Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Ruth Bader Ginsburg RIP


Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

Sad news with obvious political implications.

Yes but shouldn’t be. We knew she was on her way out and Mitch already set the precedent for how to handle this in an election year. 

  • Laughing 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ilov80s said:

Yes but shouldn’t be. We knew she was on her way out and Mitch already set the precedent for how to handle this in an election year. 

 

I mean......that SHOULD be the precedent.........

But if Trump doesn't publicly announce the name of his nominee and push for a confirmation hearing by this time next week, I'll be SHOCKED.

Edited by TLEF316
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ilov80s said:

Yes but shouldn’t be. We knew she was on her way out and Mitch already set the precedent for how to handle this in an election year. 

:lmao:

He does care and it would be the same it the shoe was on the other foot.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Yes but shouldn’t be. We knew she was on her way out and Mitch already set the precedent for how to handle this in an election year. 

He doesn’t care about anything more than installing judges. He’ll do it even if 150 million people show up at his house.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TLEF316 said:

 

I mean......that SHOULD be the precedent.........

But if Trump doesn't publicly announce the name of his nominee and push for a confirmation hearing by this time next week, I'll be SHOCKED.

He better! Amy Coney Barrett 

  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TLEF316 said:

aaaaand THAT will be the argument that the republicans make.....probably by 10 AM on Monday.

I think Mitch said earlier this year that the 2016 precedent only applied where the President and majority of the Senate were of different parties. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TheMagus said:

Is there something in the Constitution about the President losing his USSC nomination powers in the last year of his term?

Nope. But there is something in the constitution  that says the senate confirms appointees. Since the senate was republicans controlled when Obama was president, garland wasn’t going to be confirmed, so they saved themselves time by not voting. Elections have consequences, if I recall correctly

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, whoknew said:

Then they will confirm the next S.Ct. justice on 1/10/21.

My question was directed toward the distinction being that Obama was a lame duck and that justified refusing to hold hearings on his nominee. If Trump loses the election he will be a lame duck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, I-ROK said:

Nope. But there is something in the constitution  that says the senate confirms appointees. Since the senate was republicans controlled when Obama was president, garland wasn’t going to be confirmed, so they saved themselves time by not voting. Elections have consequences, if I recall correctly

So you support not filling vacant Supreme Court seats if the president and senate majority are from different political parties?

  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

So you support not filling vacant Supreme Court seats if the president and senate majority are from different political parties?

I say take a vote regardless. I think McConnell should have taken a vote and denied Garland as we all expect they would have. The outcome was essentially the same as it would have been anyways, but that’s my position 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

I don't think there is any time limits at all.  They could nominate and vote in a week if they wanted too.

Yes but that’s never how it actually plays out. It’s typically been pretty messy. Kavanaugh barely got through.Senate goes to recess Oct 9 until after the election. 

Edited by Ilov80s
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ilov80s said:

Yes but that’s never how it actually plays out. It’s typically been pretty messy. Kavanaugh barely got through. I think the Senate goes on recess in a week or so.

Great. Let’s nominate and confirm in a week or so

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, -jb- said:

Is there any political tactic in play that would enable the house from prolonging the confirmation?

Someone on twitter noted that impeachment trials are privileged over judicial nominations in Senate proceedings. That’s a pretty extreme measure and probably wouldn’t even work, but that’s about all the House can do.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Is there even time and enough votes to get it done before the election? Look how long it took to get Kavanaugh through.

The senate could adopt Nancy Pelosi’s proxy rule. Allow senators to vote for up to 11 of their peers. Only 5 would need to be present. Liberals don’t seem to have a problem with that rule. Should allow Senators to go home and vote by proxy

Edited by I-ROK
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, I-ROK said:

The senate could adopt Nancy Pelosi’s proxy rule. Allow senators to vote for up to 11 of their peers. Only 5 would need to be present. 

But do they have the votes? Again Kavanaugh was a tough sell and with the election right here, some of the GOP Senators in danger might not be so quick to jump on board.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...