Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The line is where the US Constitution draws it. So, from a legal perspective that is exactly where the GOP needs to stop.I think everyone probably agrees that there is a line. A vacancy that comes up the week before the election should wait to be filled. 18 months would obviously be well outside the line. Probably most unbiased people agree Garland was far enough away to be outside the line and voted on. Where the line actually is...
There is no line. The President has the duty to nominate and the Senate has a duty to hold hearings and advise and consent or reject.I think everyone probably agrees that there is a line. A vacancy that comes up the week before the election should wait to be filled. 18 months would obviously be well outside the line. Probably most unbiased people agree Garland was far enough away to be outside the line and voted on. Where the line actually is...
Yes, I am sure that you - the most fervent Trump fan on this board, would have just stood by if the democrats controlled the senate and refused to bring a vote up for a Trump nominee because it was in an election year. And I am sure you would just stand by if in 4 years, a conservative justice died and during an election year and they decided to forget their thoughts on election year replacements and brought someone up for a vote.
So then why did you ask if you wanted a canned response and already "knew" the answer? You were disingenuous in the first place - that makes you the dishonest one, not me.
Couldn’t disagree more. The SCOTUS nomination is the prize. Trump’s re-election is a means to that end.
No they didn't.
It's simple - the GOP has a majority in the senate. To nominate and vote on a senator all they need is 50 votes, with the VP being the tie breaker.
Sorry maybe my post was poorly written but that was my point.
Murkowski, Collins, Grassley, and Romney have all publicly stated they will not seat another Supreme Court Justice until after the next inauguration. Obviously that isn’t a binding promise, but it’s been made.
And they should. Obamacare straight dem. Trump impeachment on junk charges. Payback hurts. But. U gotta take your medicine, pup.
Romney likely will, and if Murkowski or Collins don’t, they’ll lose their elections. Probably badly.
Romney was post-death.
I think we need some machine gun bacon for those early morning sessions.
And they’ll go down as heroes among their base.
He would be a really dumb nominee.
No the Republicans need to do this stat to avoid another prolonged Democrat sideshow smear campaign like they did to Kavanuagh. Waiting until after President Trump wins only gives Democrats a chance to run their shtick again.
So again, if the Democrats take over the Presidency, Senate and hold the House. Got it.
Romney will because he’s still American before GOP. The rest of them? Look at how they’ve sat and watched Trump run. They’ll vote and take their hero status even if it costs them an election.
I think the vote will happen after the election. So the question is if Collins loses (and assuming Trump loses), what does she do? I think she’d be inclined to do something that is viewed as principled and courageous on the way out. But I don’t know enough about her to make a meaningful prediction.
The Constitution says that the President has the power to nominate and the Senate has advisement and consent. The problem is that McConnell vomited all over the Constitution, he created a new rule and “conservatives” let him.
If the election goes the way of the Dems - meaning they get control of the WH and Senate - then I think two things happen.
I think Obama nominated garland. Shouldn't Trump nominate who he wants? The senate can do what they do.
Please don’t be insincere. You know McConnell claimed a Justice could not be approved in an election year. And the Constitution gives consent to the whole Senate, not the Senate Majority Leader.
