I think she should be confirmed as usual. Goalposts shouldn't be constantly moved.
Printable View
I think she should be confirmed as usual. Goalposts shouldn't be constantly moved.
Why "Supreme"?
Let's back up here since this question wasn't quite addressed. My question was not "what would America look like if Hillary were elected"?
My question was who specifically would Hillary have elected to the Supreme Court?
Give me some names as to who you believe she would have nominated, and why that would have been detrimental.
I'm thinking Merrick Garland is one of the candidates for sure, right?
I think Garland probably not. He was/is the chief of the DC circuit. Not left wing enough for their cause. It was a clever move by Obama to name the blandest, safest, but a reliable liberal judge, to counter what at the time seemed a hard 9 months to kill.
Your Q, who. Impossible to know. Who would have guessed Sotomayor? A ridiculous leftist, so devoid of any understanding of America or the Constitution. She's arguably more comfortable waving a Hugo Chavez flag than the US flag given her utterly repugnant views.
Kagan had zero judicial experience, and Sotomayor was a sitting judge. There are fleets of left wing activists (like RBG's history) and college administrators (like Kagan) and judges (like Sotomayor). No telling from where or who. Just a reliable leftist.
First off Trump has only appointed 2 judges to the Supreme Court, his third nomination is still pending.
Hillary could nominate any radical left wing idiot she so desired, but so long as the GOP controls the Senate none of them were getting approved.
Assuming a direct Hillary for Trump swap she would have been forced to pick judges near the center to get them approved.
Being a member of the Senate and a member of the House is the difference between chicken salad and chicken shit. - Lyndon B. Johnson
^^^FWIW - This is also why the GOP has no intention of waiting to confirm a SC Judge until after the election as they could easily lose seats or even control of the Senate this election. At which point Chuck Schumer would become speaker of the Senate and block a Trump nomination ala Mitch McConnell.
Been thinking about how the Dems will approach the confirmation process. Whether they go all out nuclear, with Kavanugh level accusations and hell, or not.
I'm thinking they actually will not. Let this seat go in order to, 1, not look as scary crazy as they did with Kav in order to not blow some close senate races. 2, knowing they can pack the court they don't care anyway.
If they do go all out bat shit with walk out stunts and attacks on her Christianity, it means they don't have the votes to pack the court.
The thing I haven't quite figured out is, why do they openly discuss packing still? Schumer alluded to it again today in an interview. That's awfully ballsy. Either a total bluff or they have polling showing they're going to storm the senate with +6 or +7 and the issue polls well.
Dems have the radical-left-let's-pack-the-court vote. Why would he say it to appeal to them?
Conversely, the elephant issue is amnesty. Hasn't been discussed once anywhere, anytime this year. They know that doesn't play well overall but you'd think would play well for hispanic votes.
Huge relief that ACB tested negative and last saw Trump on Sat. If her hearings were delayed for a recovery, no guarantee she would have made it. Also would have eliminated the hearing stage for Dems to make fools of themselves.
Bullet dodged.