Page 1 of 4
Rbg
Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:49 am
by D-train
Trump needs to come out immediately and say that once I win re-election I will nominate new Scotus member. And he obviously needs to give his condolences.
Re: Rbg
Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:42 am
by bpj
Twitter is censoring this video because they don't want people to see what most of us know about Trump. He's a good dude.
https://twitter.com/Denlesks/status/130 ... 28768?s=09
Re: Rbg
Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:53 am
by bpj
Tell me how that video needed to be viewed as sensitive material. So pathetic how they are trying to control this election.
Re: Rbg
Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:38 pm
by D-train
Read some of the comments on twitter saying he was lying about just hearing about it for the first time. These people are truly fucked in the head.
Re: Rbg
Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2020 3:52 pm
by D-train
Re: Rbg
Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2020 12:02 am
by ddraig
“I have heard there are some on the Democrat side who would like to increase the number of judges.” Ruth Bader Ginsberg mentioned that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s wanted to stack SCOTUS, and she made clear she thought “it was a bad idea.”
When a similar scenario occurred four years ago after the death of Justice Scalia, the Republican-controlled Senate blocked Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. It was a controversial move, and Ginsburg had something to say about it: Ginsburg publicly called on the Senate to go through with the nomination. “That’s their job,” she said in July 2016. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year.”
“Eight is not a good number for a collegial body that sometimes disagrees,” Ginsburg said on the issue a few months later during an event at the Smithsonian Museum of American History in Washington.
The last time a Supreme Court Justice nominated by a President when the Senate was controlled by the opposite party was 1880. Since then, when a Party controlled the Senate and the Presidency, many justices were nominated and confirmed prior to a Presidential election.
Re: Rbg
Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2020 12:04 am
by D-train
Re: Rbg
Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2020 12:05 am
by D-train
ddraig wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 12:02 am
“I have heard there are some on the Democrat side who would like to increase the number of judges.” Ruth Bader Ginsberg mentioned that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s wanted to stack SCOTUS, and she made clear she thought “it was a bad idea.”
When a similar scenario occurred four years ago after the death of Justice Scalia, the Republican-controlled Senate blocked Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. It was a controversial move, and Ginsburg had something to say about it: Ginsburg publicly called on the Senate to go through with the nomination. “That’s their job,” she said in July 2016. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year.”
“Eight is not a good number for a collegial body that sometimes disagrees,” Ginsburg said on the issue a few months later during an event at the Smithsonian Museum of American History in Washington.
The last time a Supreme Court Justice nominated by a President when the Senate was controlled by the opposite party was 1880. Since then, when a Party controlled the Senate and the Presidency, many justices were nominated and confirmed prior to a Presidential election.
So the house plays no role, correct?
Re: Rbg
Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2020 12:10 am
by ddraig
That is correct. The President nominates with the "Advice and Consent" of the Senate. If it comes down to a tie, the Vice President can break it with his vote.
Became a Kid Rock fan when he went country a few years ago.
Re: Rbg
Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2020 1:02 am
by D-train
ddraig wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 12:10 am
That is correct. The President nominates with the "Advice and Consent" of the Senate. If it comes down to a tie, the Vice President can break it with his vote.
Became a Kid Rock fan when he went country a few years ago.
Thanks John so they can actually do this if Murkowski is the only no vote, right. Simple majority.