It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I am fairly certain a nomination won’t get thru. I am also certain that if the Democrats had a majority in senate and the presidency they would absolutely try to push through a nominee. We will see if the GOP does this, or if they try to use this as a boogeyman to get their base out to vote.

---

Yes, it's improvement, but it's Blaine Gabbert 2012 level improvement. - Pirkster

http://youtu.be/ouGM3NWpjxk The Home Hypnotist!

http://youtu.be/XQRFkn0Ly3A Media on the Brain Link!
 

Peyton must store oxygen in that forehead of his. No way I'd still be alive after all that choking.

 

For everyone here talking politics, a human being just died but fine let's do some real talk. A very interesting outcome and maybe highly likely is that President Trump puts a judge on here which many would say is hypocritical and not fair while losing the election. Democrats got beat here plain and simple. President Obama was not able to get his in back in 2016 and Republicans are playing to win when it comes to the supreme court.

---

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.

---

Just to clarify my prediction. Trump loses, and he pushes in his pick. He will do it in his lame duck months. Dont get me wrong, trump has a chance of winning, but I'm just going by the polls and my gut feeling here. The republicans will not care about anything if they have the votes. We will see what happens.

---

If replacing herself with another liberal was that important to her, she would have retired under the Obama admin.

She doesn't own the seat. She was just occupying it.

---

^^^^ she would have had to retire while the Democrats had the Senate. Whatever the case, the republicans have the advantage here, and the dems will need 3 or 4 Republicans to block this.

---

After the way Trump has been treated , there is absolutely ZERO reason he shouldn't make a nomination next week.

If my Republican senator was up for reelection and refused to confirm his pick before the election he wouldn't get my vote.

---

It's going to be this for that. Look for the dems to come back when they have the power with pay back and Visa versa

---

^^^^ she would have had to retire while the Democrats had the Senate. Whatever the case, the republicans have the advantage here, and the dems will need 3 or 4 Republicans to block this.

It will be tough for sure. You would have to push for a historically fast vote to avoid potential lame duck senators from screwing over Trump.

This has made Senate races even more critical which is a good thing IMO. It will at least force senators to go on record if they will vote or not.

---

It's going to be this for that. Look for the dems to come back when they have the power with pay back and Visa versa

The Dems want to pack the court with more justices. That has been their plan for awhile.

---

For everyone here talking politics, a human being just died but fine let's do some real talk. A very interesting outcome and maybe highly likely is that President Trump puts a judge on here which many would say is hypocritical and not fair while losing the election. Democrats got beat here plain and simple. President Obama was not able to get his in back in 2016 and Republicans are playing to win when it comes to the supreme court.

Unfortunately, she chose a career path where people have to talk about your successor before the body is cold.

---

Sure. I will concede it's hypocrisy. It's political hypocrisy.

Republicans chose not to do the hearing on Garland because they had the majority, and it was close enough to the election for them to politically justify postponing the hearing. That never would have happened if there was a Republican president. They would have just had a hearing an nominated the Justice. However, because they didn't like and trust Obama, they grandstanded. The consequence should have been voting them out of office if we, as citizens, believed that was an abuse of power. However, that didn't happen, because enough people weren't incensed about the decision. I believe the dems would have done the same, and the result would be the same. The Senate has options it can use if it wants to oppose the President's appointees. With Garland, they chose to postpone, as they thought it would be less damaging than voting against an otherwise qualified candidate.

Our constitution is a system of checks and balances. It was designed to keep one institution from dominating the others. Of these branches, the President was supposed to have the LEAST amount of power. However, in this instance, with the President and Senate aligned, there is no need for them exercise their opposition. You couldn't convince me that the Dems wouldn't push in their choice if they had the power to do so, so I don't really understand what the left is complaining about other than they don't have any power to stop it. Their only play is to wine about it in such a way that it causes some people to vote for them in the upcoming election. They could have also used the filibuster if Mitch hadn't gone nuclear.

Politically, the Senate Repbulicans are just making smart moves. Ethically, you could call it hypocritical. If I were them, I wouldn't take any chances with an election that is going to most likely end up in the hands of the Supreme Court.

---

Sure. I will concede it's hypocrisy. It's political hypocrisy.

Republicans chose not to do the hearing on Garland because they had the majority, and it was close enough to the election for them to politically justify postponing the hearing. That never would have happened if there was a Republican president. They would have just had a hearing an nominated the Justice. However, because they didn't like and trust Obama, they grandstanded. The consequence should have been voting them out of office if we, as citizens, believed that was an abuse of power. However, that didn't happen, because enough people weren't incensed about the decision. I believe the dems would have done the same, and the result would be the same. The Senate has options it can use if it wants to oppose the President's appointees. With Garland, they chose to postpone, as they thought it would be less damaging than voting against an otherwise qualified candidate.  

Our constitution is a system of checks and balances. It was designed to keep one institution from dominating the others. Of these branches, the President was supposed to have the LEAST amount of power. However, in this instance, with the President and Senate aligned, there is no need for them exercise their opposition. You couldn't convince me that the Dems wouldn't push in their choice if they had the power to do so, so I don't really understand what the left is complaining about other than they don't have any power to stop it. Their only play is to wine about it in such a way that it causes some people to vote for them in the upcoming election. They could have also used the filibuster if Mitch hadn't gone nuclear.

Politically, the Senate Repbulicans are just making smart moves. Ethically, you could call it hypocritical. If I were them, I wouldn't take any chances with an election that is going to most likely end up in the hands of the Supreme Court.

This, along with Trump's consistent message on mail-in voting fraud will pack a serious punch in justifying an immediate nomination.

---

^^^^ she would have had to retire while the Democrats had the Senate. Whatever the case, the republicans have the advantage here, and the dems will need 3 or 4 Republicans to block this.

Several Republican senators have already said they don't want to vote on a new Supreme Court justice until after the election.  

https://www.businessinsider.com/lisa-mur...ion-2020-9

---

^^^^ she would have had to retire while the Democrats had the Senate. Whatever the case, the republicans have the advantage here, and the dems will need 3 or 4 Republicans to block this.

Several Republican senators have already said they don't want to vote on a new Supreme Court justice until after the election.  

https://www.businessinsider.com/lisa-mur...ion-2020-9

Your article mentions 2, not several. Collins is in a tight race in Maine and will be committing political suicide.

---

Doug Collins..... dang...

"RIP to the more than 30 million innocent babies that have been murdered during the decades that Ruth Bader Ginsburg defended pro-abortion laws. With @realDonaldTrump nominating a replacement that values human life, generations of unborn children have a chance to live."

---

As mentioned above, the Democrats would add more justices when they get power. On a side note, I'm not a big fan of these life time positions. Too much power for a select few over a large amount of years.

---

As mentioned above, the Democrats would add more justices when they get power. On a side note, I'm not a big fan of these life time positions. Too much power for a select few over a large amount of years.

Agree, but the people who change the laws are the primary abusers of them. Imagine if people actually went into public service to serve the public. It is surprising to me more people don't like Trump based on this concept alone.

---

The conservative goal for the new Justice shouldn't be abortion, but judicial interpretation. They need a Justice that will adhere to the constitution as rigidly as possible to ensure our Republic survives this next wave of attacks.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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

Sure. I will concede it's hypocrisy. It's political hypocrisy.

Republicans chose not to do the hearing on Garland because they had the majority, and it was close enough to the election for them to politically justify postponing the hearing. That never would have happened if there was a Republican president. They would have just had a hearing an nominated the Justice. However, because they didn't like and trust Obama, they grandstanded. The consequence should have been voting them out of office if we, as citizens, believed that was an abuse of power. However, that didn't happen, because enough people weren't incensed about the decision. I believe the dems would have done the same, and the result would be the same. The Senate has options it can use if it wants to oppose the President's appointees. With Garland, they chose to postpone, as they thought it would be less damaging than voting against an otherwise qualified candidate.  

Our constitution is a system of checks and balances. It was designed to keep one institution from dominating the others. Of these branches, the President was supposed to have the LEAST amount of power. However, in this instance, with the President and Senate aligned, there is no need for them exercise their opposition. You couldn't convince me that the Dems wouldn't push in their choice if they had the power to do so, so I don't really understand what the left is complaining about other than they don't have any power to stop it. Their only play is to wine about it in such a way that it causes some people to vote for them in the upcoming election. They could have also used the filibuster if Mitch hadn't gone nuclear.

Politically, the Senate Repbulicans are just making smart moves. Ethically, you could call it hypocritical. If I were them, I wouldn't take any chances with an election that is going to most likely end up in the hands of the Supreme Court.

I call it flat out, lying. I would expect nothing less from Mitch McConnell though. He has no conscience. If I could take 3 politicians, put them in a rocket and shoot them directly into the sun, it would be Trump, McConnell and Pelosi. All three are directly responsible for the divisiveness in this country.

---

Several Republican senators have already said they don't want to vote on a new Supreme Court justice until after the election.  

https://www.businessinsider.com/lisa-mur...ion-2020-9

Your article mentions 2, not several. Collins is in a tight race in Maine and will be committing political suicide.

---

Doug Collins..... dang...

"RIP to the more than 30 million innocent babies that have been murdered during the decades that Ruth Bader Ginsburg defended pro-abortion laws. With @realDonaldTrump nominating a replacement that values human life, generations of unborn children have a chance to live."

It doesn't matter what she does. She's losing by double digit figures right now. She outta here.

---

As mentioned above, the Democrats would add more justices when they get power. On a side note, I'm not a big fan of these life time positions. Too much power for a select few over a large amount of years.

Amen. Every government position in Washington should have term limits. Every politician and every Supreme Court Justice. I don't want feeble minded, old people making important decisions for this country.

---

The conservative goal for the new Justice shouldn't be abortion, but judicial interpretation. They need a Justice that will adhere to the constitution as rigidly as possible to ensure our Republic survives this next wave of attacks.

Tell that to Mitch McConnell.

---