Well ya have to figure, wont be long till we have to insert the next person up.
Who do ya think Trump will choose to fill the next Supreme Court Justice seat?
What is The Dems short list, to NOT fill the next Supreme Court Justice seat!
Part of me thinks Barrett would have initially been the pick, but I kind of feel like Trump will pick another male just to troll the democrats into trying to pull another Kavanaugh debacle. Gender doesn't matter much to me, but I do see the appeal of another female on the court to replace RBG when she retires in a couple months.
Democrats don't want to confirm anyone to the Supreme Court until after 2020 election
this is the end game, which means them stupid dems don't have a short list they don't want in the Supreme Court Justice seat
which also means they used up the attempted mulligan already
the path is opening wider each day
(01-09-2019, 05:35 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Part of me thinks Barrett would have initially been the pick, but I kind of feel like Trump will pick another male just to troll the democrats into trying to pull another Kavanaugh debacle. Gender doesn't matter much to me, but I do see the appeal of another female on the court to replace RBG when she retires in a couple months.
Nah, it would still be Barrett. There's no challenging her credentials or character, only the extent to which her personal beliefs would affect her demeanor on the bench. The greatest troll of all for Trump would be sending someone that the Democrats absolutely do not want on the bench but have no way to stop the nomination of.
Speaking of, I can't recall, is the simple majority to confirm a justice written into the Constitution? If not, I'd love to see us go to a supermajority system. "But TJ, no one would ever get confirmed again." Sure they would. Both sides would just have to work together to find the best legal minds instead of working separately to find the best partisan minds for the job.
(01-09-2019, 10:57 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2019, 05:35 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Part of me thinks Barrett would have initially been the pick, but I kind of feel like Trump will pick another male just to troll the democrats into trying to pull another Kavanaugh debacle. Gender doesn't matter much to me, but I do see the appeal of another female on the court to replace RBG when she retires in a couple months.
Nah, it would still be Barrett. There's no challenging her credentials or character, only the extent to which her personal beliefs would affect her demeanor on the bench. The greatest troll of all for Trump would be sending someone that the Democrats absolutely do not want on the bench but have no way to stop the nomination of.
Speaking of, I can't recall, is the simple majority to confirm a justice written into the Constitution? If not, I'd love to see us go to a supermajority system. "But TJ, no one would ever get confirmed again." Sure they would. Both sides would just have to work together to find the best legal minds instead of working separately to find the best partisan minds for the job.
The constitution does not specify a threshold for confirming judges. Where it is silent, each house of Congress is free to make its own rules. The rules used to say 60 votes. Now they say 51. They'll never say less than 50% + 1 just due to the logic of it.
Rumors swirling about RBG....
Trump will nominate a moderate in exchange for 25 billion for a border wall and complete immigration reform.
(01-09-2019, 11:11 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2019, 10:57 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]Nah, it would still be Barrett. There's no challenging her credentials or character, only the extent to which her personal beliefs would affect her demeanor on the bench. The greatest troll of all for Trump would be sending someone that the Democrats absolutely do not want on the bench but have no way to stop the nomination of.
Speaking of, I can't recall, is the simple majority to confirm a justice written into the Constitution? If not, I'd love to see us go to a supermajority system. "But TJ, no one would ever get confirmed again." Sure they would. Both sides would just have to work together to find the best legal minds instead of working separately to find the best partisan minds for the job.
The constitution does not specify a threshold for confirming judges. Where it is silent, each house of Congress is free to make its own rules. The rules used to say 60 votes. Now they say 51. They'll never say less than 50% + 1 just due to the logic of it.
The Constitution says advice and consent. You are right that there is no threshold specified. While traditionally the Senate has voted on the judges, that's not specified either, so in theory the Majority leader could singlehandedly be the one making the decision.
(01-11-2019, 09:06 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2019, 11:11 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The constitution does not specify a threshold for confirming judges. Where it is silent, each house of Congress is free to make its own rules. The rules used to say 60 votes. Now they say 51. They'll never say less than 50% + 1 just due to the logic of it.
The Constitution says advice and consent. You are right that there is no threshold specified. While traditionally the Senate has voted on the judges, that's not specified either, so in theory the Majority leader could singlehandedly be the one making the decision.
We'd find out pretty quickly what the current justices think of their new coworker.
Well ya have to figure, wont be long till we have to insert the next person up.
Who do ya think Trump will choose to fill the next Supreme Court Justice seat?
What is The Dems short list, to NOT fill the next Supreme Court Justice seat!
https://www.chicksonright.com/youngconse...qISMzAf66g