^^ actually, not to take sides, abortion would be on the line for the first time in a long time.

---

So what can we do?

That's what I'm trying to tell you. There is nothing we can do. Voters got us into this position. The public elected very divisive figures figures into the office of President like Obama and now a reality star with a narcissistic personality disorder. On top of that, we've kept elected officials in there offices entirely too long with no accountability. The longer they are in, the more corrupt they get. It created the perfect storm. Personally, I feel as though we are well on our way to democracy being toppled in the United States and voters have no one but themselves to blame. All those people out there who voted for candidates based on party without knowing a single thing about them, have ruined what we once had and I fear there is no turning back. When things get really bad though, (trust me, they can get waaaaaaay worse,) the people that got us into this situation will be the ones that complain the loudest.

They're voters, and we're voters. All we have to do is persuade or discourage until people who think like us outnumber people who think like them.. I didn't say it wouldn't be hard. I do think changing the rules of elections would help a lot. Going to approval voting, or ranked choice voting, would help a lot, so we don't have voters feeling like they're stuck voting for the least of two evils.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

There's an interesting theory making the rounds that Trump might delay naming a new Supreme Court justice until after the election, in order to motivate his supporters to get out and vote.  If he gets one confirmed before the election, that might take away some of the motivation his supporters might have.   He makes "If I win you will get a conservative justice, if I lose you will get a liberal justice" a campaign issue.

Look at it this way: Republican senators want to confirm a new justice before the election because they are worried that Trump might be defeated in the election and they would lose the opportunity.   So why would Trump cooperate with them and have that issue off the table?  He might want to keep that issue alive.

---

^^ actually, not to take sides, abortion would be on the line for the first time in a long time.

Except it wouldn't as it's already been decided upon multiple times and multiple sjr.


Continue with the [BLEEP] scare though

---

^^^ so you think that 6 potential people who all are against abortion vs 3 will not overturn things just because? Not in these times. No. Crucial issues such as this are amongst the most important reasons they get selected on both sides by presidents.

---

There's an interesting theory making the rounds that Trump might delay naming a new Supreme Court justice until after the election, in order to motivate his supporters to get out and vote.  If he gets one confirmed before the election, that might take away some of the motivation his supporters might have.   He makes "If I win you will get a conservative justice, if I lose you will get a liberal justice" a campaign issue.

Look at it this way: Republican senators want to confirm a new justice before the election because they are worried that Trump might be defeated in the election and they would lose the opportunity.   So why would Trump cooperate with them and have that issue off the table?  He might want to keep that issue alive.

I don't think that theory is off the wall.  It is a gamble. It also doesn't put any additional pressure on Senate races.

---

^^^ so you think that 6 potential people who all are against abortion vs 3 will not overturn things just because? Not in these times. No. Crucial issues such as this are amongst the most important reasons they get selected on both sides by presidents.

It's not about personal feelings regarding abortion though. It's about how it applies to the law. You can theoretically be morally opposed to abortion and still find it lawful. That is what Supreme Court Justices are supposed to do. They are required to put their personal feelings aside and judge the issues solely on how they apply to the law and the constitution.

---

There's an interesting theory making the rounds that Trump might delay naming a new Supreme Court justice until after the election, in order to motivate his supporters to get out and vote.  If he gets one confirmed before the election, that might take away some of the motivation his supporters might have.   He makes "If I win you will get a conservative justice, if I lose you will get a liberal justice" a campaign issue.

Look at it this way: Republican senators want to confirm a new justice before the election because they are worried that Trump might be defeated in the election and they would lose the opportunity.   So why would Trump cooperate with them and have that issue off the table?  He might want to keep that issue alive.

I don't think that theory is off the wall.  It is a gamble. It also doesn't put any additional pressure on Senate races.

Probably start the process and vote after the election if they do that.

Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk

---

There's an interesting theory making the rounds that Trump might delay naming a new Supreme Court justice until after the election, in order to motivate his supporters to get out and vote.  If he gets one confirmed before the election, that might take away some of the motivation his supporters might have.   He makes "If I win you will get a conservative justice, if I lose you will get a liberal justice" a campaign issue.

Look at it this way: Republican senators want to confirm a new justice before the election because they are worried that Trump might be defeated in the election and they would lose the opportunity.   So why would Trump cooperate with them and have that issue off the table?  He might want to keep that issue alive.

I don't think that theory is off the wall.  It is a gamble. It also doesn't put any additional pressure on Senate races.

Of course, the other side of that theory is that there are a lot of Republicans who have said they are voting for Trump because of the possibility that Supreme Court seats may open up, and if he holds the pick until after the election, he is transparently "sacrificing the good of the country" or "gambling unnecessarily with a Supreme Court seat" for his own personal purposes.  So it's not about what's good for the country, it's about what's good for him.

---

I don't think that theory is off the wall.  It is a gamble. It also doesn't put any additional pressure on Senate races.

Of course, the other side of that theory is that there are a lot of Republicans who have said they are voting for Trump because of the possibility that Supreme Court seats may open up, and if he holds the pick until after the election, he is transparently "sacrificing the good of the country" or "gambling unnecessarily with a Supreme Court seat" for his own personal purposes.  So it's not about what's good for the country, it's about what's good for him.

Then IMO, he is better off nominating someone and letting the country see the Democrats demonize themselves again like Kavanaugh, right?

Personally, I like the idea of him picking someone this week and forcing Joe's backers to come up with their short list.

---

Popped back in to say RIP Justice Ginsburg, and thank you for all you've done for women and for all Americans.

And because we can't even let her corpse reach room temperature before the posturing starts:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Nothing in there specifying that he can't nominate someone within X days of an election. Nothing saying that the Senate must or must not bring a nomination to the floor on any particular time frame. If President Trump chooses to nominate a Justice, even if he loses on November 3rd and nominates one on November 4th, there is nothing anywhere in the Constitution that says the Senate has to wait for the results of an election or for inauguration day to bring that nominee for a vote. And if that makes a bunch of liberals cry into their Spaghetti-Os, well, welcome to America. If you're upset about your government pissing you off every eight years or so when the balance of power swings to the other side, you're more than welcome to move to China or North Korea and see how great life is under one unchallenged regime.

Some justices were confirmed without a hearing.

---

The smartest move for the Republicans is for Trump to name his appointee, and for Mitch to put hearings on the schedule that will begin right after the election, during the lame duck period.
Regardless of if Trump wins or loses, or whether the Senate control changes, the nominee would be seated sometime during December, before new Senators come in January 1.
This way the hearings don't disturb the dynamics of the election.
The Democrats have no leverage to stop any of this from happening. However they will feel very upset, because they are not getting their way, and because Republicans in the Senate are behaving as hypocrites. They will pack the court first chance they get, unless they get brought to the table before the year is over, and offered a compromise to have a better system going forward.

random act of sanity

And packing the court....  we think its a given but its going to take a decisive win for them to take the senate and 2022 would be a blood bath.

---

The concept of Dems even mentioning packing the court is disturbing. How can anyone vote for these people?

---

Well hope you are all ready to fight for a women’s right to do whatever the hell they want with their bodies.

I have no doubt abortion is on the table, but let’s not equate ruling against baby murder as being akin to doing whatever they want with their bodies.

---

Well hope you are all ready to fight for a women’s right to do whatever the hell they want with their bodies.

I have no doubt abortion is on the table, but let’s not equate ruling against baby murder as being akin to doing whatever they want with their bodies.

Really? Are you willing to adopt any of the unwanted children that will be put into foster care if Roe vs. Wade is overturned? There will be a ton of them. We'll see a spike in child murder, child abuse, crime (as some of the kids growing up in foster care will feel unwanted and have no role models to teach them right from wrong.) Then you have to factor in the added cost of all these new people and the strain it will have on the already overcrowded foster care system. Taxpayers are gonna have to build new group homes to house these children, because there is already not enough foster families to take in the kids that there is now. There will also be more children born with handicaps and birth defects and that will put a bigger strain on the healthcare system, so prepare for your premiums and co-pay to go up. It's so hypocritical of people to just want something gone without coming up with solutions to the dire ramifications that action will create.

---

I have no doubt abortion is on the table, but let’s not equate ruling against baby murder as being akin to doing whatever they want with their bodies.

Really? Are you willing to adopt any of the unwanted children that will be put into foster care if Roe vs. Wade is overturned? There will be a ton of them. We'll see a spike in child murder, child abuse, crime (as some of the kids growing up in foster care will feel unwanted and have no role models to teach them right from wrong.) Then you have to factor in the added cost of all these new people and the strain it will have on the already overcrowded foster care system. Taxpayers are gonna have to build new group homes to house these children, because there is already not enough foster families to take in the kids that there is now. There will also be more children born with handicaps and birth defects and that will put a bigger strain on the healthcare system, so prepare for your premiums and co-pay to go up. It's so hypocritical of people to just want something gone without coming up with solutions to the dire ramifications that action will create.

Well, as long as you can create an economic justification for murder then we should get to work on old people who cost way more than kids.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Dentures wants to impeach again. Please do!

---

I have no doubt abortion is on the table, but let’s not equate ruling against baby murder as being akin to doing whatever they want with their bodies.

Really? Are you willing to adopt any of the unwanted children that will be put into foster care if Roe vs. Wade is overturned? There will be a ton of them. We'll see a spike in child murder, child abuse, crime (as some of the kids growing up in foster care will feel unwanted and have no role models to teach them right from wrong.) Then you have to factor in the added cost of all these new people and the strain it will have on the already overcrowded foster care system. Taxpayers are gonna have to build new group homes to house these children, because there is already not enough foster families to take in the kids that there is now. There will also be more children born with handicaps and birth defects and that will put a bigger strain on the healthcare system, so prepare for your premiums and co-pay to go up. It's so hypocritical of people to just want something gone without coming up with solutions to the dire ramifications that action will create.

Let's cure third world poverty with an h-bomb.

---

Really? Are you willing to adopt any of the unwanted children that will be put into foster care if Roe vs. Wade is overturned? There will be a ton of them. We'll see a spike in child murder, child abuse, crime (as some of the kids growing up in foster care will feel unwanted and have no role models to teach them right from wrong.) Then you have to factor in the added cost of all these new people and the strain it will have on the already overcrowded foster care system. Taxpayers are gonna have to build new group homes to house these children, because there is already not enough foster families to take in the kids that there is now. There will also be more children born with handicaps and birth defects and that will put a bigger strain on the healthcare system, so prepare for your premiums and co-pay to go up. It's so hypocritical of people to just want something gone without coming up with solutions to the dire ramifications that action will create.

Well, as long as you can create an economic justification for murder then we should get to work on old people who cost way more than kids.

in other news, 7 key democratic governors had a interesting solution to the problem of hospital utilization, involving nursing homes.

---

I have no doubt abortion is on the table, but let’s not equate ruling against baby murder as being akin to doing whatever they want with their bodies.

Really? Are you willing to adopt any of the unwanted children that will be put into foster care if Roe vs. Wade is overturned? There will be a ton of them. We'll see a spike in child murder, child abuse, crime (as some of the kids growing up in foster care will feel unwanted and have no role models to teach them right from wrong.) Then you have to factor in the added cost of all these new people and the strain it will have on the already overcrowded foster care system. Taxpayers are gonna have to build new group homes to house these children, because there is already not enough foster families to take in the kids that there is now. There will also be more children born with handicaps and birth defects and that will put a bigger strain on the healthcare system, so prepare for your premiums and co-pay to go up. It's so hypocritical of people to just want something gone without coming up with solutions to the dire ramifications that action will create.

I hear all of that, and this is why I usually find myself on the fence on this issue.
We have one party that recognizes that killing healthy babies in the wombs of healthy mothers is murder.
And we have another party that recognizes that we need to do more to provide for young mothers and help parents in general stay sane, so that children are well provided for and grow up without abuse.
I wish there was one party I could vote for that knew both of these things...

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Really? Are you willing to adopt any of the unwanted children that will be put into foster care if Roe vs. Wade is overturned? There will be a ton of them. We'll see a spike in child murder, child abuse, crime (as some of the kids growing up in foster care will feel unwanted and have no role models to teach them right from wrong.) Then you have to factor in the added cost of all these new people and the strain it will have on the already overcrowded foster care system. Taxpayers are gonna have to build new group homes to house these children, because there is already not enough foster families to take in the kids that there is now. There will also be more children born with handicaps and birth defects and that will put a bigger strain on the healthcare system, so prepare for your premiums and co-pay to go up. It's so hypocritical of people to just want something gone without coming up with solutions to the dire ramifications that action will create.

I hear all of that, and this is why I usually find myself on the fence on this issue.
We have one party that recognizes that killing healthy babies in the wombs of healthy mothers is murder.
And we have another party that recognizes that we need to do more to provide for young mothers and help parents in general stay sane, so that children are well provided for and grow up without abuse.
I wish there was one party I could vote for that knew both of these 

It’s a shame that most of these dudes are dudes. What right do you have to tell to another human being what they can and can’t do with their bodies? Not to mention the costs as one poster mentioned. 

Republicans are masterminds at getting the public behind them. 

Pro choice? How about Pro life 
BLM? How about all lives matter
Free Medicare? How about that’s a death panel

It’s like nuance doesn’t exist for them, it’s just black and white

---

^^^ so you think that 6 potential people who all are against abortion vs 3 will not overturn things just because? Not in these times. No. Crucial issues such as this are amongst the most important reasons they get selected on both sides by presidents.

No that's just y'all's scare tactics.. they already ruled on it.

---

I hear all of that, and this is why I usually find myself on the fence on this issue.
We have one party that recognizes that killing healthy babies in the wombs of healthy mothers is murder.
And we have another party that recognizes that we need to do more to provide for young mothers and help parents in general stay sane, so that children are well provided for and grow up without abuse.
I wish there was one party I could vote for that knew both of these 

It’s a shame that most of these dudes are dudes. What right do you have to tell to another human being what they can and can’t do with their bodies? Not to mention the costs as one poster mentioned. 

Republicans are masterminds at getting the public behind them. 

Pro choice? How about Pro life 
BLM? How about all lives matter
Free Medicare? How about that’s a death panel

It’s like nuance doesn’t exist for them, it’s just black and white

Whaa, cry me a river

---