You really don't understand the rationale? You don't see the advantage of appointing a woman, given the way Kavanaugh was treated, and how appointing a woman would allow the appointment process to not get bogged down?

Senate already confirmed Amy Coney Barrett once, let em fast track her a second time.

The Republicans need to come together to approve President Trumps Supreme Court pick before the election. Frankly, he needs to choose someone who is capable of making a decision to end the endless court battles the communists and their 1,000 lawyers are sure to bring after the endless recounts and usps truck loads of votes are attempted to be found and counted long after November 3. Needs to be an unabashed conservative that applies the constitution as written, not make things up as the liberals do.

This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to right a lot of wrongs in this country by applying the law and following the constitution.

-Yes, we have a border and No, Barack Obama did not make you a citizen with the swipe of his most evil pen. Goodbye.
-the border wall is being built now. Fuck all of your frivolous lawsuits to stop it by leftist activist federal judges.
-Yes, it’s wrong to kill babies you evil Marxist fucks.
-Shall not be infringed means exactly that.
-No, you communist dictator leftist governors....you can not close churches and arrest people for gathering for worship, even during a pandemic
-Hi commies in education. Say goodbye to critical race theory and all the other horseshit the liberals brainwash our kids with.
-Hey New York, say goodbye to your gun control and SAFE ACT
-Hey sanctuary cities, you don’t get federal funds anymore as long as you spend $1 on illegals.
- Hey FaceBook, google, and twitter, you have participated and supported communist backed revolutionary violence on our streets by manipulating messaging. Say hello to being a publisher, not a platform


Etc Etc Etc

I do indeed see the advantage, it is just a shame that it has to be a compromise if a more qualified person happened to be a man.

I actually forgot that Barrett was confirmed by the Senate. She is a very good solid pick.

And who might that be?

I don't know of any specific male pick. My comment was mostly reflecting on how gender might matter so much, as to perhaps overlook a possible better pick.

The President has his reasons. I trust him. Whoever he chooses, they'll be far superior to Roof Deader Hamburg.

Agreed! Sad she lived her final days in this manner. RIP

I'm just very glad that it is a Republican who loves America is doing the picking.

quote:

Originally posted by tigereye313:
Senate already confirmed Amy Coney Barrett once, let em fast track her a second time.

This ^^
We will find out next week.

Man, I haven’t looked forward to a Monday like this in such a long time.

quote:

Originally posted by TRIO:
I don't know of any specific male pick. My comment was mostly reflecting on how gender might matter so much, as to perhaps overlook a possible better pick.

Do you have any special insight or knowledge that President Trump and his advisors don't? No? Then you don't know who is or is not more qualified than another. And you're looking at this with an idealistic point of view. This isn't a bad thing, but it needs to be tempered with pragmatism, i.e., you need to be practical about it. If nominating a woman will give the Dems one less peg to hang their hats on and ease the confirmation process, that's what needs to be done.

Is Sunday over, yet?

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...arbara-lagoa-reports

quote:

"It will be a woman -- a very talented, very brilliant woman," Trump said of his potential choice. "I think it should be a woman. I actually like women much more than I like men.”

Brilliant! That right there will piss off the leftists even more.

quote:

Originally posted by sigalert:
Thread drift.

So the nuts at Democratic Underground are talking about packing the court. I can’t find a really good answer other than FDR tried and failed, and that we’ve held the number of justices for 150 years or so.

It’s not in the constitution, so where would they start? 2 seats? 5? 10? Double it? Where does it stop.

Maybe I am misremembering, but I thought FDR threatened to pack the court unless they found some of the stuff he wanted to do regarding the New Deal to be constitutional. My understanding is that the court blinked and let him do what he wanted. Maybe I’ve got it wrong, but that’s my recollection. Not a failure, a threat it wasn’t necessary to follow through on.

You know what would really blow their minds? Nominate a conservative black female. If they refuse to confirm, then they're the sexist/racists. They'd have no choice but to and very quick at that.

quote:

Il Cattivo:

quote:

Guys, she's in the middle of a tough campaign and, if you look at her statement, she didn't actually say that she wouldn't vote to confirm a nominee before the election if a vote was held then. Don't give yourselves angina when following partisan politics until you'll got a solid reason to have angina, or you'll die old looong before your time.

+100
She is in a left leaning district. She is saying it shouldn’t happen before the election. This has no effect on anything other than it may help her with her constituents. If she votes yes for an eminently qualified woman, she can say, “I felt it should have happened after the election, but the candidate was eminently qualifies and who am I to vote against her because of timing?”

Now if she does vote against, that’s a different thing, but I wouldn’t worry about that until it happens, if it does.

Heck, for that matter, if they have the votes they may tell her to go ahead and vote no if she wants. I don’t think it will help her if she does though...

quote:

Originally posted by TRIO:
I guess my wording isn't clear enough. The gender shouldn't matter, if the person is qualified for the position. I can see some reasoning of the gender being an advantage, as in metoo bs repeat. Is that really needed while Republicans are in the majority?

It was Biden who attacked Bork and Thomas Nominees. Harris didn't show any respect of order with her attack on Kavanaugh. All I see from these two clowns is disruption to try to get their way. Regardless of the qualified person presented.

I hear what you and rburg say. This sexism (That Is what it is) offends me, the same as the racism of the Belligerent Lying Marxists and others offends me. The color of one’s skin should be irrelevant, and so should one’s personal plumbing. The ONLY thing that should matter is competence.

That’s not the world we live in though. Yes, the DemonRats will absolutely lose their minds and be absolute obnoxious turds toward the nominee, any nominee. That is a given. What is different is how it will be perceived by moderates. Are they losing their minds attacking another member of the old white boys club, or are they losing their minds attacking a woman, preferably one who has a completely spotless record her entire life. What are the optics?

Yes, it sucks that that matters, but it does. It is good to see the world as it should be and work toward that, but one must remember that we live in the world as it is.

Best quote I’ve seen yet,

“Trump could finish the wall with all the bricks democrats are shitting right now.”

We need this. Both Alito, 70, and Thomas, 72, are starting to get up there. Breyer, Bill Clinton's remaining appointee, is the oldest at 82 though. Good news is Gorsuch, 53, and Kavanaugh, 55, should be around a very long time.

quote:

Originally posted by TRIO:Is that really needed while Republicans are in the majority?

No, not really. Murkowski, Collins, and Romney are not Republicans as far as ideology. IMO, Pence is the tiebreaker.

Collins if memory serves voted yes for Kavanaugh. I think with the proper prodding she will do so again. murkowski and romney I have no faith in whatsoever.