SCOTUS Replacement Sept-Nov 2020

Seriously, we have history. If THIS guy picks someone, they inevitably have some shit show going on behind them somewhere at some point.
https://www.Twitter or X not allowed/i/web/status/1311738400542806016/

Her effect on this country will be felt for decades.

At what point won't conservatives/the right realize the real anarchist is the guy they're championing & defending?
 
JayMysteri0 said:
At what point won't conservatives/the right realize the real anarchist is the guy they're championing & defending?
Click to expand...

Thomas Veil said:
You spelled antichrist wrong
Click to expand...

JayMysteri0 said:
No.

I'm not trying to flatter the guy.

Although after Guilfoyle's Rita Repulsa performance at the RNC, I wonder if the lot of them aren't actual sith lords.
Click to expand...

Donald Trump is not even an anarchist, that's his former buddy Bannon's bailiwick. Antichrist understudy, maybe, although I'd nominate some of Trump's gaggle of morally compromised evangelical clergy for that role.

But Trump (and yeah, Bannon) would wink and nod at anarchy until figuring it was clear on TV that the worst had been brought out in a street protest, at which point at least Trump seems to fantasize that he'd then have grounds to declare martial law, suspend habeas corpus and just lock up wholesale anyone who even looks sideways at one of his obnoxious tweets.
So far Trump's aides and counsel seem to have convinced him that that might be a too broad interpretation of "invasion or rebellion" in our official paperwork.

He has settled for disturbing but relatively minor threat-shows of force at peaceful protests... like that teargas-filled "clearing of a path" so he could walk to St. John's for a photo-op of him holding an upside-down Bible. Gee, does it reassure us that one of "his generals" later said he regretted having any part in that gig?

Trump also tweets for blue state governors to activate their National Guard when a peaceful protest gets infiltrated by anyone seeking to do violence.

And then there was the grabbing up of folks by goonish-acting guys from DHS and stuffing their quarry into unmarked federal cars in Portland.

If violence occurs in some red state that supported Trump in 2016, he'd probably declare the lefties have invaded, and on that pretext order the launch of nukes?

Why not, I have the codes right here somewhere, don't I?​

Nuke a red state over "an invasion" by lefties? despite nowhere to go for the righties? Nukes?!

Sure and be damned to us all anyway, we have all always been optional bit players even the bunch showing up at his campaign rallies.

This is just a TV show anyway, right?

In short, Trump is nuts and also a wannabe-fascist-pig, dressed up and playing at dictator in some fortunately slightly too small loopholes of the USA's generous constitution. But stay tuned, the election season is young and he doesn't want to leave office no matter what our ballots say. He's hell bent on becoming our president for life. He owes a lot of money as a private citizen. It's safer in the Oval Office, or so he figures.

It's not about anarchy or fascism or popcorn... it's about narcissistic delusions of grandeur. Doesn't make it less dangerous for the USA, however we label anything. Waiting for the GOP to realize that and start cracking down on Trump's blatant attempts to delegitimize in advance a presidential election that he knows will not favor him. The court pick is just his ace in the hole.
 
lizkat said:
Donald Trump is not even an anarchist, that's his former buddy Bannon's bailiwick. Antichrist understudy, maybe, although I'd nominate some of Trump's gaggle of morally compromised evangelical clergy for that role.

But Trump (and yeah, Bannon) would wink and nod at anarchy until figuring it was clear on TV that the worst had been brought out in a street protest, at which point at least Trump seems to fantasize that he'd then have grounds to declare martial law, suspend habeas corpus and just lock up wholesale anyone who even looks sideways at one of his obnoxious tweets.
So far Trump's aides and counsel seem to have convinced him that that might be a too broad interpretation of "invasion or rebellion" in our official paperwork.

He has settled for disturbing but relatively minor threat-shows of force at peaceful protests... like that teargas-filled "clearing of a path" so he could walk to St. John's for a photo-op of him holding an upside-down Bible. Gee, does it reassure us that one of "his generals" later said he regretted having any part in that gig?

Trump also tweets for blue state governors to activate their National Guard when a peaceful protest gets infiltrated by anyone seeking to do violence.

And then there was the grabbing up of folks by goonish-acting guys from DHS and stuffing their quarry into unmarked federal cars in Portland.

If violence occurs in some red state that supported Trump in 2016, he'd probably declare the lefties have invaded, and on that pretext order the launch of nukes?

Why not, I have the codes right here somewhere, don't I?​

Nuke a red state over "an invasion" by lefties? despite nowhere to go for the righties? Nukes?!

Sure and be damned to us all anyway, we have all always been optional bit players even the bunch showing up at his campaign rallies.

This is just a TV show anyway, right?

In short, Trump is nuts and also a wannabe-fascist-pig, dressed up and playing at dictator in some fortunately slightly too small loopholes of the USA's generous constitution. But stay tuned, the election season is young and he doesn't want to leave office no matter what our ballots say. He's hell bent on becoming our president for life. He owes a lot of money as a private citizen. It's safer in the Oval Office, or so he figures.

It's not about anarchy or fascism or popcorn... it's about narcissistic delusions of grandeur. Doesn't make it less dangerous for the USA, however we label anything. Waiting for the GOP to realize that and start cracking down on Trump's blatant attempts to delegitimize in advance a presidential election that he knows will not favor him. The court pick is just his ace in the hole.
Click to expand...
Narrcacist + Sociopath, not to overlook Incompetent POTUS and Corrupt Liar In Chief.
 
No one has yet said outright that this is related to some slide in support for the Republican party in general in Pennsylvania, but Republican Senator Toomey is apparently set to announce he'll not run for re-election in 2022 nor run for governor then.

Which of course leaves him free to grow a pair for the rest of his term and among other things decline to vote for Barrett's confirmation, should there be a floor vote on it. If Toomey actually goes that way, McConnell may have some recalibration ahead trying to get a whip count on support for that nomination.

Senator Toomey has never been a big fan of Trump, has not campaigned for him, and has a mixed record of support for usual GOP platform (and accordingly narrow margins of victory in his Senate elections).

Will be interesting to see if Toomey says anything about the Barrett nomination or is asked about it if he takes questions after speaking to his plans. The announcement is apparently scheduled for Monday Oct 5 at 10am. One does wonder what is the point of making these political plans known right before the 2020 elections and the presumed intent of McConnell to pursue a pre-election confirmation of Judge Barrett.

https://www.Twitter or X not allowed/i/web/status/1312866008487596034/
 
Last edited:
I plan on seeing a new conservative SCOTUS justice installed before Jan and the country will have to deal with it, maybe by creating a larger pool of judges. :cautious:
 
I dunno. A lot of things are up in the air right now about the Barrett nomination, past the matter of covid-19 outbreaks among some Senators on the Judiciary Committee. The vetting is turning up some unreported endorsements, including adding her signature to anti-choice ad in an Indiana paper, and some hard questions will asked of her during the hearings, if they are even scheduled this term.

Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-Illinois) is concerned about Barrett's attitude towards in vitro fertilization. Duckworth's own kids were conceived that way, Some groups on the far right of anti-choice activism object to IVF procedures on grounds that the discarding of extra embryos, as a part of the process, is akin to abortion.

www.nytimes.com

Citing fears about I.V.F., Tammy Duckworth urges Senate not to confirm Judge Barrett. (Published 2020)

www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

... Ms. Duckworth wrote that “St. Joseph County Right to Life is an organization whose views are considered radical even within the larger anti-choice movement, in part due to its stated belief that a critical step of the in vitro fertilization process that gave me my children is equivalent to manslaughter.” Jackie Appleman, the executive director of the group, which is now called Right to Life Michiana, declined to comment when reached by phone on Friday.
Click to expand...

On Thursday, The Guardian reported Ms. Appleman as saying that she opposed the discarding of embryos during the in vitro fertilization process and likened it to abortion.

“We support the criminalization of the doctors who perform abortions,” Ms. Appleman was reported as saying. “At this point we are not supportive of criminalizing the women.”
Click to expand...

Note that last bit: "At this point..."
 
lizkat said:
I dunno. A lot of things are up in the air right now about the Barrett nomination, past the matter of covid-19 outbreaks among some Senators on the Judiciary Committee. The vetting is turning up some unreported endorsements, including adding her signature to anti-choice ad in an Indiana paper, and some hard questions will asked of her during the hearings, if they are even scheduled this term.

Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-Illinois) is concerned about Barrett's attitude towards in vitro fertilization. Duckworth's own kids were conceived that way, Some groups on the far right of anti-choice activism object to IVF procedures on grounds that the discarding of extra embryos, as a part of the process, is akin to abortion.

www.nytimes.com

Citing fears about I.V.F., Tammy Duckworth urges Senate not to confirm Judge Barrett. (Published 2020)

www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com





Note that last bit: "At this point..."
Click to expand...
I’ve become cynical. I imagine the worse, But for Donny things do seem to be unraveling. Knock on wood.
 
Huntn said:
I’ve become cynical. I imagine the worse, But for Donny things do seem to be unraveling. Knock on wood.
Click to expand...

Things could unravel for Trump and still unfortunately result in confirmation of Barrett. Mitch is on his own timetable with his own personal and political agenda, so he's likely to try to keep his piece of things on track and let the White House and the RNC try to handle their candidate from hell Mr. Trump.

I've said it before but will add here that the other thing about McConnell is that he mostly wants to remain in power himself. Amy Barrett is a pawn to him. He's already ushered 2 nominees onto the high court, plus loaded up the rest of the federal bench with conservative ideologues. His legacy in that respect is already pretty stellar as far as conservative voters are concerned. So he can afford to look to his own perceived needs at this time.

In the end, Mitch McConnell will do about that nomination of Barrett whatever he thinks will not in any way contribute to the loss of either his Senate seat as a Senator or his hoped-for retention as Senate majority leader next term. He doesn't care if Barrett's nomination gets lost in the shuffle or even goes down. Biden's favored to win the White House and Mitch figures if push comes to shove, he can work with Biden on getting a moderately conservative nominee both of them can live with. That outcome lets the chief justice revert to being the conservative he'd rather be than have to take into account all the while a perceived need to make the court look unbiased.

In the scenario of accommodating a Biden pick, it would be a bargaining chip for Mitch McConnell that he "saved" the choice for Biden to make, and would probably win him a few silent prayers of gratitude from members of the high court itself: there's less chance the Dems would try to pack the court (which Biden does not favor anyway).

But you know, I could be wrong. McConnell is sometimes just a straight up ideologue.
 
lizkat said:
Things could unravel for Trump and still unfortunately result in confirmation of Barrett. Mitch is on his own timetable with his own personal and political agenda, so he's likely to try to keep his piece of things on track and let the White House and the RNC try to handle their candidate from hell Mr. Trump.

I've said it before but will add here that the other thing about McConnell is that he mostly wants to remain in power himself. Amy Barrett is a pawn to him. He's already ushered 2 nominees onto the high court, plus loaded up the rest of the federal bench with conservative ideologues. His legacy in that respect is already pretty stellar as far as conservative voters are concerned. So he can afford to look to his own perceived needs at this time.

In the end, Mitch McConnell will do about that nomination of Barrett whatever he thinks will not in any way contribute to the loss of either his Senate seat as a Senator or his hoped-for retention as Senate majority leader next term. He doesn't care if Barrett's nomination gets lost in the shuffle or even goes down. Biden's favored to win the White House and Mitch figures if push comes to shove, he can work with Biden on getting a moderately conservative nominee both of them can live with. That outcome lets the chief justice revert to being the conservative he'd rather be than have to take into account all the while a perceived need to make the court look unbiased.

In the scenario of accommodating a Biden pick, it would be a bargaining chip for Mitch McConnell that he "saved" the choice for Biden to make, and would probably win him a few silent prayers of gratitude from members of the high court itself: there's less chance the Dems would try to pack the court (which Biden does not favor anyway).

But you know, I could be wrong. McConnell is sometimes just a straight up ideologue.
Click to expand...
I can easily imagine the Dems promoting a moderate judge to SCOTUS, but the wrong Right would fight that too, TOOTH AND NAIL. They are not about moderation. 😬
 
Huntn said:
I can easily imagine the Dems promoting a moderate judge to SCOTUS, but the wrong Right would fight that too, TOOTH AND NAIL. They are not about moderation. 😬
Click to expand...

Of course they're not, but the GOP advantage in the Senate is likely to shrink so they may have to accept a moderate conservative pick if Biden takes the WH and the Republicans no longer have 53 seats from which to to round up an easy majority denial of a Biden pick -- and Harris would be the tie breaker, not Pence. You don't think Newsom will appoint a Republican to Harris' Senate seat when she becomes VP? When Trump is gone, some Republicans in the Senate will revert to being regular Senators again regarding the old norms for both parties regarding nominations, i.e. according a President his choice of cabinet members and court picks unless the vetting turns up something pretty unsavory.

Actually if it weren't for the Dem challenger to Senator Tillis in NC having done stupid things with at least his smartphone... I'd say next term if McConnell can't jam through the Barrett pick, he might be a minority leader trying to fight off a pick to the high court that RBG would be proud of.
 
Just posted this in the sister forum:

Oh yes, Barrett is so well spoken, so honorable and lawful, participating in a Republican power grab.

This morning I turned on the radio heading to the gym to hear the confirmation, and a Republican ass wipe talking so honorably about the process and the nominee, acting like everything was sooo proper and honorable, and my blood figuratively boiled.

You see the Honorable Lawful POS Republicans have these very honorable proper BS rules like no SCOTUS confirmations hearings in an election year. You know, let the people choose, wink wink, har, har. That is until the rule they made to give them an advantage, is now hypocritically tossed in the trash when it’s a disadvantage. And they can still look straight at the camera and not smirk at how clever they are, pretending they are so reputable and proper.

Well **** them.

I can only hope that the majority call BS on these characters and throw their asses out. And if we don’t then we deserve what we get and in the name of not doing the right thing, there is part of me that wishes for calamity on the country, because not doing the right thing should mean something, should have some blow back, or what is the point? If nothing less, then cause and effect.

When we as a society decide that lying, cheating, stealing, and corruption is the way to benefit our political group, and screw over the rest of us, then we are ****** and ***** and no better that the corrupt Communist countries Republicans used to rail about before they became Trump minions.

And for you Republikans/Conservatives in the crowd who say this is how power works, then fine, when the Democrats/Liberals end up controlling the White House, Senate and House, then let the power flow all over you and I hope they hammer the **** out of every self serving conservative value you hold dear.
 
Huntn said:
Just posted this in the sister forum:

Oh yes, Barrett is so well spoken, so honorable and lawful, participating in a Republican power grab.

This morning I turned on the radio heading to the gym to hear the confirmation, and a Republican ass wipe talking so honorably about the process and the nominee, acting like everything was sooo proper and honorable, and my blood figuratively boiled.

You see the Honorable Lawful POS Republicans have these very honorable proper BS rules like no SCOTUS confirmations hearings in an election year. You know, let the people choose, wink wink, har, har. That is until the rule they made to give them an advantage, is now hypocritically tossed in the trash when it’s a disadvantage. And they can still look straight at the camera and not smirk at how clever they are, pretending they are so reputable and proper.

Well **** them.

I can only hope that the majority call BS on these characters and throw their asses out. And if we don’t then we deserve what we get and in the name of not doing the right thing, there is part of me that wishes for calamity on the country, because not doing the right thing should mean something, should have some blow back, or what is the point? If nothing less, then cause and effect.

When we as a society decide that lying, cheating, stealing, and corruption is the way to benefit our political group, and screw over the rest of us, then we are ****** and ***** and no better that the corrupt Communist countries Republicans used to rail about before they became Trump minions.

And for you Republikans/Conservatives in the crowd who say this is how power works, then fine, when the Democrats/Liberals end up controlling the White House, Senate and House, then let the power flow all over you and I hope they hammer the **** out of every self serving conservative value you hold dear.
Click to expand...

I don’t know why republicans are acting upset that Biden might ”pack the court” - if it’s legal, then why complain? Their only defense of their hypocritical actions is that it’s legal. I hope he packs the court and that they cry multiple rivers.
 
SuperMatt said:
I don’t know why republicans are acting upset that Biden might ”pack the court” - if it’s legal, then why complain? Their only defense of their hypocritical actions is that it’s legal. I hope he packs the court and that they cry multiple rivers.
Click to expand...
Hey babe, this is how power works, they can cry a river. So when the Dems Control the White House and Congress, no problem when Dems add 4 more SCOTUS seats and fill them with the most flagrant liberals they can find. :)
 
Back
Top