Trump on Supreme Court nominee: 'It will be a woman'

Hopefully the blinders will come off all to see who the Democrat leaders really are as well. Amen.

 

The American Constitution gives the right to appoint Justices to the US President, not to recently deceased citizens. All I'd say is that with all due respect to her wishes, I'm POTUS.

 

If the pick is indeed Amy does that mean her husband gets to tell her how to rule?

This is a weird chick that thinks it's perfectly ok to force.womem to have to bury fetal remains after an abortion.

 

Sure, but this is not a good situation. It can only escalate from here. Tit for tat, dragging the Judiciary further into political disrespect.

 

It might escalate, but it shouldn't.

Every time in history that the president and Senate majority were from the same party, the nominee was confirmed.

Every time in history that the president and Senate majority were mismatched, the nominee was not confirmed.

It's obviously going to work out that way now and in the future (unless they change to needing a 60 vote supermajority), so any "fighting" they do with each other is just for show. It is a very divisive show which they should stop performing for the public.

RGB's replacement is pretty much settled. The rules for this session of Congress were set at the beginning of the session.

They can go back and forth arguing over filibuster rules and needing a simple majority or supermajority for confirmations afterward. And they will.

 

Trump on Supreme Court nominee: 'It will be a woman'

One thing about conservative women is that if they are pro-life then they are very pro-life. Just saying, on the move to ban abortion.

 

This might be difficult for dyed-in-wool conservative like yourself to grasp, Cy, but throughout the history of our nation we have ALWAYS moved towards being more and more LIBERAL!

From the outset with the concept of SELF GOVERNANCE instead of a monarchy that was an enormous LEAP in liberalism and now even YOU would NOT want be RULED by a DYNASTIC monarchy.

The Separation of Church and State was another LIBERAL concept UNHEARD of at the time.

Granting Slaves their FREEDOM was LIBERALISM at it's finest.

The ENFRANCHISEMENT of women was yet another LIBERAL step in the right direction.

Social Security, Medicare, Civil Rights Act and Gay Marriage are ALL Liberal concepts.

ALL of the above show the TREND towards us being an evermore LIBERAL society.

Yes, I know that gets under the skin of conservatives like yourself BUT that is what PROGRESS is all about.

The ALTERNATIVE is STAGNATION, REPRESSION and ultimately a TOTALITARIAN state where people are nothing more than SERFS to the RULING ELITE.

So while you might not like the RGB's, Kagan's and Sottomayor's of OUR society that play an ESSENTIAL role in UPHOLDING those hard won LIBERTIES that came from LIBERALS like them FIGHTING for those Individual Rights.

Our nation NEEDS people like them holding high offices to STOP the likes of the wannabe Fascist-in-Chief and the Turtle shaped Turd abusing the powers of the Senate.

When Biden wins and the Senate is flipped the Dems will appoint as many ADDITIONAL Justices that are necessary to NEGATE the current REGRESSIVE farce that is an INSULT to everyone who has FOUGHT and DIED to UPHOLD the proud history of LIBERALISM that is what our nation used to stand for.

What we are witnessing is the LAST DYING GASP of the EXTREMIST rightwing's hold on power. We the People are NOT going to continue DOWN this DARK path to OBLIVION.

I mailed in my ballot today using a COURIER service to BYPASS the NEFARIOUS attempts to OBSTRUCT my vote by the wannabe Fascist-in-Chief. I doubt that I am unique as far as this is concerned and I have little doubt that the RESULTS are going to be CONTENTIOUS given that the wannabe Fascist-in-Chief will NOT accept that We the People are REJECTING his ODIOUS destruction of our nation.

We are a PROUD LIBERAL nation and we will rise again from the DEPTHS of DEPRAVITY that the wannabe Fascist-in-Chief has IMPOSED upon us. The TURNING POINT has arrived so buckle up because the next couple of months are going to be a bumpy ride.

 

But whatever you do ignore the hypocrisy on the left lol.

 

I 'liked' your post, Te, because I'm glad you voted, and because I certainly agree that we, the United States, were perfectly justified in separating ourselves from a cruel, tyrannical, despotic English King! But I treasure the Constitution as written and amended, and it is for that reason that I fear subversion of our government by the JUDICIARY.

Did you 'read-up' on Sotomayor? Did you explore Kagan's background? If so, were you at all 'troubled' by Sotomayor's past, direct associations and participation in radical groups like La Raza and LULAC? Were you 'troubled' that Kagan was actively working FOR Obama's socialized-medicine scheme while she as a Solicitor General? Are these really the kinds of 'unbiased' people we want on the highest court in the land...?

I do agree that it was miraculous that we created a country that enfranchised our women citizens, abolished slavery, introduced child-labor laws, created worker safety laws, and built the most powerful, economically successful nation in the history of mankind!

But now the radical Democrats seem hell-bent on tearing it all apart and replacing it with the very "DEPTHS OF DEPRAVITY" that you accuse Trump of! Who condones and enables the rioting, arson, anarchy, looting, and other crimes? Is that your idea of being "progressive"...? Surely not.

In a nutshell, what we on the Right are determined must not (NOT) happen here is that our Constitution and our laws are thrown aside and replaced by a klatsch of 'benevolent despots' in judge's robes who replace every good thing about this country with a horror very much like that described in Orwell's masterpiece, "1984"!

Think: how often during the last thirty years have we seen some liberal judge somewhere decide ALL BY HIMSELF to overthrow the "will of the people" that you claim to care so much about...? Why, even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court himself, John Roberts, made the wholly-unconstitutional decision to change Obamacare from being the "mandate" passed by the Democrat Congress and signed by Democrat president Obama, into a "tax" instead! That is perhaps the best example of "legislating from the bench" that we on the Right get so worked up about, Te.

Am I making any headway at all?! We must not (NOT) have any more of these people infesting the highest court in the country! A lousy, corrupt, biased judiciary will destroy this country faster than anyone or anything else!

 

the stunning hypocrisy are from those who object to Trump's candidates, they are excellent choices, you'd have to be completely blinded by ideology to object to them.... oh wait

 

Too feminine.

 

Allison Jones Rushing is the dark horse candidate. No one is talking about her. From what I'm reading, she is the most conservative candidate and she's only 38 years old.

We have 3 conservative justices over 70 years old, who are very likely to be replaced while it's Democrats' "turn at bat". Rushing might cost Trump the election with swing voters, but there are a few good reasons to think he might surprise everyone on Saturday and pick her.

 

Judge Allison Rushing is a "she" -- but -- she's way too WHITE to be considered during this upcoming tumultuous confirmation process! Even worse, she graduated summa cum laude from one of the thirty-best universities in the United States.

Trump might plan on saving Judge Rushing for later -- maybe as a nominee in case Sonia Sotomayor decides to quit the SCOTUS to run for the presidency of Mexico, or, in case Elena Kagan gets beamed back up to her Ferengi space ship....

 

Rushing is definitely the most open to vicious attack by the Democrat Senators, but if Mitch McConnell has the votes to get anyone into the seat then that doesn't matter. The main decision there is the trade off between pushing most undecided voters to Biden versus putting a very young extreme conservative in the seat who could be there 40 or maybe 50 years.

Breyer, Thomas and Alito will be the next to go. That leaves only Trump's (3) picks, plus John Roberts who votes with Democrats on larger issues. Putting a young candidate on the court has it's advantages.



Personally, I still like Lagoa, but Trump could pull a "surprise" dark horse pick since everyone is talking about Barrett or Lagoa.

 

Overturning Roe v Wade wouldn't be a blanket ban on abortions. It would go back to the states and US territories where it was before Roe v Wade.

 

IMHO, Roe v Wade won’t get its day in court under a Roberts court.

 

The courts cannot legislate social issues of morality, else we wouldn't still be fighting over Roe v Wade today.

Roe v Wade should never have passed mainly because it should not the federal government's business to interfere either way. I suppose that having some states make abortions illegal made the federal ruling necessary, but I'd still lean to the side of states' rights versus federal rulings. As a libertarian, I believe that there was/is enough market demand from women who want to kill their unborn to create a market for doctors who were/are willing to profit from ripping babies out of women's wombs. That market exists with or without "laws".

So, I agree with you that even if Roe v Wade were overturned, the abortion practice doesn't go away. It would go to states.

They should just ban making laws either for or against moral issues and forbid federal tax funding on these issues.

 

I agree with all the points you've cited, and maybe the best thing for Trump and McConnell to do is to "go for the throat" and confirm a candidate that probably will draw the most 'fire' from Schumer and the Senate Democrats -- precisely because she is a very determined Conservative!

The only two reasons I think that it might be better to go with Lagoa, though, is that Senate 'RINO' Republicans would be more likely to vote to confirm a candidate that is perceived to be less allergic to Democrats. RINO's, as we have seen for years, are scared of their own shadows, but, their votes are absolutely needed....

The other reason is that Democrats themselves will find it much harder to raise 'pitchforks and torches' against a Cuban-American Hispanic female than one who is 'lily-white'.

Key point: Democrats have raised 'identity-politics' to an art form! Now, even though they will fight against anybody Trump nominates, they must be careful to conform to their own catechism....

 

I agree with you on Lagoa. She is my personal preference. Some of the more conservative Trump advisors (who are pushing Barrett) are afraid Lagoa will be inconsistent like John Roberts. So there is that.

 

deleted duplicated post... (?)

 

Well... we sure as hell don't want another 'snake-in-the-grass' like Roberts! The way he re-tooled an obviously unconstitutional piece of CRAP like Obamacare was, as written, and then thrust his re-writing of it down our necks was a good example of what can happen when a supposed-Conservative judge goes totally out of his mind and rejects everything he knows to be true -- like the fact that only the HOUSE can propose new laws and their exact wording!

Roberts and the SCOTUS should have thrown Obamacare out in the garbage and told "Messiah" Obama and his Democrat mob in the House of Representatives to start over....

Hopefully, Lagoa would not do anything like that, but you never know for sure until they're on the Court -- for LIFE....

 

That is also a danger with a "very young" conservative, too. She could change her world views as she ages. We just never know really. At least we won't start out with a progressive. lol

 

This is a strange hill to die on, Ron. I'm not even sure what point you were making. There is literally no person Trump could pick that wouldn't anger you. It's clouding your logic.

 

Nah. That's not why. It would have happened if Obama were a republican, or if the senate were democrat controlled. It had nothing to do with the year.

 

True, that Democrats would act the same way in the same "power situation", but it does make some sense that if a president is in his 4th year with a reelection possible then he should pick the SC seat versus a president who is a lame duck in his 8th year.

If Trump wins reelection and another SC justice falls out during Trump's 8th year, then they should wait for the next election to replace that seat.