Who Should Replace RBG?

She was a willing, if immature, participant. Unlike the women who had their vajayjays grabbed by the Groper-in-Chief. Or, unlike the women Schlitz Kavanaugh exposed himself to.

 

Sen Cruz said what if we need a full court in case of legal judgement for the election?

Personally, in this inflamed climate I would wait for the election to pass to name names because that person whoever it will be doesn't deserve the hate and negative energy they will no doubt be on the receiving end of from now until the election.

 

How about Kamala doing BJs for work?
Or the kids/girls/women who Biden publicly sniffs?

 

The only candidate who has substantial allegations of grabbing a woman by the ***** is Joe Biden.
#TaraReade

 

I freely acknowledge that 25 years of one woman can housebreak a man. Not unman him, just put a few manners in him to extend the time between real fights, TBA by her schedule, don't fret.

Take adultery. Don't --- she won't be able to blame you when you catch what she might bring home. Good reason for her to abstain as well, but that's probably me being chauvinist just warning her about it.

But a guy cheatin' on his squeeze? The one who puts up with his ornery and hugely unpleasant self? Wow, that includes me, pilgrim. Bet your bare sweaty bippy it includes me. If I try that, she knows precisely where to put me and never go to trial. I believe her. For better or worse comes in shotgun guages and calibers.

Adultery is adultery and "getting away with it" is in the hands of history that Bubba Dropdrawers was in fact literally guilty of that moral offense.

I concede that one look at Hillary and wrong may still be wrong but in that case Monica was certainly understandable.

 

Yep, and would the Democrats took the House in 2018 had not a number of spineless Republican's bailed? I think not, we need a100 more Trumps in congress..

 

In the unlikely event both sides are honest, they need to go home to campaign and this freezes them in the District of Criminals where they will do vastly more harm.

 

It appears roughly 50-50 that court appeals over mail-in voting and a horde of other issues will drag this out. The Constitution requires the incumbent's term ends at noon that day, whether DJT succeeds himself or not. If it drags into January and they do a replay of Gore 2000 and that complete nonsense...we need a Court to decide, not reach a draw. Either way, from either party's viewpoint ---

Hate it or not, the nomination should proceed, whoever it is. We need the Court ready.

 

We need 100 more YOUNG Trumps holding down the civil service. Congress migrates. Barnacles adhere.

 

Except you have no evidence that it ever happened in the latter.

 

Paula Jones disagrees...Clinton lost that case. Trump’s accusers pay his legal fees.

 

in case you hadn't notice they already the Neocons and other war Hawks left and right are pissed as hell that Trump is making peace treaties all over their favorite sand table.

 

Enjoy your democratic party control of all the White House and both chambers.

 

Trump is handing control of the White House and the Senate to them. This will not end well for the GOP.

 

An agreement to talk about negotiating is hardly a treaty.

 

Lol...I really don't care who controls what. It is just funny to watch Democrats employ such hyperbole and lack of logic.

Even IF the left control both chambers and the Presidency (and that's a big if) , it won't be for any longer than two years. The right will control the SCOTUS for decades to come.

Now, what do you think the right will do?

 

And it is far more than that with at least two parties and likely more.

 

We shall see. The people that are going to be most damaged are the Neocons who turned their back on Trump

 

~ I think that Amy Coney Barrett is the pick.

 

You mean he was elected for less than a 4 year term? Cite the clause in the Constitution that limits his term to 3 years, 8 months.

Before you answer that, here is what Ginsburg said:
September 8, 2016 / 5:51 AM / AP

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Wednesday she thinks “cooler heads will prevail” in the Senate, where Republican leaders are refusing to consider President Obama’s high court nominee.

Ginsburg told a group of students at Georgetown University Law Center that lawmakers should appreciate that a president can appoint justices anytime during his term.

“The president is elected for four years, not three years, so the power he has in year three continues into year four,” she said. “And maybe our members of the Senate will wake up and appreciate that that’s how it should be.”

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ginsburg-nudges-senate-to-vote-on-garland-scotus-nomination/

And
Chuck Schumer @SenSchumer ·
Feb 22, 2016
Attn GOP: Senate has confirmed 17 #SCOTUS justices in presidential election years. #DoYourJob

 

I think we should follow the McConnell rule and wait until after the election to nominate the justice.

 

I think the McConnell rule is we won , you lost na na na na na.

 

The McConnell Rule is that, since Roberts has become weak kneed, we need a reliable conservative to protect the sanity of the court.

Personally, when Harris announced that the Democrats intend to add seats to the SCOTUS and stack the court with Maoists, it was license for Republicans to beat them to it and stack the court with Americans.

 

~ Yes Roberts has been a big disappointment. He obviously is on ' Team Obama ' .

 

I'm not a democrat. So basically what McConnell and Republicans said in 2016 was a big lie and was just an excuse to keep democrats from nominating Supreme Court justices. I'm so glad that now Republicans are just being honest now.