quote:

Originally posted by rusbro:

And it's only Wednesday...Love It!

quote:

Originally posted by Fla. Jim:
The left "Has" already lost it's mind over this!

+++LINK+++
Liberal activists and journalists are melting down over Justice Anthony Kennedy announcing his retirement from the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

Kennedy, who has served as the court’s swing vote for decades, has now opened the door for President Donald Trump to finally give conservatives their long-desired court majority. (RELATED: Kennedy Calls It Quits: Longtime Swing Justice Hands Trump The Biggest Gift Of His Presidency)

Progressives immediately reacted to Kennedy’s retirement with fear, anger, and sadness.
It's worth the look to read their tweets at the link.

I imagine the God Damned Commie Senators running for re-election in Trump States are not sleeping well. There are 10 of them.

If the confirmation vote takes place before election day, they are going to have to chose between going against what Schumer tells them, or explaining to their constituents why they voted “No” on Trump’s super qualified nominee.

Which would you chose?

I did catch a blurb today that McConnel has said the confirmation will occur before the election.

one can only hope it leads to a few incapacitating strokes - or worse

I said a prayer for the Nation on Sunday, and included the Supreme Court in it. I'll take this news as proof it was heard.

The Weather Channel has issued flash flood warnings for liberal areas.

So here's my question:

Trump has many good potential picks on his list.

My question is: What is the best way to get a good conservative placed on the Supreme Court without negatively impacting the midterms?

1) Nominate and confirm immediately, and hope this doesn't energize the democrats.

2) Nominate/confirm someone immediately before the midterms, with the thinking there won't be enough time to influence the elections significantly;

3) Nominate/confirm immediately after midterms, so that the elections won't be negatively impacted, but then he faces strong criticism from the left since the Republicans stalled and prevented Obama's third pick in a similar situation.

In other words, which would be better politically - get done quickly, or later?

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
ONLY 85!! Good grief. That's ANCIENT.

Three and a half years (if I make it), and I'll be 85.

But based on your coherent posts I would never refer to you as a half boiled potato as I would Ginsburg.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
Literal gasps and cries of anguish from the DNC during a call which was interrupted by the breaking news:




Via Tweet:

How it sounded inside a DNC committee meeting the moment Justice Kennedy’s retirement was announced

You can't see me but I am drinking a beer doing my happy dance!.....fully clothed for all you preeverts!

DEMs: the Senate should wait until after the midterms to confirm a new justice

Schumer: Millions of people are just months away from determining senators who should vote to confirm or reject the President's nominee. And their voices need to be heard...Anything but that would be the absolute height of hypocrisy

Mitch McConnell: “We will vote to confirm Justice Kennedy’s successor this fall.”

Can you imagine if Roe vs Wade were to be reversed in the next couple years? Riots like we haven't seen in decades.

National Review

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews called on Democrats to obstruct the nomination of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s replacement to the Supreme Court Wednesday, minutes after Kennedy announced his retirement.

“I don’t think the Democrats should allow even meetings to occur for Trump’s nominee to fill this vacancy by Justice Kennedy,” Matthews said on MSNBC’s Hardball. “I think they have to fight eye for an eye for what happened in ’16, where the Republicans led by Mitch McConnell refused to even consider or meet with Merrick Garland. I think if the Democratic leadership under Schumer allows this to go forward, they’re going to have a huge problem with the Democratic base.”

Matthews cited Republican obstruction of Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, which led to a 14-month vacancy on the high court, in suggesting Democrats would be held to account by their constituents if they don’t adopt similar tactics to block Kennedy’s replacement.

“There is no way politically that the Democratic base will stand for any kind of hearings or vote on a Trump nominee for the Supreme Court before the election. We’ve got an election in four and a half months. There is no reason to consider a Supreme Court replacement in that time,” Matthews said.

When asked how the Democrats might obstruct the nomination given the recent rule change lowering the confirmation threshold for Supreme Court nominees from 60 votes to a simple majority, Matthews suggested that they should block unrelated legislation to delay a confirmation vote.

“There’s a lot of dilatory tactics they can use on every bill before the Congress between now and November. If they don’t use everything they’ve got, if they don’t play hardball, I think they’re through,” Matthews said. “I know the Democratic base. They are very angry about this leadership. They don’t believe they’ve fought hard enough against Trump.”

“If [Kennedy] gets replaced by a hard-line social conservative the Democratic leadership will have hell to pay,” he concluded.

Link

quote:

Originally posted by btanchors:
So here's my question:

Trump has many good potential picks on his list.

My question is: What is the best way to get a good conservative placed on the Supreme Court without negatively impacting the midterms?

1) Nominate and confirm immediately, and hope this doesn't energize the democrats.

2) Nominate/confirm someone immediately before the midterms, with the thinking there won't be enough time to influence the elections significantly;

3) Nominate/confirm immediately after midterms, so that the elections won't be negatively impacted, but then he faces strong criticism from the left since the Republicans stalled and prevented Obama's third pick in a similar situation.

In other words, which would be better politically - get done quickly, or later?

I say the SOONER the better.

quote:

Originally posted by Spokane228:
Can we count on McCain, Collins, and Flake to do the right thing?

Looks like you can throw Chuck Grassley into the pot with them.


Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley accused the Trump administration Wednesday of “ignoring or abusing” the law through the Environmental Protection Agency’s continued use of biofuel waivers.

Grassley also reminded the administration in a press statement about his powerful position on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is responsible for considering judicial nominees. Grassley threatened to hold up President Donald Trump’s EPA nominees in 2017 over rumors the agency would reduce the RFS mandate.

“As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I … have concerns that EPA may be ignoring or abusing the Administrative Procedure Act as they continue to grant waivers in secret and refuse to respond to congressional oversight and public information requests regarding the practice,” he said in a statement.

Grassley has showed a willingness in the past to hold up judicial nominations. He hinted in 2017 at staying pat on Trump’s picks to run the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and the agency’s air office.


http://dailycaller.com/2018/06...epa-biofuel-waivers/

I went to college with Bill Pryor and I know he was on President Trump's short list the last time. I sincerely hope he gets another shot at the bench on the highest court in the land...he would be an EXCELLENT choice!

Good luck Bill!!

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Pretty sure we are done hearing about immigration for the summer.

Hmmm. You think maybe Trump will have the chance to have some quiet, and quietly effective, discussions with Li'l Kim, Putin and Xi while he's at it?

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
I imagine the God Damned Commie Senators running for re-election in Trump States are not sleeping well. There are 10 of them.

If the confirmation vote takes place before election day, they are going to have to chose between going against what Schumer tells them, or explaining to their constituents why they voted “No” on Trump’s super qualified nominee.

Which would you chose?

Link to original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK0_6a_zF-Y

Our liberal POS junior senator, Chrissy Murphy, has started a petition in the Senate to prevent any approvals until after the midterms.

Altogether, a really excellent, wonderful day. Nope, not tired.