Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

#FillTheSeat Before Election Day

#FillTheSeat Before Election Day

Republicans and Trump voters want Republicans and Trump to fight. The best way to demoralize Republican and Trump voters is to not fight for this.

Some thoughts on filling the Supreme Court vacancy before Election Day, in no particular order:

1. It’s bigger than Trump and this election. Filling this seat quickly is an exercise of power while we have it. It’s impossible to know what will be after November 3, but we know what is now. And what it is now is a chance to lawfully and constitutionally alter the balance of the Supreme Court for years, maybe decades, to come. This chance may never present itself again, certainly not if Trump loses and/or Republicans lose the Senate.

2. Filling the vacancy now is protection against … John Roberts. From Obamacare to the recent religious liberty lockdown cases, the Chief Justice has shown himself to be unreliable and subject to pressure campaigns. Particularly when the 2020 election cases (which there will be) make their way to the Supreme Court, a rogue Roberts could result in a 4-4 deadlock, which means the appeals court decision stands. A 6-3 Supreme Court nullifies Rogue Roberts.

3. Republicans and Trump voters want Republicans and Trump to fight. The best way to demoralize Republican and Trump voters is to not fight for this. Given the structural electoral college advantage Democrats have with a lock on several of the largest states, Trump needs to motivate his voters in several swing states he barely won in 2016.

4. Trump has indicated he likely will pick a woman. There are many qualified conservative female judges to choose from. While I don’t like identity politics, it’s probably a smart move to pick a woman if you want a quick process. It also means Trump should choose someone who is well-known and has a track record — less likely to be a surprise skeleton in the closet.

5. There is hypocrisy to go around to all sides. You can find statements on both sides that contradict their current position. There are many nominations that went slower or faster. So there is no pure and driven snow. If the Democrats were in the position Republicans are in now, they would ram through an RBG-clone with media cheerleading and would throw a DC Dance Party (aka riot for the fun of it) with no masks or social distancing.

6. The impact on the November 3 election is impossible to predict. I could make an argument either way. My gut tells me that the additional dose of frenzy helps Trump more because the Supreme Court is not about personalities of the Justices, it’s about a more fundamental conception of the country.

7. Be prepared to be stabbed in the back by a handful of Republican Senators. We can afford to lose three of them. I’m not sure we can hold the line at that. However precarious the headcount may be now, it would be worse in a lame duck administration.

8. Someone get through to Susan Collins that if she votes against this, she is done, Republicans will not show up for her. If she votes for this, she may or may not be done, it’s a toss up. Her only chance of reelection is fighting to fill the seat, or at least not getting in the way.

10. Democrats treated Brett Kavanaugh worse than dirt. Although he made it through, it’s an open wound that has not healed. I don’t think Democrats or the media understand the impact the debasement of Kavanaugh had. If they could do it to him, they could do it to anyone. And they are, through cancel culture. Don’t get mad, get even. Getting even is a fast confirmation before Election Day.

11. Go ahead and riot, make our day. Riots are working so well for Democrats even Biden and Pelosi had to come out against them eventually. Now Democrats are threatening more. Go ahead. Call their bluff.

12. Chuck Schumer and other Democrats are threatening that “nothing is off the table” if Democrats take control of the Senate, such as eliminating the legislative filibuster. Sorry Chuckie, we don’t negotiate with hostage takers or extortionists.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | September 19, 2020 at 9:07 pm

INDEED.

FYI

That Didn’t Take Long, Mob Targets McConnell’s Home

Democrats Threaten To Pack The Court, Schumer Reportedly Said ‘Nothing Off The Table’ If GOP Confirms Nominee

Weasil-zippers

    Dems are going to try o pack the court irrespective of whether Trump and the Rep senate confirm a new justice

      guyjones in reply to Joe-dallas. | September 19, 2020 at 9:21 pm

      As sure as the day is long. We can count on it. Achieving power is the goal, however it is accomplished, and, by whatever machinations, lawlessness and chicanery.

      What you say may be true, but packing the Court is one heavy lift. A bill expanding the number of seat from 9 to something greater must become a law. Both House & Senate. Then POTUS.

      In the upcoming election the lefties have to score a hat trick.

      How likely is that?

        Whitewall in reply to pfg. | September 19, 2020 at 10:32 pm

        50/50 day before yesterday. Today, it’s all out the window.

        BriVermonter in reply to pfg. | September 20, 2020 at 7:52 am

        Where in the Constitution does it say how many Justices are to be on the Supreme Court? Where does it lay out the process to change the number of Justices?
        I fear, if the Dems win the White House and the Senate, a Harris/Biden administration can nominate a 10th, 11th, 12th Justice; and a Dem-controlled Senate can affirm.

          notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to BriVermonter. | September 20, 2020 at 12:05 pm

          People Favor Confirmation Hearings For Supreme Court Vacancy In 2020 Per Poll

          Weasil-zippers

          notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to BriVermonter. | September 20, 2020 at 12:10 pm

          Unhinged:

          George Stephanopoulos Questions Pelosi About Possibly Impeaching Trump Or Barr to Stop SCOTUS Appointment

          Weasil-zippers

          Where in the Constitution does it say how many Justices are to be on the Supreme Court?

          It doesn’t. The court has been as big as 11 in the past.

          Where does it lay out the process to change the number of Justices?

          It’s the same procedure as making any other law. Both houses must pass it and then either the president assents or 2/3 of each house override his veto.

          I fear, if the Dems win the White House and the Senate, a Harris/Biden administration can nominate a 10th, 11th, 12th Justice; and a Dem-controlled Senate can affirm.

          Yes, they can do that (if they keep the house as well).

      PrincetonAl in reply to Joe-dallas. | September 20, 2020 at 7:16 am

      If the Democrats threaten us this much over something Trump might do, you know he is doing something right

    Nothing has been off the table with the Democrats for a long time.
    They just admit it now.

    Charles Schumer is someone I would love to kick around a city block. Twice. That smarmy smirk alone causes this feeling.

Just as a reminder, Obama nominated Garland in the same situation.

Any, I repeat, Any R that goes against a nominee should be targeted for defeat, and it should be made clear that is what will happen.

    Barry in reply to Barry. | September 19, 2020 at 9:14 pm

    And I mean in the general. The R’s should make it clear, we’ll vote for your opponent.

    Thai is the most important SC nomination and vote in history.

      Collins is at bat right now. She’s down in the polls. Maine, especially southern Maine / Portland area, has become loony lefty.

      The battery is trying to figure out how to pitch to her. Collins is saying the SC vote should wait until after the election; this is an appeal of the lefties to show how reasonable she is. If she changes her mind and agrees to a pre-election SC vote, the Maine lefties will go ape-shiitte, especially if she votes to confirm, and use that as a club as to why she should lose her own re-election bid.

      So, Rino Susie, ya gotta ask yourself. Did he fire 6 shots or only 5? Well, do ya feel lucky?

        Olinser in reply to pfg. | September 19, 2020 at 10:56 pm

        She’s a complete lunatic if she thinks that announcing she’s against a vote before there is even a nomination is going to help her in this election.

        The SMART move would have been to say that as no nomination or timeline has been announced, any comment on the process is premature.

        Firing from the hip on NO I WILL NOT CONSIDER, she just pissed off the entire R population of her state.

        There’s no other word but insanity to describe her thinking that doing this helps her in the election. She’s toast.

      CorkyAgain in reply to Barry. | September 19, 2020 at 11:40 pm

      Even if it means the Dems taking control of the Senate?

        Milhouse in reply to CorkyAgain. | September 21, 2020 at 2:48 am

        Yes, McConnell should put it to her that if she doesn’t stand with us on this then there’s no point in holding the senate with her help, because she may as well be a Democrat.

      I think a better approach is to keep kicking and whipping them and making their lives sheer living hell. Sure we’ll vote for their re-elections one more time but we will never ever trust them. So they can expect more kicking and whipping after the elections until they are replaced.

      As voters, we need to more than win elections. We need to control these dickless, spineless polymorphs until we can replace them. For now, we need their bloodied bodies to do one more thing before the election. But they should never ever again expect that we will trust them. It’s not just a senator or congressman here and there, it’s the entire party! I am so sick of seeing Leslie Graham’s smiling face. I want to see him cry as he suffers in pushing this one final thing before the unctuous coward steps down for Grassley next year.

      We voted for Trump because he FIGHTS!!! We will be looking for others like him beginning right now. The GOP that sits in the Senate is doomed. So lets kick and whip them to get this done and clear the decks later. But don’t stop kicking and whipping! They earned it!

    GatorGuy in reply to Barry. | September 20, 2020 at 7:07 am

    As a considerable aside, the two relevant appointment entities, Executive and Senate, were not of the same party in 2016; so, a different fact then than today, and thus, a wholly different circumstance. On this basis, the two situations are not comparable.

    However, I get your point and agree about taking no sh*t from any dusty, dirty and pathetic RINOs. It’s real kick-ass time if that goes down.

    Milhouse in reply to Barry. | September 21, 2020 at 2:51 am

    1. Garland was almost a year before the election, not two months.

    2. More importantly, the circumstances were completely different. 0bama didn’t want Garland confirmed. If he thought he was going to be confirmed he’d have pulled the nomination. The only reason he nominated so moderate a person as Garland was to taunt the Republicans. Had Clinton won the election she would not have renominated Garland; she’d have nominated a hard-core leftist.

I think Collins will be toast if she pulls her usual squishy self and sides with the left on this. I don’t see any conservative voters casting a vote for her even with the Senate so narrowly in the Republican favor. It will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Not that she is in good stead anyway. But this would tank any shot she might have at being a RBG grasping to power type.

Romney is a crap shoot. He signaled through his staffer that he was against it, but I think the backlash was fast and furious against him and caused him to revise his position, for now. He is a snake, so I don’t trust him no matter what he says.

Murkowski is Murkowski. How anyone could vote for that piece of work is beyond me. I’m hoping she is voted out her next go around, but with a conservative replacement, which would be good. Really good.

    Last numbers I saw Collins was behind her opponent. Not that polls aren’t designed to misinform, but I’ve not followed liberal Maine’s politics.
    What would end all this nonsense is an electoral college for every state. Stop the big city dominance and allow the rural areas to have a real voice on how their state is governed.

      DaveGinOly in reply to 4fun. | September 20, 2020 at 2:23 am

      Sorry, but an electoral college solution in the states wouldn’t make sense. It made sense for the federal government, because the former colonies were joining a union of nominally sovereign states. The federal government was only meant to be a coordinator of the action of those states with respect to the outside world. Internally, the federal government was supposed to provide a forum for the moderation of squabbles between the states. So it was important that they be treated as equals at the federal level, hence their equal representation in the Senate. Such a scheme wouldn’t fly in the states because a state’s counties are merely subdivisions of the state, and not nominally sovereign entities bound together in a single state, so the situation isn’t amenable to an electoral college-type solution.

        Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | September 21, 2020 at 2:54 am

        Yes. The USA is a creation of the states, not the other way around. States are not subdivisions of the USA. But subdivisions of a state are the state’s own creations, which it can change or abolish at will, and thus have no rights against the state. Which is why it’s unconstitutional for a state to create subdivisions that are unequal in population and then give them equal votes in a state senate.

    guyjones in reply to oldgoat36. | September 19, 2020 at 9:23 pm

    Also, if Collins is going down, she should want to go down giving the middle finger to the same Dhimmi-crat zealots who so contemptibly threatened her, during Kavanaugh’s nomination battle. That’s how I’d want to exit, if I lost an election. Letting the totalitarian bullies know that they can all go to hell.

    Dusty Pitts in reply to oldgoat36. | September 19, 2020 at 10:59 pm

    She needs to be reminded she can’t win without her own party’s voters.

Prof,

100% correct. No matter what Trump, McConnell and the r Senate majority do, no matter how well mannered, how polite and collegial it will not make a difference.

The only way to not be called mean things by the d, the MSM and the elites is to sell out and do their bidding. Therefore, don’t compromise or try to be polite in this climate. Punch the bullies, metaphorically, in the throat and keep moving forward.

Do not delay. Announce a nominee on Tuesday. Schedule Judiciary Committee hearings Tuesday – Saturday, the d can boycott if they fell so strongly about it. Then schedule the floor debate for the following week with a final vote on Friday.

Those opposed will hate you no matter what. Don’t worry about it, just accept it. Embrace it and act accordingly. Man up!!!

Twelve reasons to get it done now. I like Number #1. This is bigger than Trump. This is bigger than anything I can think of. It may, in retrospect, very well be one of the turning points in the history of our country. This opportunity may never come again.

This nomination battle will be the final act in the Dhimmi-crats’ utterly lawless, infantile, bullying and despicable totalitarian antics, undertaken over the past five years. I, for one, am totally sick of their BS.

Dhimmi-crats threatening riots or violence, if the political opposition exercises its Constitutional prerogatives, are demonstrating the ugly, unabashedly totalitarian nature of the contemporary Dhimmi-crat Party.

No quarter, no retreat. To Hell with these idiots. It’s time to fight.

And if the Democrats behave as badly in the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett as they behaved in the Kavanaugh confirmation they will lose plenty of independent voters.

    guyjones in reply to BillyHW. | September 19, 2020 at 10:00 pm

    Catholics, at-large, and, suburban “soccer moms” will not take kindly to Chinese spy dupe, crone Feinstein, lecturing Barrett with some variation of the despicable, crude and bigoted accusation, “the ‘dogma’ lives loudly within you.”

    Close The Fed in reply to BillyHW. | September 20, 2020 at 3:53 am

    I’m not interested in any nominee that has reservations on the death penalty.

    Squishing of any kind is verboten.

    Article by HER. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/527/

      That article is precisely why you should support her. She says the law clearly supports capital punishment, and the state is entitled to have that law carried out, so a Catholic judge should not rule against it; if he can’t in good conscience participate in an execution his duty is to step aside and let someone else do it.

Prof. J.,…Right on! Love the tenacity you’ve taken to put the 12 points of why now. As you have pointed out in each, there is no later. Now is the time to act.

Yes, fill it now.
But I don’t see the need or use in prejudicing the Nomination as I noted previously:

When asked if he would choose a woman to replace Ginsburg, after she died on Friday, Trump replied, that it was “most likely.”

“I could see most likely it would be a woman,” he said. “Yeah… I would say that a woman would be in first place, the choice of a woman would certainly be appropriate.”

This is contrary to anything resembling common sense.

You take the best you have.

    guyjones in reply to snowshooze. | September 19, 2020 at 10:04 pm

    Judge Barrett is eminently qualified — no one disputes her credentials and intellect.

    And, choosing a woman is merely smart tactics, by POTUS. Because, unfortunately, ever since the Bork hearing, tactical and public relations considerations have to be given as much consideration in the SCOTUS nomination process, as the candidate’s resume and background. That’s what the Dhimmi-crats’ scorched-earth warfare on Republican nominees has wrought.

      That’s well and good then, but even calling out a Gender preference is contrary to selection of the best qualified.
      If it so happens she is the best, this is a good thing.
      But pointless to even speak like that.

        guyjones in reply to snowshooze. | September 19, 2020 at 10:44 pm

        Yeah, that’s simply POTUS’s direct, no-BS style. Everyone knows the nominee is going to be a woman, so, why should he beat around the bush and pretend, otherwise? Barrett was widely considered to be a top pick for the last two SCOTUS slots. Everyone knows it’s her turn.

        guyjones in reply to snowshooze. | September 19, 2020 at 10:47 pm

        But, sure, as matter of principle, I agree with you it’s better not to specify gender preferences, in such matters.

        In this case, definitely not.

        Trump has had a list of people for years, ALL of whom are totally qualified for the job.

        Considering gender as a factor AFTER you’ve established they’re all fully qualified is perfectly acceptable.

        It’s when Democrats start demanding identify politics as the primary characteristic when building the list in the first place is when its bullshit.

      Close The Fed in reply to guyjones. | September 20, 2020 at 3:54 am

      She believes Catholic judges may recuse in order to avoid disagreeing on moral issues with the Pope and the Church.

      Her article.

      https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/527/

        I don’t think that’s what the paper says at all. In fact it’s almost the exact opposite. The authors argue that since the government is entitled to have capital punishment carried out, a judge who can’t in good conscience participate in the process should not obstruct it but simply stand aside and let someone else do it.

          henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | September 21, 2020 at 12:55 pm

          I’m trying to figure out why what you just said isn’t exactly the same thing as what Fed just said.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | September 21, 2020 at 9:29 pm

          First, I take issue with “may recuse”. Judges may always recuse. The question is whether they should.

          Second, the issue isn’t “to avoid disagreeing on moral issues with the Pope and the Church”. Either a judge agrees with them or he doesn’t. The issue is what should a judge do if he agrees with them on capital punishment, but is put in a position where his duty to the law would require him to personally act to facilitate an execution. Should he use his position, contrary to the law, to prevent the execution which he believes to be wrong (as, for instance, most if not all of us believe the judges of the Third Reich should have done)? The authors’ answer is no, the judge should recuse himself and let someone do what the law clearly requires to be done. That seems to be exactly the attitude we want in a judge.

    DaveGinOly in reply to snowshooze. | September 20, 2020 at 2:28 am

    Trump already has a list. Women are on that list. Those on the list are qualified. Therefore there are qualified women from whom to chose. So I don’t think it’s a big deal for Trump to say he’ll pick a woman.

The time for choosing has come.

If the reluctant GOP senators simply abstain can’t they pass the nominee 50 to 47?

    Whitewall in reply to Mauiobserver. | September 19, 2020 at 9:56 pm

    We may be lucky to lose only 3 Rs. There could well be a vote so it can be said the vote happened. The nominee could still lose. But there was a vote.

    If the reluctant GOP senators simply abstain can’t they pass the nominee 50 to 47?

    They can pass it even if it’s 50-50, but if four Rs defect then it goes down

I knew a few people who were very reluctant to vote for Trump in 2016, after the Access Hollywood tape. The only reason they ended up voting for Trump was the hope of his nominating conservative Supreme Court justices. Trump is right that he and the Republican senators have an obligation to their voters to nominate a conservative Supreme Court justice.

Are there any Dem Senators who might break rank and vote for a qualified nominee (you know, like they used to do)? Sinema perhaps? She’s shown signs of independent thinking.

    Whitewall in reply to windbag. | September 19, 2020 at 10:22 pm

    Not to give too long an answer but “no”.

    Olinser in reply to windbag. | September 19, 2020 at 10:47 pm

    No. They’re all cowards controlled completely by the party. They vote against them only when they are given PERMISSION to do so. Under no circumstances will they allow Trump the ‘bipartisan’ line.

    So-called ‘moderates’ like Manchin will never, EVER be the deciding vote in favor of Republicans. They will only vote ‘against’ them when their votes don’t matter.

    That’s a good question, and to Republican strategists, the answer is “No, and now how do we hammer this?” Since Judge Lagoa was approved to the appeals court by a bipartisan 80-15 vote, that leaves 30 or so Democrats who have to do the Two-Faced-Step in order to justify their vote against her nomination to the SC. In addition, *every* Republican Senator voted for her, and they will take it in the electoral shorts if they flip.

    It’s possible (but not probable) that the Dems will simply decide this is not a hill they want to die on and let the nomination slide on by, rather than try to attack a minority female during election season.

Carpe Diem

I’m on record as being all in for Judge Amy Coney Barrett. I’ve reconsidered and now see a new, maybe significantly less controversial, less provocative and less “divisive” alternative in federal appeals Judge Barbara Lagoa. But “less” is not alone here; timely and apt complement, and perhaps better the overall chances for a full-senate confirmation.

Abortion might be too hot and indirect a matter now. There is, I believe, an even bigger, more politically nourishing fish to fry.

The jurist is, she says, fiercely proud and, yes, privileged to be an American. Barbara’s parents, her story goes, feel blessed and — I’ll say it again in this revived and currently challenging sense of the word — privileged to have left Castro’s Cuba to more wisely bet their fortunes, dreams, and hopes in my long-adopted state of Florida.

Judge Lagoa is a recently appointed but more recently resigned Florida Supreme Court justice, and an even more recently appointed judge on the Federal Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Talk about Executives’ need to fast-track a rising and most capable judicial star. Florida’s Governor Ron Desantis and President Donald Trump are responsible for promoting, and promoting Judge Lagoa to reach, at her speed, it seems, her most comfortable level of competency.

Barbara Lagoa is the mom of three kids, the wife of attorney Paul C Huck, Jr, and the daughter-in-law of Federal District Judge Paul Huck.

This is a very attractive, very considerable alternative to the most admirable and very capable Judge ACB. However, Judge Lagoa evidently is in possession of the kind of hardwiring and developed software necessary to look into the eyes of any given pseudo-patriotic, deceptively Marxist/Maoist/Globalist Dem/Lefty Judiciary Committee senator and effectively buzz her way anesthetically through their mulch-like excuse for hardy, reliable grey matter, but wearing, say (to pick for no reason other than sartorial suitability on the Committee’s males), a white shirt, a red tie, and a blue suit. She knows a commie when she’s sees one.

So, I think it’s simply because she’s very likely holding a much stronger hand than are any of her would-be opponents during that suppose-it-might-happen event.

I’d like to see the president nominate her. Fast; it’s now real.

And, if I may as a lucky and, yes, privileged Floridian-American civilian, a loud HOOYAH goes to our governor for being so interested and heads-up (no surprise, though, he’s a former JAG/Seal) in his judicial appointments and, in Judge Lagoa’s case especially, in looking out for all Americans’ right to an outstanding, exquisitely capable and just as humbled Supreme Court justice in the same manner he’s done all his adult life, in various capacities, again and again — most patriotically.

    GatorGuy in reply to GatorGuy. | September 19, 2020 at 11:21 pm

    Pardon my enthusiasm, but here’s a snapshot insight into those features and traits of Judge Barbara Lagoa to which I allude above.

    https://wusfnews.wusf.usf.edu/news/2019-01-09/desantis-picks-female-cuban-american-for-states-high-court

    I get the continued sense that anybody familiar with her work is only proud and privileged to have the opportunity to promote her further.

    A Lagoa nomination might just be our nation’s blessed and lucky ticket to a solid decide-and-do-not-make-law majority at the Supreme Court, and even an electoral catalyst for an even more robust US Senate and President Trump 2.0.

    (A Pelosi-free, Dem-minority House would suit me and tens of other million Americans just fine, I’m sure. All that would be so nice, so sweet, and so good for us all and, no less going forward, our beloved United States. Finally, the world, too, could certainly use such a boost as our renewed, revitalized, think-outside-the-box success offers.)

    rocky71 in reply to GatorGuy. | September 20, 2020 at 12:19 pm

    Hear, Hear!!

Trump! please seat a new justice before November 3rd!

You’re right. You’ve convinced me.

Chuck Schumer and other Democrats are threatening that “nothing is off the table” if Democrats take control of the Senate, such as eliminating the legislative filibuster.

As if that would not be the case if the Republican’s rolled over and put off consideration of a Trump appointee.

Christine Blasey Ford is practicing her next sexual abuse testimony in case either Judge Amy Coney Barrett or Judge Barbara Lagoa is nominated.

I hope he nominates someone who is well-prepared for the Democrats’ character assassination plans.

I suspect the Dems are already preparing photos of someone in bed with a notorious gigolo, so they can photoshop in the face of the person Trump nominates. I also expect the Dems to hire a dozen or more private investigators to dig up, or create dirt on the nominee.

I don’t think the Republicans have ever used character assignation against a Democrat SCOTUS nominee like the Dems did with Thomas and Kavanaugh.

What Mitch & President Trump need from Collins, Romney, etc is a commitment to abstain. Up to 6 Republican Senators can abstain & the count would be 47 to 47 … until the VP breaks the tie.

Based on nothing more than what’s already known about her, I expect Collins to defect, because that’s just what she does. I don’t think it will cost her her seat, because it looks like Maine has moved too far left even for her to win. She’s looking for her next job, and no conservative anywhere is going to find a spot for her, which mostly means academia or the board of some leftist corporation, which once again, means she defects.

My feel is a lot of people are ready to start shooting Democrats.

The qualifications of the nominee are not the vital thing. Nor are the not-really qualifications, like “we need another woman on the Court to make up for the disastrous records of the women who have already been on the Court” or some such rubbish.

The most important qualification is survival. The nominee will have to be one hell of a hardass to withstand the constant and grotesquely unfair onslaught the pestilential Dems will unleash. Any mere human will eventually give up and withdraw his nomination, particularly when his relatives are attacked. Family is the weak link for just about anybody, and that’s where the Dems will launch their most despicable attacks.

    Close The Fed in reply to tom_swift. | September 20, 2020 at 4:03 am

    Agree, Tom, EXCEPT unless the nominee isn’t a squish, there’s no point to nominating anyone. Unless we can obtain a vote to end nationwide injunctions, severely limit elective abortion, and end judicial supremacy, et cetera, what’s the point of getting worked up about the seat?

    Totally agree family concerns are the weak link and that the nominee has to have a strong backbone to survive attacks, but if not a good nominee, there’s not point.

    All you Amy Barrett fans, remember this article she co-wrote:

    https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/527/

    Here’s the abstract:

    The Catholic Church’s opposition to the death penalty places Catholic judges in a moral and legal bind. While these judges are obliged by oath, professional commitment, and the demands of citizenship to enforce the death penalty, they are also obliged to adhere to their church’s teaching on moral matters. Although the legal system has a solution for this dilemma by allowing the recusal of judges whose convictions keep them from doing their job, Catholic judges will want to sit whenever possible without acting immorally. However, litigants and the general public are entitled to impartial justice, which may be something a judge who is heedful of ecclesiastical pronouncements cannot dispense. Therefore, the authors argue, we need to know whether judges are legally disqualified from hearing cases that their consciences would let them decide. While mere identification of a judge as Catholic is not sufficient reason for recusal under federal law, the authors suggest that the moral impossibility of enforcing capital punishment in such cases as sentencing, enforcing jury recommendations, and affirming are in fact reasons for not participating.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to Close The Fed. | September 20, 2020 at 2:38 pm

      I expect all judges to follow American law, not that of any denomination. History has shown all of us the danger, that danger is why Islam is such a mess.

      henrybowman in reply to Close The Fed. | September 21, 2020 at 1:05 pm

      Here in AZ, we had a prominent Libertarian lawyer named as a rotating temporary judge (which I gather is some sort of formalized professional program). He put the court on notice that since his principles would not allow him to convict any defendant on a victimless drug offense, he would be swapping such cases with another judge in return for non-victimless cases. Boy, the establishment shut him down so fast that heads spun.

      these judges are obliged by oath, professional commitment, and the demands of citizenship to enforce the death penalty,

      This is the key quote, and the reason you should not be concerned.

Does anybody… ANYBODY… think that if Hillary was President and Schumer were Senate Majority Leader, they would postpone a Supreme Court nominee to be… fair?

Does anybody… ANYBODY… think that Schumer will not try to pack the Supreme Court even if the Senate puts off a vote, Biden gets elected, nominates a super left Justice and gets him/her through the Senate? Try this future alt-history quote:

“We came so close to losing our Rights and being set back to the days of Jim Crow… we just can’t risk that ever happening again!”

They are shameless liars. The only basis for any upcoming decision is whether it will further the aims of our Constitution and those who defend it.

    henrybowman in reply to MrMichael. | September 21, 2020 at 1:07 pm

    No, the Democrats would be moving for confirmation without hearings.
    “You have to confirm her to find out what’s in her.”

People have been pulling comments out from Democrats in the past about how the seat should be filled, it’s just now they think it shouldn’t but as soon as it’s their best interest to do so they will again.
Of course the radicals will riot, but how is that different than the last 100 days? Rioting just gets you more Trump.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s formal Supreme Court nomination was sent to the Senate on June 22, 1993. Her confirmation hearing began on July 20, and the Senate voted to confirm her on August 3. The entire process took 42 days.
The time between the formal Supreme Court nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor and her final Senate confirmation was 33 days. (Aug. 19-Sep. 21, 1981).
For John Paul Stevens, the formal process took only 19 days (Nov. 28-Dec. 17, 1975).
There are 46 days until the election.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | September 20, 2020 at 7:55 am

>> Someone get through to Susan Collins that if she votes against this, she is done, Republicans will not show up for her. If she votes for this, she may or may not be done, it’s a toss up. Her only chance of reelection is fighting to fill the seat, or at least not getting in the way. <<

I wonder if Collins might pull an Arlen Specter and change parties to try to preserve her political life? My impression of her is that she is a pro-abortion Republican and if Trump nominates someone openly hostile to Roe – as Barret seemingly is – I wonder if Collins may just say "screw it" and flip party affiliations. The media would play it up big. Highlighting how few female Rs there are in the Senate and how devastating it is to lose one. They'd run puff pieces comparing her to another Maine Senator, the liberal Republican Margaret Chase Smith (who did not change parties but was quite often at odds with R orthodoxy).

It was rumored during her last election Collins wanted to retire and run for governor but Republicans convinced her not to. She'll "only" be 71 in 2024. She may decide running as a D may help her.

I'm just spitballing. Playing devil's advocate.

Well this is easy! Fill the seat NOW! They would!

BTW, according to NPR “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed,” … why of course she did. They wouldn’t lie, would they???

I find it so ironic that the statements made by many in regards to Gorsuch in 2016 have re-emerged as a reason why the the position needs to be filled. Obama’s statement being front and center.
Statements in regards to court packing or granting statehood to DC and Puerto Rico aren’t going away if the seat is left open or filled.

Excellent analysis.

I don’t think they should go with a female for the sake of going with a female. It feeds the narrative and the narrative is wrong. Go with the best candidate- male/female/black/white/whatever

NEVER placate devils who will be against you no matter what. Negotiating with terrorists empowers terrorists. The left today are Marxist terrorists pure and simple. Their language, actions and intent reflect that without error. Nay- do what is right. The person matters, because the person will be there for decades, while the crybaby narrative at the time of the decision will only cause the decision to be a poor one if it is brought to mind. Listening and changing your course to placate enemies is a mistake. (cue Branco cartoon of Kerry telling Israel to meet Iran half way on the death of all Jews).

The left is correct on one count. This is a war. We MUST win.

    henrybowman in reply to Andy. | September 21, 2020 at 1:10 pm

    Male, female, I really don’t care. I hope Trump nominates an American Margaret Thatcher. That’ll set the intersectionalists’ livers aflame.

On 10… this is why I think a male would have no problem this time. You the sexual assault pony is tired. Trump could nominate Andrew Dice Clay and no one would believe the media after what they did with Kavanaugh.

On 11…. you are right. Rioters at this point are becoming the bad guy in the hollywood movie script that everyone wants to get shot because they are pure evil. With cops afraid to engage, the rioters will burn a lot of stuff before they are stopped….So by all means leftists… MAKE OUR DAY.

8. Someone get through to Susan Collins that if she votes against this, she is done, Republicans will not show up for her. If she votes for this, she may or may not be done, it’s a toss up. Her only chance of reelection is fighting to fill the seat, or at least not getting in the way.

This. Also expulsion from the Republican caucus and removal from all committees.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend