The whole process of adding judges to the supreme Court and to lower courts is definitely one of the weak points of our republic.
A well designed republic should not face a constitutional crisis just because someone died.
Before 2016, the rules were that there are nine supreme Court justices, and the president gets to nominate a new Justice whenever one dies or retires, and that the Senate would give that person a fair hearing, and that some members of both parties would vote to confirm him, unless he was some kind of monster.
Mitch McConnell decided to change these rules in 2016.
We know the Democrats want to return the favor, and pack the court, the next time they hold the White House in both houses of Congress. They will expand it to at least 11.
They will hold this kind of power again, it's just a matter of when, not if.
What we need is for the House, and Senate, and president to come together on some kind of compromise, now, while both parties have leverage, so that deaths which no one can control or predict don't become crises in the future.
What I propose below can be done by a simple act of congress, no constitutional amendment needed:
Instead of packing the court, create like a second string court that is pre-approved to take over seats on the supreme Court as they are vacated. Instead of letting the number of justices that a president gets to appoint be determined by the angel of death, limit it to a predetermined number, like one every four years. If the court already has nine, put the new guy on the second string court, but first in line for the next seat.

---

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

Lost in all this is Biden now has to provide his list, which he has already promised will be only African American women. I guess painting yourself in a corner with the underwear stain that is Kamala Harris wasn't enough of a lesson learned.

This is my problem with Democrats. They pander to minorities and completely ignore what middle America (the majority of the country,) wants.

---

The whole process of adding judges to the supreme Court and to lower courts is definitely one of the weak points of our republic.
A well designed republic should not face a constitutional crisis just because someone died.
Before 2016, the rules were that there are nine supreme Court justices, and the president gets to nominate a new Justice whenever one dies or retires, and that the Senate would give that person a fair hearing, and that some members of both parties would vote to confirm him, unless he was some kind of monster.
Mitch McConnell decided to change these rules in 2016.
We know the Democrats want to return the favor, and pack the court, the next time they hold the White House in both houses of Congress. They will expand it to at least 11.
They will hold this kind of power again, it's just a matter of when, not if.
What we need is for the House, and Senate, and president to come together on some kind of compromise, now, while both parties have leverage, so that deaths which no one can control or predict don't become crises in the future.
What I propose below can be done by a simple act of congress, no constitutional amendment needed:
Instead of packing the court, create like a second string court that is pre-approved to take over seats on the supreme Court as they are vacated. Instead of letting the number of justices that a president gets to appoint be determined by the angel of death, limit it to a predetermined number, like one per term. If the court already has nine, put the new guy on the second string court, but first in line for the next seat.

Nice sentiment, but that will never happen. McConnell and Pelosi have turned this thing into a "peeing contest." (I don't wanna get warned for a certain word here.) The days of Democrats and Republicans coming together and compromising on ANYTHING, is a thing of the past. They have proven this time and time again. It's all about power and platforms. This is why I loathe politics. It used to be about compromising for the good of the country. Now it's just about who can gain enough control to shove their own agendas down America's throat.

---

I bet the Democrats are regretting using their silver bullet against Kavanaugh, which still failed.

Everybody knows you can't have TWO Spartacus moments.

Jam it through Cocaine Mitch!

---

The whole process of adding judges to the supreme Court and to lower courts is definitely one of the weak points of our republic.
A well designed republic should not face a constitutional crisis just because someone died.
Before 2016, the rules were that there are nine supreme Court justices, and the president gets to nominate a new Justice whenever one dies or retires, and that the Senate would give that person a fair hearing, and that some members of both parties would vote to confirm him, unless he was some kind of monster.
Mitch McConnell decided to change these rules in 2016.
We know the Democrats want to return the favor, and pack the court, the next time they hold the White House in both houses of Congress. They will expand it to at least 11.
They will hold this kind of power again, it's just a matter of when, not if.
What we need is for the House, and Senate, and president to come together on some kind of compromise, now, while both parties have leverage, so that deaths which no one can control or predict don't become crises in the future.
What I propose below can be done by a simple act of congress, no constitutional amendment needed:
Instead of packing the court, create like a second string court that is pre-approved to take over seats on the supreme Court as they are vacated. Instead of letting the number of justices that a president gets to appoint be determined by the angel of death, limit it to a predetermined number, like one per term. If the court already has nine, put the new guy on the second string court, but first in line for the next seat.

Nice sentiment, but that will never happen. McConnell and Pelosi have turned this thing into a "peeing contest." (I don't wanna get warned for a certain word here.) The days of Democrats and Republicans coming together and compromising on ANYTHING, is a thing of the past. They have proven this time and time again. It's all about power and platforms. This is why I loathe politics. It used to be about compromising for the good of the country. Now it's just about who can gain enough control to shove their own agendas down America's throat.

That reads like learned helplessness on your part.

---

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

There is no rule that says the party in power must relinquish that power to the other party.

---

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

Trump absolutely should nominate a justice and the republicans would be fools to not push a nomination through, anyone that says Democrat’s wouldn’t do it are being dishonest at best. Hypocrisy be damned you have the ball go score while you have possession.

---

I’ll also add This completely changes the election for me and puts me back into the voting for trump and all his faults over a third party vote simply because I can’t justify letting Biden or the AOC branch get a supreme nomination that’s disastrous from my perspective.

---

Trump absolutely should nominate a justice and the republicans would be fools to not push a nomination through, anyone that says Democrat’s wouldn’t do it are being dishonest at best. Hypocrisy be damned you have the ball go score while you have  possession.

---

I’ll also add This completely changes the election for me and puts me back into the voting for trump and all his faults over a third party vote simply because I can’t justify letting Biden or the AOC branch get a supreme nomination that’s disastrous from my perspective.

So I have a question for you....

Did you feel RBG was going to make it another 4 years? This was an important issue the whole time, but in the forefront sooner than expected. 

If a conservative SCOTUS is important to you, Trump should have been your vote all along, no?

---

I feel bad for RBG's family. They just want to mourn but you can't really talk about her without it turning into politics and upsetting people. In a sense, this is what RBG sacrificed when she chose this life, the right to be mourned without politics.

She politicized her job and life. If she keeps her mouth shut like a judge should and keep their personal feelings to themselves or close family and friends then it wouldn't be an issue. Judges should rule against the laws that are in place, not bring feelings into them and create new laws. She shouldn't be championing anything, not speaking out against Trump, etc. While on the court, your life should be 100% private and you shouldn't do anything else.

Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk

---

There is no rule that says the party in power must relinquish that power to the other party.

There is one, actually.  The filibuster rule.  But they're carving down the number of situations it applies to. it's probably completely gone the next time the Senate changes hands.

---

I feel bad for RBG's family.  They just want to mourn but you can't really talk about her without it turning into politics and upsetting people.  In a sense, this is what RBG sacrificed when she chose this life, the right to be mourned without politics.

She politicized her job and life. If she keeps her mouth shut like a judge should and keep their personal feelings to themselves or close family and friends then it wouldn't be an issue. Judges should rule against the laws that are in place, not bring feelings into them and create new laws. She shouldn't be championing anything, not speaking out against Trump, etc. While on the court, your life should be 100% private and you shouldn't do anything else.

Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk

Appointments to the supreme Court were political positions before she got there.

---

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

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.

---

Nice sentiment, but that will never happen. McConnell and Pelosi have turned this thing into a "peeing contest." (I don't wanna get warned for a certain word here.) The days of Democrats and Republicans coming together and compromising on ANYTHING, is a thing of the past. They have proven this time and time again. It's all about power and platforms. This is why I loathe politics. It used to be about compromising for the good of the country. Now it's just about who can gain enough control to shove their own agendas down America's throat.

That reads like learned helplessness on your part.

Please explain what you mean.

---

Trump absolutely should nominate a justice and the republicans would be fools to not push a nomination through, anyone that says Democrat’s wouldn’t do it are being dishonest at best. Hypocrisy be damned you have the ball go score while you have  possession.

---

I’ll also add This completely changes the election for me and puts me back into the voting for trump and all his faults over a third party vote simply because I can’t justify letting Biden or the AOC branch get a supreme nomination that’s disastrous from my perspective.

So I have a question for you....

Did you feel RBG was going to make it another 4 years? This was an important issue the whole time, but in the forefront sooner than expected. 

If a conservative SCOTUS is important to you, Trump should have been your vote all along, no?

I wasn’t ready to commit to Trump for a 2nd term on the likeliness we will need another judge appointed however under the reality that we are 100% facing a judge appointment I have no choice

---

Who would have ever imagined a billionaire real estate mogul turned reality TV star would be responsible for 1/3 of the SCOTUS for a generation?

---

Barry Hussein Obama:

"When there is a vacancy on the SCOTUS, the President is to nominate someone, the Senate is to consider that nomination... There's no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off-years. That's not in the Constitution text." https://t.co/vrOi3DrkJN

---

Did Harris release her short list for SCOTUS yet?

---

So I have a question for you....

Did you feel RBG was going to make it another 4 years? This was an important issue the whole time, but in the forefront sooner than expected. 

If a conservative SCOTUS is important to you, Trump should have been your vote all along, no?

I wasn’t ready to commit to Trump for a 2nd term on the likeliness we will need another judge appointed however under the reality that we are 100% facing a judge appointment I have no choice

Alito is ready to retire next year as well, his family doesn't like DC and he's ready to go home.

---

Look you guys this wouldnt of been an issue had the Reps just accepted Garland (which would’ve been really in your favor since he was a moderate)

Regardless of what you say, Dems would have NEVER reestablished constitutional law when it came to the SC.
Republicans (McConell really) made this whole situation a giant constitutional mess.

To have a hearing 45 days before the election and during a pandemic no less, is just such blatant hypocrisy.

In fact I think this is a perfect moment to balance what happened.
You guys get 1 and we get 1 based on the new precedent established.

Then we establish into law.
* During election year, SC justice may not be appointed by sitting president.

Lolllllllll, you know damn well the Dems would do the same thing if they were in control. Quit pretending otherwise.

---

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

---

“In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia’s death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president’s second term. We kept our promise,” McConnell continued. “Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year.”


McConnell added that “by contrast, Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary.”

“Once again, we will keep our promise,” he said. “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcconne...vote-floor

---

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

RIP, Icon RBG ... Her determination is to be respected.

---