What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg RIP (1 Viewer)

Horrible news. RIP.

And obviously horrendous timing, as this is going to become a total #### show.

 
  • Sad
Reactions: JAA
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Sad
Reactions: JAA
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.

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

 
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

 
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.

 
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?

 
Sad, for sure, but my money is that she died about 3 weeks ago and they are just reporting it now.  I mean, this had Weekend at Ginsburg's written all over it for a while.

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

 
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 

 
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. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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

 
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.

 
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

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top