They would need 51 senators to make a quorum.
Ginsburg
- Thread starter nashhorn
- Start date
They would need 51 senators to make a quorum.
The worst case scenario is the nominee getting rejected by the full Senate. That pretty much ends things until next year and damages Trump and the Senate GOP, and it destroys the nominee even if Trump wins. It's the last thing you want.
Let's break it down. The GOP has 53 votes. They can afford to lose 3. They might be able to afford to lose 4 if Manchin can be pulled (very possible). They might even be able to lose 5 if Doug Jones decides to break with the Democrats in a last ditch effort to hold his seat (less likely but not out of the question).
The problem is that a lot of Republicans are in tough races in states in which carrying water for Trump in a sleazy-looking confirmation fight may sink them. Susan Collins (ME), Cory Gardner (CO), and Martha McSally (AZ) are in the political fights of their lives. Very unlikely to get their votes unless they're pretty much resigned to losing and no longer care. In addition, Thom Tillis (NC) and Joni Ernst (IA) are struggling. What will they do? Who knows? Finally, you've got Romney and Murkowski, who hate Trump's guts and are going to cheese him whenever they can. Romney is still pissed about the SoS trolling, and Murkowski is just a *****. I don't know what her problem is.
That leaves 7 possible Republican defections. Even if you pick up Manchin and Jones, the nomination dies if you lose all 7.
Let's suppose you make the recess appointment. First, Barrett goes straight to the Court. That's good. Second, you spare the 5 five Republicans in trouble from having to cast a tough vote, which improves their chances of survival. Third, since the confirmation vote would happen after the election, that would relieve them of the political pressure of voting to confirm whether they win or lose. Romney and Murkowski will **** us either way. However, Gardner, McSally, Tillis, and Ernst almost surely would not. That means Barrett gets on the Court.
Good explanation. Thanks.
Duck Dodgers
1,000+ Posts
Doesn't the House also have to be in recess to perform a recess appointment? If so, then there's no chance for that to happen.
I don't see the R squishes voting against a good candidate. That would doom them far more than voting for them. A no vote would make a huge number of Republican voters skip that part of the ballot, as they should, while picking up zero Democrat voters, and who knows how many independents.
What they might do is abstain from voting - saying that they feel the vote should happen in January. I believe, but correct me if wrong, then if they don't vote, then to confirm there needs to be a majority of the actual voters.
All Democrats will vote no, in this scenario. There is zero chance any Democrat would be the deciding vote to confirm a Republican to the Supreme Court. They might pile on and vote yes if the outcome is not in question, like Manchin did, but no chance they push someone over the top.
So that's 47 no votes. Thus Cocaine Mitch needs 47 yes votes, then use VP Pence to break the tie. 6 R's can abstain, saying various things about how they feel it should wait until January but can't vote against such a good candidate. 6 would be the ones you list as either being in tight races, or general pieces of ****.
I don't see the R squishes voting against a good candidate. That would doom them far more than voting for them. A no vote would make a huge number of Republican voters skip that part of the ballot, as they should, while picking up zero Democrat voters, and who knows how many independents.
What they might do is abstain from voting - saying that they feel the vote should happen in January. I believe, but correct me if wrong, then if they don't vote, then to confirm there needs to be a majority of the actual voters.
All Democrats will vote no, in this scenario. There is zero chance any Democrat would be the deciding vote to confirm a Republican to the Supreme Court. They might pile on and vote yes if the outcome is not in question, like Manchin did, but no chance they push someone over the top.
So that's 47 no votes. Thus Cocaine Mitch needs 47 yes votes, then use VP Pence to break the tie. 6 R's can abstain, saying various things about how they feel it should wait until January but can't vote against such a good candidate. 6 would be the ones you list as either being in tight races, or general pieces of ****.
Duck Dodgers
1,000+ Posts
Update - the closure vote needs 51 votes to proceed, so only two can jump ship for that. I suppose they could say something like "I'm against the timing of this whole thing, but since it's happening, I think this person should get a vote, but I won't be voting myself", blah blah blah. Or dance with who brung ya and vote for the SC nominee your voters elected you to confirm. Trying to sell out other Republicans to curry favor with Democrats or low information voters is a fools errand.
Duck Dodgers
1,000+ Posts
And if there's one thing we've learned in the past almost 4 years is that Cocaine Mitch knows how to get judges confirmed. If he's locked and loaded for this, I have a hard time from 1000 miles away, saying he won't get it done.
I think Collins doesn't vote, trying to split the baby, thinking that if the nominee makes it through, that's enough for the Republican base in Maine to vote for her, while not inflaming fence sitters. Mukawiski votes no just because she's worthless.
As for Willard, it's one thing to vote for convicting Trump of some made up change based on bug-eyed Shifty Shiff various fake articles of I. It's another to be the deciding vote against a solid conservative justice on the Supreme Court. He makes noise via his spokesmen, wrings his hands, then votes yes.
With the others who are in tough battles - a no vote dooms them, a yes vote gives them a fighting chance, especially if their own polling shows a closer race than the push polls that media organizations use to influence the race, not to gauge it.
The Republicans picked up two Senate seats in 18, unusual for a non-presidential race (King Barry lost 9 seats in 2012, and then 7 in 14), mostly due to how terribly the Democrats acted in the Kaughvan (sp) hearings. You can count on them to act terribly again, undoubtedly even worse.
There's nothing underhanded or shifty about voting for a Supreme Court Nominee, and it's not carrying Trumps water. Voting for a solid Republican candidate, who's predictably smeared by the Democrats and their chumps in the media, will not be a drain on someone's Senate race.
I think Collins doesn't vote, trying to split the baby, thinking that if the nominee makes it through, that's enough for the Republican base in Maine to vote for her, while not inflaming fence sitters. Mukawiski votes no just because she's worthless.
As for Willard, it's one thing to vote for convicting Trump of some made up change based on bug-eyed Shifty Shiff various fake articles of I. It's another to be the deciding vote against a solid conservative justice on the Supreme Court. He makes noise via his spokesmen, wrings his hands, then votes yes.
With the others who are in tough battles - a no vote dooms them, a yes vote gives them a fighting chance, especially if their own polling shows a closer race than the push polls that media organizations use to influence the race, not to gauge it.
The Republicans picked up two Senate seats in 18, unusual for a non-presidential race (King Barry lost 9 seats in 2012, and then 7 in 14), mostly due to how terribly the Democrats acted in the Kaughvan (sp) hearings. You can count on them to act terribly again, undoubtedly even worse.
There's nothing underhanded or shifty about voting for a Supreme Court Nominee, and it's not carrying Trumps water. Voting for a solid Republican candidate, who's predictably smeared by the Democrats and their chumps in the media, will not be a drain on someone's Senate race.
Duck Dodgers
1,000+ Posts
Now for the more interesting part - who's going to get the nomination?
Most thinking is either Barbara Lagoa, or Amy Coney Barrett, with Allison Jones Rushing as an 3rd choice.
Barrett has a good legal background, clerking for Scalia, and has a lot of backing. She got a lot of conservatives fired up when she was attacked for her religious background by the usual scum Democrats on the Judiciary Committee (crooked Diana Finstein, Dickless Durban).
My worry about her is that she'll go soft. She has 5 kids, and then adopted 2 other ones. That sends all sorts of warning signals off to me about compassion, kindness, warm heartedness. All things I don't want in a judge, as it slumps down into making law, instead of enforcing it.
Barbara Lagoa is the daughter of Cuban immigrants, and is being touted as a way to get support of Hispanics. Touted by people who's closest experiences with Hispanics are seeing them driving the mower in their yards, or having them clean their houses.
Hispanics are from numerous different Latin American countries, and someone with family from Mexico or PR or El Salvador isn't going to jump on the bandwagon because a Cuban from Miami got a SC nomination, anymore than Rubio or Cruz fired up the Hispanic crowd.
She's only been on the court of Appeals for a year or so, and was a state judge prior to that. I see warning lights of Souter all over here. Stop me if you're heard this before - she's backed by the Governor of the State she's from, doesn't have many handed down opinions on the major issues of the country, but all the people around her say she's rock solid. Just like Souter.
Now politically, she would be the strongest candidate I've seen, and baring being part of a gang rape ring in High School like Brett K was accused of, is going to be difficult to sling arrows against. She probably makes the most sense for President Trump to pick, but I hope in 5 years time we're not lamenting another "grower" in the seat, who turns leftist.
A third candidate would be Allison Jones Rushing. On the 4th Circuit, clerked for Thomas, and active in college with various conservative law outfits. Of the three, I would most like her in the seat, plus she's only 38, so could be on the court for 35 years. We'll be fighting the Terminator wars against Skynet by then so who's on the SC won't matter.
Most thinking is either Barbara Lagoa, or Amy Coney Barrett, with Allison Jones Rushing as an 3rd choice.
Barrett has a good legal background, clerking for Scalia, and has a lot of backing. She got a lot of conservatives fired up when she was attacked for her religious background by the usual scum Democrats on the Judiciary Committee (crooked Diana Finstein, Dickless Durban).
My worry about her is that she'll go soft. She has 5 kids, and then adopted 2 other ones. That sends all sorts of warning signals off to me about compassion, kindness, warm heartedness. All things I don't want in a judge, as it slumps down into making law, instead of enforcing it.
Barbara Lagoa is the daughter of Cuban immigrants, and is being touted as a way to get support of Hispanics. Touted by people who's closest experiences with Hispanics are seeing them driving the mower in their yards, or having them clean their houses.
Hispanics are from numerous different Latin American countries, and someone with family from Mexico or PR or El Salvador isn't going to jump on the bandwagon because a Cuban from Miami got a SC nomination, anymore than Rubio or Cruz fired up the Hispanic crowd.
She's only been on the court of Appeals for a year or so, and was a state judge prior to that. I see warning lights of Souter all over here. Stop me if you're heard this before - she's backed by the Governor of the State she's from, doesn't have many handed down opinions on the major issues of the country, but all the people around her say she's rock solid. Just like Souter.
Now politically, she would be the strongest candidate I've seen, and baring being part of a gang rape ring in High School like Brett K was accused of, is going to be difficult to sling arrows against. She probably makes the most sense for President Trump to pick, but I hope in 5 years time we're not lamenting another "grower" in the seat, who turns leftist.
A third candidate would be Allison Jones Rushing. On the 4th Circuit, clerked for Thomas, and active in college with various conservative law outfits. Of the three, I would most like her in the seat, plus she's only 38, so could be on the court for 35 years. We'll be fighting the Terminator wars against Skynet by then so who's on the SC won't matter.
A couple of comments:
1) If your concern is that the most affirmable person may be just a moderate, that may just be the political price you pay under all the circumstances to make this happen in this interval. The theory would be that she is at least--even if Souter--better than RBG or whoever Biden would appoint. Or else, hope to win the election and settle in for the long haul on getting more what you want.
2) If RBG's replacement were 38 years old, that would be 48 years on the court, no? Honestly, that seems a little young for that position, not taking any political aspects into account.
Duck Dodgers
1,000+ Posts
1. Maybe, but that kind of half loaf thinking is why, going back to Reagan, 9 of the last 13 appointments to the SC have been from Republican presidents, yet we have basically a leftist court (but likes big business), and ignores the 2nd amendment, throws out any law about abortion no matter how trivial, and says that when congress wrote "sex" they meant "gay or tranny".
2. Hopefully another SC justice doesn't linger on as long as Ginsberg, desperately clinging to life like a queen from the days of yore, waiting for someone else to come of age and rule in her place.
2. Hopefully another SC justice doesn't linger on as long as Ginsberg, desperately clinging to life like a queen from the days of yore, waiting for someone else to come of age and rule in her place.
This is an opinion question, and since most of my friends are liberal attorneys, I need the input of my trusty HornFan folks.
Will Trump pushing a replacement this close to the election help him, or hurt him in the election? That it will further divide the country is a sad and unfortunate truth. Trump winning will most likely escalate what has been happening, and with prominent Dems urging them on, I fear how far the "peaceful" protests will go.
I have been counting on my rabid, P**** hat wearing Face Book ladies to be super extreme about their excitement over Joe, and, ultimately Kamala since they are so hard core. From what I have seen and heard from regular Dems, there is a lack of excitement surrounding him that I had thought would provide a Trump win. I don't like Trump much, but he is a much better choice than the puppet of AOC, and her pals.
However, I didn't know all the rules about nominating someone for the SCOTUS, and I doubt many people who aren't lawyers, or people who paid a lot more attention in their Government classes in high school than I did.
Do you think will this energize the Dems that were thinking about staying home if it was raining, or looked crowded, or they were lazy? As you might expect, FaceBook chicks are beyond infuriated, angry about how quickly the Rs began to speak about nominating a new member, to how unfair it is since Garland wasn't nominated, to how ugly and turtle faced Mitch McConnel is (can't argue with that) They are acting worse than when HRC lost. One girl fainted. All of them cried, and are wearing T-shirts about voting Biden that say, "Tell them Ruth sent me" and on and on. Of course, they absolutely believe if the situation were reversed, they would reverently wait until the election was over.
Or, will nailing down a conservative court for a long while get some moderate, undecideds to vote R? People who are fed up with abortions, violence on the streets with no punishment, anti-police and pro-BLM, woke, white gen 20s and 30s year old.
I wonder if the answer it will energize the left, is it worth the risk? There would still be a majority of conservative judges, if Biden wins,and Trump has done some good things that I think many people agree with but won't say it out loud.
I think he has a better than decent chance of winning due to the "shy Trumpsters"? And the fear of the AOC vision of the US.
What do y'all think?
Will Trump pushing a replacement this close to the election help him, or hurt him in the election? That it will further divide the country is a sad and unfortunate truth. Trump winning will most likely escalate what has been happening, and with prominent Dems urging them on, I fear how far the "peaceful" protests will go.
I have been counting on my rabid, P**** hat wearing Face Book ladies to be super extreme about their excitement over Joe, and, ultimately Kamala since they are so hard core. From what I have seen and heard from regular Dems, there is a lack of excitement surrounding him that I had thought would provide a Trump win. I don't like Trump much, but he is a much better choice than the puppet of AOC, and her pals.
However, I didn't know all the rules about nominating someone for the SCOTUS, and I doubt many people who aren't lawyers, or people who paid a lot more attention in their Government classes in high school than I did.
Do you think will this energize the Dems that were thinking about staying home if it was raining, or looked crowded, or they were lazy? As you might expect, FaceBook chicks are beyond infuriated, angry about how quickly the Rs began to speak about nominating a new member, to how unfair it is since Garland wasn't nominated, to how ugly and turtle faced Mitch McConnel is (can't argue with that) They are acting worse than when HRC lost. One girl fainted. All of them cried, and are wearing T-shirts about voting Biden that say, "Tell them Ruth sent me" and on and on. Of course, they absolutely believe if the situation were reversed, they would reverently wait until the election was over.
Or, will nailing down a conservative court for a long while get some moderate, undecideds to vote R? People who are fed up with abortions, violence on the streets with no punishment, anti-police and pro-BLM, woke, white gen 20s and 30s year old.
I wonder if the answer it will energize the left, is it worth the risk? There would still be a majority of conservative judges, if Biden wins,and Trump has done some good things that I think many people agree with but won't say it out loud.
I think he has a better than decent chance of winning due to the "shy Trumpsters"? And the fear of the AOC vision of the US.
What do y'all think?
seems like most legislation these days has to be approved by SCOTUS anyway. I think we are better off going full tilt to get another conservative on the court even if it means losing a couple of seats, even a Senate seat. Because of its enduring placement, i think it may actually be even more important than a second Trump term.
Holland
"I don't like Trump much, but he is a much better choice than the puppet of AOC, and her pals."
I understand and do not like many of his tweets
BUT BUT I can't find any problems with his polices and regs that have helped so many minorities. Hard to ignore facts
"I don't like Trump much, but he is a much better choice than the puppet of AOC, and her pals."
I understand and do not like many of his tweets
BUT BUT I can't find any problems with his polices and regs that have helped so many minorities. Hard to ignore facts
Pssst....I think the dude is a lady.
I must be one of the few, and I'm okay with that, who isn't bothered by the tweets. Been saying for a long time I think it is mostly to troll the media and his other haters.
Last edited:
Duck Dodgers
1,000+ Posts
This is an opinion question, and since most of my friends are liberal attorneys, I need the input of my trusty HornFan folk
OK, here's my stab at it.
Hard to say who it helps - anyone who says they know for sure is making that up. It fires up both bases to be sure - you could say that judges and the Supreme Court in particular helped Trump in 16 win over a lot of conservatives who thought he'd be another Arnie Swartz and go leftist when in office.
No one is excited about voting for Slow Joe. He's was a Senator for 30 plus years without any accomplishments, and did zero as VP. Sat out in 16 because Shrillery said Boo to him and he wet himself with fear, and now is senile and needs a teleprompter to get through staged interviews with compliant media. Harris ticks all the correct leftist boxes of woman, black, immigrant, but is such a terrible politician that she had to drop out of the race for the nomination before Iowa.
All excitement from the left is anti-Trump, not for Slow Joe. So you could say filling this seat fires up the left to vote - the issue is who it fires up? It certainly fires up all the shirking harpies you unfortunately have to work with, who wear uterus hats, but does it fire up the huge number of black and Hispanic voters that are needed to counter the fact that the white working class has wised up to the fact that the Democrat party hates them, and hopes they die off?
My thinking has always been that you have to defeat a sitting president with someone - not Trump isn't enough. Only 1 sitting president, who's 4 years into a term for his party, has been defeated since WWII - that was Carter in 80, and that needed the triple whammy of bankruptcy at home, impotence abroad, and the fantastic skills of R Reagan. If the Wuhan virus was still running rampant and the economy was in the tank, then the strategy of Basement Biden might work, as could just be not Trump. But the virus is old news, you just wear a dirty sock on your face and go about your business, and the economy and jobs are coming back.
I think the process of picking a nominee, getting it through, and then Trump standing there when she's confirmed is a plus for him. It's always beneficial for the incumbent to do incumbent things, while the challenger is running around giving speeches, or in Slow Joe's case, 10 minutes of teleprompter reading, some green jello if he does a good job, and off to bed for the day.
The perfect contrast to this were their nomination speeches. Slow Joe had it in an empty library, then his wife and 7 other people in face bras came running out and threw balloons around - exactly how you'd have your 89 year old Granny's birthday party at the nursing home. Then Trump spoke in front of the White House with perfect lighting and the RNC lite up Washington with the best fireworks show since Stature of Liberty in 86. There are reasons why incumbents usually win.
The process is this - the President decides who he wants to nominate, and there's a big roll out with their family at the White House. The nominee then makes the rounds to various Senator's offices, where the R will say how wonderful they are, and the D says the are not the right choice. Then it's off to the Senate Judiciary Committee, for a day or so of questioning by the committee members.
Expect lots of foolishness during this - at Kaughan's hearings, the Democrats gave seats in the audience to crisis actors who would stand up and shout rubbish, then dramatically get dragged off by the cops. Lots of street protests, which the left is always good at, as they get time off from their government jobs to do so.
After the nominee has answered questions, each party brings out various people to babble on about how the nominee is either great or terrible, or in the case of Kaugahan, how they were felt up by him, in a year they can't remember, at a party they don't know who was at, in a city they don't recall.
Then the committee votes, sends it to the full Senate, who takes up what's called a closure vote to end debate on the matter, then a vote on nomination.
Is it worth the risk you ask? Yes, because I don't think there's a conservative court at this time. Roberts turned total leftist this year - either that's the way he's always been and has just pretended to be conservative to have less competition on the R side than if he'd come up the Democrat ranks and have to duke it out with the 9 of 10 law students that are leftists, or he just such a coward that he causes the Supreme Court of the United States rule whichever way makes him look better to the Washington establishment, law be damned.
A solid 5-4 conservative majority would make a huge difference in the direction of America, and worth the risk it might entail.
But ... I don't think there is a risk. I think the Democrats act even worse this time than they did last time. More shrill, more stupid, more harpy, with violent protests in DC, death threats against the nominee and her family, and Senate Republicans. I think they seize on the most trivial things in the nominees life and try to make a big deal out of them, or just make stuff up with crisis actors, like they did last time with Chrissy Ford and her lies about being felt up.
They just can't help themselves. It'll be what their base demands, and expects, and they will have the entirety of the Democrat Media Complex to tell they how wonderful they're doing, and noble for doing so. Then some of them, the few clear headed about the real world ones anyway, and realize that 1. There's a conservative on the court who hates them with the fire of a thousand burning suns 2. They made their side look total unfit to hold power in the eyes of the country.
If the Democrats were likely to act in a rational manner, I'd be more concerned about the effect of such a late nomination and confirmation battle. But I know they'll be their usually horrible selves.
So, in all, I think it's a plus to President Trump, and at the end of it, there will be a solid conservative majority, for the first time, on the Supreme Court.
OK, here's my stab at it.
Hard to say who it helps - anyone who says they know for sure is making that up. It fires up both bases to be sure - you could say that judges and the Supreme Court in particular helped Trump in 16 win over a lot of conservatives who thought he'd be another Arnie Swartz and go leftist when in office.
No one is excited about voting for Slow Joe. He's was a Senator for 30 plus years without any accomplishments, and did zero as VP. Sat out in 16 because Shrillery said Boo to him and he wet himself with fear, and now is senile and needs a teleprompter to get through staged interviews with compliant media. Harris ticks all the correct leftist boxes of woman, black, immigrant, but is such a terrible politician that she had to drop out of the race for the nomination before Iowa.
All excitement from the left is anti-Trump, not for Slow Joe. So you could say filling this seat fires up the left to vote - the issue is who it fires up? It certainly fires up all the shirking harpies you unfortunately have to work with, who wear uterus hats, but does it fire up the huge number of black and Hispanic voters that are needed to counter the fact that the white working class has wised up to the fact that the Democrat party hates them, and hopes they die off?
My thinking has always been that you have to defeat a sitting president with someone - not Trump isn't enough. Only 1 sitting president, who's 4 years into a term for his party, has been defeated since WWII - that was Carter in 80, and that needed the triple whammy of bankruptcy at home, impotence abroad, and the fantastic skills of R Reagan. If the Wuhan virus was still running rampant and the economy was in the tank, then the strategy of Basement Biden might work, as could just be not Trump. But the virus is old news, you just wear a dirty sock on your face and go about your business, and the economy and jobs are coming back.
I think the process of picking a nominee, getting it through, and then Trump standing there when she's confirmed is a plus for him. It's always beneficial for the incumbent to do incumbent things, while the challenger is running around giving speeches, or in Slow Joe's case, 10 minutes of teleprompter reading, some green jello if he does a good job, and off to bed for the day.
The perfect contrast to this were their nomination speeches. Slow Joe had it in an empty library, then his wife and 7 other people in face bras came running out and threw balloons around - exactly how you'd have your 89 year old Granny's birthday party at the nursing home. Then Trump spoke in front of the White House with perfect lighting and the RNC lite up Washington with the best fireworks show since Stature of Liberty in 86. There are reasons why incumbents usually win.
The process is this - the President decides who he wants to nominate, and there's a big roll out with their family at the White House. The nominee then makes the rounds to various Senator's offices, where the R will say how wonderful they are, and the D says the are not the right choice. Then it's off to the Senate Judiciary Committee, for a day or so of questioning by the committee members.
Expect lots of foolishness during this - at Kaughan's hearings, the Democrats gave seats in the audience to crisis actors who would stand up and shout rubbish, then dramatically get dragged off by the cops. Lots of street protests, which the left is always good at, as they get time off from their government jobs to do so.
After the nominee has answered questions, each party brings out various people to babble on about how the nominee is either great or terrible, or in the case of Kaugahan, how they were felt up by him, in a year they can't remember, at a party they don't know who was at, in a city they don't recall.
Then the committee votes, sends it to the full Senate, who takes up what's called a closure vote to end debate on the matter, then a vote on nomination.
Is it worth the risk you ask? Yes, because I don't think there's a conservative court at this time. Roberts turned total leftist this year - either that's the way he's always been and has just pretended to be conservative to have less competition on the R side than if he'd come up the Democrat ranks and have to duke it out with the 9 of 10 law students that are leftists, or he just such a coward that he causes the Supreme Court of the United States rule whichever way makes him look better to the Washington establishment, law be damned.
A solid 5-4 conservative majority would make a huge difference in the direction of America, and worth the risk it might entail.
But ... I don't think there is a risk. I think the Democrats act even worse this time than they did last time. More shrill, more stupid, more harpy, with violent protests in DC, death threats against the nominee and her family, and Senate Republicans. I think they seize on the most trivial things in the nominees life and try to make a big deal out of them, or just make stuff up with crisis actors, like they did last time with Chrissy Ford and her lies about being felt up.
They just can't help themselves. It'll be what their base demands, and expects, and they will have the entirety of the Democrat Media Complex to tell they how wonderful they're doing, and noble for doing so. Then some of them, the few clear headed about the real world ones anyway, and realize that 1. There's a conservative on the court who hates them with the fire of a thousand burning suns 2. They made their side look total unfit to hold power in the eyes of the country.
If the Democrats were likely to act in a rational manner, I'd be more concerned about the effect of such a late nomination and confirmation battle. But I know they'll be their usually horrible selves.
So, in all, I think it's a plus to President Trump, and at the end of it, there will be a solid conservative majority, for the first time, on the Supreme Court.
Wasn't HW Bush defeated?
Duck Dodgers
1,000+ Posts
He was, but was trying to win a 4th term for his party. R's won in 80 84 and 88. By 92 Bush was tired and quit in place, something his son did in 2005.
Ford didn't win in 76 either - can't really say he was running for re-election as he is the only President who was not elected either Pres or VP - he was nominated and confirmed by the Senate after Agnew stepped down as VP. In any case, that would have been term 3 for the R's - 68 72 and 76.
Cater has been the old one defeated after 4 years for his party. Besides that and the 12 years of R's in the White House from the 80 84 88 elections, the parties have swapped out every 8 years.
Trump losing this year would be only the second time since WWII that's happened. And he's no Carter, nor is there a misery index, nor are there 52 Americans held hostage in Iran.
Ford didn't win in 76 either - can't really say he was running for re-election as he is the only President who was not elected either Pres or VP - he was nominated and confirmed by the Senate after Agnew stepped down as VP. In any case, that would have been term 3 for the R's - 68 72 and 76.
Cater has been the old one defeated after 4 years for his party. Besides that and the 12 years of R's in the White House from the 80 84 88 elections, the parties have swapped out every 8 years.
Trump losing this year would be only the second time since WWII that's happened. And he's no Carter, nor is there a misery index, nor are there 52 Americans held hostage in Iran.
@Duck Dodgers yes, sorry, several margaritas in. I misread that part of that.
Duck Dodgers
1,000+ Posts
It would take at least a few to get through all my rubbish.
Duck Dodgers
1,000+ Posts
Between him running the JC, and the Apex Predator running the floor, they'll get it done.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
This is oversimplification. Perot’s candidacy is the fundamental reason Bush41 lost.
Duck Dodgers
1,000+ Posts
BOOM! NJ GOP senator will vote for Trump's Supreme Court nominee, ensuring nomination proceeds - Geller Report News
The article erroneously lists Garner from NJ instead of CO, but in any case, he's on board for a nomination, and he's one of the R Senators lock in a close race. Gotta think the other ones get on board.
As I said, it would be more dangerous for these senators if the Democrats were going to be remotely sane during this entire spectacle. And you know that won't happen. So they get to run against people clawing at the doors of the Supreme Court.
The article erroneously lists Garner from NJ instead of CO, but in any case, he's on board for a nomination, and he's one of the R Senators lock in a close race. Gotta think the other ones get on board.
As I said, it would be more dangerous for these senators if the Democrats were going to be remotely sane during this entire spectacle. And you know that won't happen. So they get to run against people clawing at the doors of the Supreme Court.
Last edited:
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Yep. I think Clinton won it with only 43% of the vote
Which did not seem to bother Hillary at time
Duck Dodgers
1,000+ Posts
Didn't help him that's for sure, but I've read that Perot took votes from Clinton as well as Bush. Hard to war game out what would have happened without old jug ears.
Bush was tired and washed up by 92. I remember reading articles in 91 that wondered if he was even going to run for re-election, or do a Polk (Presidential buffs will get that).
Then he did run, sort of, got into a nasty nomination fight with P Buchann who slammed him for breaking his vow about taxes, had to replace his campaign manager with I believe James Baker, but lost anyway.
I think after 12 years of R control, the country was ready for a change, and a young and energetic Clinton fit that bill, plus he pretended to not be a tax and spend leftist in the mode of Dukakis or Mondale, which was a lie, but it worked for him.
Yeah, that's what I recall the big thing that got him and that the media hammered him with was the "Read my lips" thing.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
