powers.

The tantalizing question: How much longer can Democrats keep poor, old Ruthie on life-support, and how much longer will she be allowed to 'work at home' and 'phone it in'...? Total bullshit! The woman should have retired well over a decade ago....

Suggestion: find something else to hate about Trump... it won't take your faction long to do that....

 

A two term majority elected president should be allowed to do his constitutional duties because he is ten months away from leaving office?
But a president that the majority voted against should be allowed to “install” a justice fifteen months away from potentially leaving office (if he isn’t impeached first and assuming she leaves office in the next 20 days)?
Good to know five months more is the limit.

Never said it did, isn’t reading comprehension fun!?

She isn’t on life support, but I agree it is sad that she probably feels she cannot retire due to the insanity that the current administration has brought to the county.

Oh, this doesn’t make me hate trump, it is his constitutional duty to elect a nominee should he be in office if she should leave office for any reason.
It does conclude however, that the GOP is devoid of morals and in opposition to the political norms that built this nation.

 

Obama did nominate a SCOTUS judge. The senate refused to take it up. Trump can nominate a judge, the question is will the senate vote on it? I like my answer to that question.

 

Now you want to carp about GOP "morals"...? Take a REAL GOOD LOOK at the antics of Geriatric Joe Biden and his $50,000-a-month-for-simply-being-named-Biden kid, and then come back and lecture us all about GOP "morals".

Think I'm wrong...? Then YOU fly to Kiev tomorrow and demand that some corporation gives YOU a $50,000/month job for DOING NOTHING. You'll be lucky if they don't throw you in jail -- or maybe more appropriately -- AN INSANE ASYLUM....

 

if RBG passes, and i don't wish that on anyone Trump needs to nominate immediately and the senate needs to get it passed ASAP, assuming Trump doesn't pick someone insane. which is the right of the president and senate

 

Feel free to quote me where I have ever said anything about Biden or his family and morals.
Actually you probably can’t find anything with me even mentioning him besides to call him creepy with little girls.

You seem to only have deflections, and quite pathetic ones at that.
Guess they haven’t released the new talking points?

 

Clinton was impeached and he still made federal appointments.

 

Voted yes. 'Under impeachment' means he's still POTUS. If Impeachment was grounds to halt executive authority, all presidents would be 'under impeachment' all the time.

 

Sure he can, then the Senate can decide if they will take it up.

 

Actually, YOU were the one who brought up GOP "morals" -- so -- especially because it out there, right now in the national spotlight, obvious and stinking like a fresh, large dog turd on a sidewalk, I couldn't resist coming back to you with Biden and his kid -- a de facto meme about DEMOCRAT "morals". What? You rebel at that...? "Hypocrite -- thy name is DEMOCRAT!"

 

I have no idea what you are even ranting about. I would not vote for Biden if it came down to it...
You know where you can put your strawmen at, right?

 

In Post #5, you wrote, among other things: "It does conclude however, that the GOP is devoid of morals and in opposition to the political norms that built this nation."

Poor fellow... if you cannot even remember that you posted that, your attention-span must be even shorter than Geriatric Joe Biden's....

. "Put these on my eyes when I'm dead...."

 

If he's not barred by law, it's not a question of whether he should or shouldn't be. And I suspect that unless he is convicted by the Senate, his powers as president are unaffected by the impeachment.

 

Your obsession with Biden aside, your remarks do not negate or even address what I posted.

 

Exactly.

 

I despise Trump. But two wrongs do not make a right. Just as it was wrong for the Republicans to refuse to consider Obama's last appointment, it would be equally wrong for Trump's appointment to be ignored. The Constitution requires the Senate to Advise and Consent. It does not say "except under the following circumstances favorable to a political party", that is not in there.

So yes, if Ruth Bader Ginsburg should retire or pass away while Trump is in office, he gets to make an appointment and the Senate must do its duty under the Constitution. A prior failure is no excuse for another!

 

No reason. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a President's power to be limited during an impeachment trial.

 

Nobody stopped Obama from nominating a SCOTUS replacement. The Senate just refused to vote to confirm that replacement. They did it because they had the majority, not due to any kind of policy. That is the real rule in play--power. Same applies in this hypothetical. If the Senate can confirm, then they can confirm. There is no principle that blocks it.

 

As the great and powerful acting president Valerie Garret said after the 2012 election. "Elections have consequences"