Red Mosquito

I also can't imagine there's many examples of this, where the judicial system and populace of a country as a whole are moving in different directions. The country's moving increasingly in liberal directions, particularly on social issues, while the courts are drifting further to the right. In the long-term, the courts will change because they'll have to, should that split continue to widen, but in the short and medium-term this place'll be really ugly.

Strat wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Strat wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Strat wrote:

digster wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Honestly the worst move Trump could make would be to fill the seat before November. Doing so motivates the Democratic base even further to get out the vote, decreases the need for conservatives to hang onto him (what with having gotten their conservative court and all), and will absolutely blow up moderate Dem support for expanding the court.

Waiting until after the election is his safest option. So I assume he’ll nominate someone tomorrow.

This is absolutely true; turning the election into a choice on who gets to fill the seat as opposed to a referendum on him is the best chance he's been given to turn the election in his favor. I can't imagine he'll take it; the potential for lib ownage is far too high.

I need someone to dumb this down for me. I dont see it this way. I see it only as red meat for conservatives to show up big for trump and continue stacking the court.

There is a breed of conservative that badly wants a conservative court, but dislikes or is low on support for Trumpism. A potential nomination is leverage for getting their vote. A completed nomination is over with and done, so they don’t need him.

I can't imagine there is enough of those types?

Noah Rothmans? Oh yeah. There’s enough.

So best case scenario is trump stacks the supreme court (with the potential for having enough votes to overturn roe v wade) but trump loses the election and the dems stack the lower courts?

I think all Democrats need to do to add justices to the Supreme Court is overturn the judicial filibuster, than they can add seats. Which I actually would have betted that Joe Biden would not want to do; I'm not sure he's going to have a choice, now.

Strat wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Strat wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Strat wrote:

digster wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Honestly the worst move Trump could make would be to fill the seat before November. Doing so motivates the Democratic base even further to get out the vote, decreases the need for conservatives to hang onto him (what with having gotten their conservative court and all), and will absolutely blow up moderate Dem support for expanding the court.

Waiting until after the election is his safest option. So I assume he’ll nominate someone tomorrow.

This is absolutely true; turning the election into a choice on who gets to fill the seat as opposed to a referendum on him is the best chance he's been given to turn the election in his favor. I can't imagine he'll take it; the potential for lib ownage is far too high.

I need someone to dumb this down for me. I dont see it this way. I see it only as red meat for conservatives to show up big for trump and continue stacking the court.

There is a breed of conservative that badly wants a conservative court, but dislikes or is low on support for Trumpism. A potential nomination is leverage for getting their vote. A completed nomination is over with and done, so they don’t need him.

I can't imagine there is enough of those types?

Noah Rothmans? Oh yeah. There’s enough.

So best case scenario is trump stacks the courts (with the potential for having enough votes to overturn roe v wade) but trump loses the election and the dems stack the lower courts?

It don’t feel right to me to call any remaining scenario a “bet case” at this point.

love notwithstanding we are each of us fucked

Anyone see trump's reaction after the press told him? I can't believe he handled it as gracefully as he did.

SCOTUS APPOINTMENT ANNOUNCED:

Spoiler: show

Strat wrote:love notwithstanding we are each of us fucked

Quoting a high school drop outs dumb lyric is not what we need right now

I honestly wouldn't be that surprised if four Republicans come out like this. Murkowski, Collins, Romney are three, and Lamar Alexander has said there shouldn't be a vote in 2020, and he's retiring this year and doesn't have to worry about re-election.

verb_to_trust wrote:

Strat wrote:love notwithstanding we are each of us fucked

Quoting a high school drop outs dumb lyric is not what we need right now

my god you are the worst.

Collins loves to front like she won't do what the GOP wants and then always does it

she is just putting out the bat-signal for a payoff

then will guzzle the c*m like always

I don't know; in Maine, she might need moderates more than MAGA-ites.

digster wrote:

I honestly wouldn't be that surprised if four Republicans come out like this. Murkowski, Collins, Romney are three, and Lamar Alexander has said there shouldn't be a vote in 2020, and he's retiring this year and doesn't have to worry about re-election.

Or not.

Who the fuck is Liz Johnson? The worst thing about Twitter is people like this thinking they get to talk.

96583UP wrote:Collins loves to front like she won't do what the GOP wants and then always does it

she is just putting out the bat-signal for a payoff

then will guzzle the c*m like always

In state she tries real hard to promote her centrist votes of bygone years.

It would seem pretty hard in my mind for her to have the egg of Kavanaugh still on her face and double down in support of another Trump nominee.

verb_to_trust wrote:Who the fuck is Liz Johnson? The worst thing about Twitter is people like this thinking they get to talk.

Romney's communications director.

digster wrote:I don't know; in Maine, she might need moderates more than MAGA-ites.

This is what I was getting at.

digster wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:Who the fuck is Liz Johnson? The worst thing about Twitter is people like this thinking they get to talk.

Romney's communications director.

Yeah I get that. But we don't need to hear this person talk.

verb_to_trust wrote:

digster wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:Who the fuck is Liz Johnson? The worst thing about Twitter is people like this thinking they get to talk.

Romney's communications director.

Yeah I get that. But we don't need to hear this person talk.

Her job is literally to talk and clarify a Senator's opinions and positions.

Simple Torture wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

digster wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:Who the fuck is Liz Johnson? The worst thing about Twitter is people like this thinking they get to talk.

Romney's communications director.

Yeah I get that. But we don't need to hear this person talk.

Her job is literally to talk and clarify a Senator's opinions and positions.

EDIT: I was laughing at the first version of this post which was much funnier. What the hell, ST

Jorge wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

digster wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:Who the fuck is Liz Johnson? The worst thing about Twitter is people like this thinking they get to talk.

Romney's communications director.

Yeah I get that. But we don't need to hear this person talk.

Her job is literally to talk and clarify a Senator's opinions and positions.

verb gonna verb