Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died at 87. - 🦀

The Pink Panther said:
Post yfw you heard the news:
Click to expand...

OK_thumb.jpg


I mean I honestly can't remember for the life of me the last time she was relevant, but holy crap my social medias are going full blown armageddon end of the world mode like Drumpf and the Republicans are going to go full on fucking Nazism now ("this time for sure, we swear!").

I'm not even like, a hardcore MAGA guy or anything, but yeeeeeeeeeeesh people.
 
  • Like
  • DRINK!
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Troonologist PhD, Kujo Jotaro and 7 others
Hollywood Hulk Hogan said:
That's completely retarded and you know it. Republicans said they should wait so they could do the "will of the people". It's September, so shouldn't they wait, too?

Click to expand...

Dude. It was Joe Biden in 1992 who made the "no-lame duck nominees" a thing.

Biden, who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time, was laying down a marker against President George H.W. Bush, saying once the “political season” had started, the president should back down and wait until after the election.

Biden told President Bush that he shouldn’t even bother to nominate anyone, much less have the Senate approve the pick.

You have to go back more than a century to find a scenario where a president’s nominee for the Supreme Court was confirmed by the opposition party in the Senate when the vacancy occurred during an election year.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Troonologist PhD, ThatOneLurker and 4 others
Iwasamwillbe said:
What is the "nuclear option", sir?
Click to expand...
The democrats under obama removed the ability to filibuster or obstruct a court appointment. Now all that is needed is a simple majority vote from the senate to confirm a candidate.

The "nuclear option" would be Cocaine mitch ramrodding a candidate through before the election, all while telling democrats to suck his dick because there is fucking nothing they can do to stop him, and they are the reason they dont have those tools anymore.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Informative
Reactions: Rakdos92, spiritofamermaid, Casshern and 31 others
Syaoran Li said:
Probably, but either way I think it will be a woman.



I could definitely see Rao getting the nomination as well since she's not White and is therefore a bit more ironclad against the inevitable Democrat obstructions.

If Mitch McConnell and Trump are smart about it, they'll do everything they can in their power to get RBG's seat on the court filled with either Barrett or Rao ASAP. Let's see if McConnell can use the nuclear option to try and fast track the nomination against any obstruction efforts while the Senate is still Republican controlled
Click to expand...

So what will the roadblock be? Another sex scandal? The Dems probably won't try a lesbian accuser but perhaps a man?

"Amy raped me in college when I was drunk!"

Suddenly, instead of the man being responsible for sexual acts when both parties are drunk now the woman is responsible?

One just needs to wonder what hat trick the Dems will pull.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Rakdos92, spiritofamermaid, Kosher Salt and 13 others
  • Like
  • DRINK!
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Kosher Salt, RichardMongler and 13 others
PantsFreeZone said:
Dude. It was Joe Biden in 1992 who made the "no-lame duck nominees" a thing.

Mr. Biden, who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time, was laying down a marker against President George H.W. Bush, saying once the “political season” had started, the president should back down and wait until after the election.

Biden told President Bush that he shouldn’t even bother to nominate anyone, much less have the Senate approve the pick.

You have to go back more than a century to find a scenario where a president’s nominee for the Supreme Court was confirmed by the opposition party in the Senate when the vacancy occurred during an election year.
Click to expand...

I am not arguing that Democrats are not hypocrites (they are), but you gotta admit it'd be hypocritical for Republicans to do it here, too.

This isn't about the Democrats being hypocrites, this is about the Republicans being hypocrites if they do it (which they would be, as I have shown)
 
  • Mad at the Internet
  • Agree
  • Feels
Reactions: Rakdos92, Troonologist PhD, ThatOneLurker and 11 others
ProblematicUser420 said:
Normally I'd say wait, but that was before the Democrats started burning down cities to try and take down Trump.

The gloves are off. Ram that shit.
Click to expand...

Yup. The Democrats, like all radical lefties, expect the rest of us to uphold gentlemen's agreements and rules of decorum while they run around smearing shit on the walls and threatening to murder our kids. Fuck'm. Ram her replacement through and get a 4th SCOTUS judge in his second term, to boot.
 
  • Winner
  • Agree
  • Feels
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Casshern, Kosher Salt and 38 others
Hollywood Hulk Hogan said:
That would also make the Republicans hypocrites since they were the ones REEEEEEEEEEEEing about not nominating a pick in an election year
Click to expand...
That was supposed to be a principle? I thought it was just some bullshit Cocaine Mitch pulled out of his ass to motivate his party to stop the court from being stacked the wrong way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rakdos92, spiritofamermaid, Troonologist PhD and 2 others
Hollywood Hulk Hogan said:
calm down, jabroni
Click to expand...

What's the big deal anyway there's already enough GOP senators who said they're not gonna vote until after the election

They ain't dumb this is more motivation for Republican voters vote Republican or the Democrats get that seat

Brother if you were chill you'd be sperging about that not about muh country getting fucked up
 
  • Optimistic
  • Informative
  • Disagree
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Troonologist PhD, ufukiniggas and 5 others
RockPaper said:
Even if Trump nominated someone tomorrow, no Senator would have to vote on it before the election anyway. Things don't move that fast. Murkowski's virtue-signalling over an impossibility.

The juicy question is what would happen if the vote was to happen in the lame duck Senate, already knowing who would control the chamber after January. YOu might see some good wrestling fights, folding chairs and illegal holds if the Dems were set to take over. :popcorn:
Click to expand...
There's 46 days until the election and 124 days until the Presidential inauguration. The longest time (for the current bench) it took to confirm a Supreme Court nominee was Clarence Thomas at 99 days. The fastest was Ginsberg with 50 days. There's more than enough time to do it, and as much as I hate to say it: He might have to.

With the upcoming election the Democrats are going to go absolutely ballistic if they don't get the election results that they want, and they're going to go completely scorched earth when it comes to lawfare. If the contested election pushes all the way up to the Supreme Court, which it would, you can't leave it sitting at 4-4.

He might have no choice.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Rakdos92, spiritofamermaid, CashMoney! and 82 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back