Justice Breyer to retire

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Well yes.

It's just like when the GOP rushed through Barrett mere weeks before the 2020 election.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254

originally posted by: Xtrozero
How much time before the midterms? It is typically not a short process.

Traditionally, it is a short process. Typically the Senate just rubber stamps the President's pick. That all changed when the GOP decided to politicize Supreme Court nominations under Obama..

Nice try.

It started with Bork & Thomas.

democrats did this.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Well yes.

It's just like when the GOP rushed through Barrett mere weeks before the 2020 election.

Is anyone on my side claiming that democrats don't have the right to do this?

Those were democrats lying about that.

Not us.



But we have every right to laugh at what democrats are doing.

And I would have no problem giving her the Kavanaugh treatment after what democrats have done.

Though we probably won't.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

It's an equal trade. Since we all know the judge will be a liberal, just make it quick and approve the lady (we all know she will be a lady).

Be like, "there you go, latteral trade. She will rule in favor for every extreme liberal agenda anyways like her predecessor." A black woman is being chosen specifically so they can just racism to any objections, so don't give them the opportunity. A liberal SCOTUS is a liberal SCOTUS. Let's not give then the opportunity to even whisper "racist" .

As if there is a difference between a black woman and black man other than chromosomes. Just fast track her and totally deflate their arguments.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

I agree with this. The Democrat operatives that run MSNBC and CNN have spent the day touting the partisan fight as something that will (inexplicably) equal a huge victor for the Dems in the Midterms, making voters forget about Bidens numerous failures, inflation, etc... Why even bother to give them the fight? Best strategy here would be McConnel literally saying on day 1 "Hey look, it really doesn't matter who you're putting on the bench, we're prepared to rubber stamp them because the nation is facing actual crises right now that are far more important than replacement of a liberal justice with another liberal justice in a super minority of the SCOTUS. Let's get beyond this distraction as quickly as possible so we can resume our focus where it should be: resolving the disaster the country is in following the many missteps the current Admin made throughout the past year." and then actually follow through on it and rubber stamp them. Let's be realistic here, if the pick is that horribly bad, a GOP Senate with a supermajority (which is quite possible if the current admin continues to miserably fail at every step and by every measure of presidential success) in 2024 can easily impeach that justice and remove them from the bench... AND almost certainly have a Republican POTUS to replace them on the bench at that time to boot.

I appreciate McConnel roadblocking that which should be roadblocked, but on these low cost, low risk issues where the Left stands to gain far more through GOP fighting them than the GOP does, especially when the GOP has a golden opportunity to allow the Dems to fall down the entire flight of stairs purely by getting out of the way, that's the prudent course of action.

a reply to: burdman30ott6


Unless she admits to eating babies or something, I agree completely.

No reason to even play the game democrats are setting up here.



This is exactly like the intentional riots.

Just no need to join the democrat insanity.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Well then, get ready to spew chunks:

Kamala may be nominated 🤢🤮

"Attorney Alan Dershowitz called any notion that Vice President Kamala Harris will be nominated to replace Associate Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court “absurd.”"


www.msn.com... -herself/ar-AATaTyA

So we know anything Dershowitz says is along the party/narrative line.

m.youtube.com...

My apologies if this has been cited before, I'm too nauseous to read further!

If Biden wants a black female to the Supreme Court I'd nominate Candice Owens.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

It could be Hunter Biden ...

It is a GOP joke being traded by House Republicans based on Biden claiming Hunter to be the smartest guy he knew and Hunter's penchant for getting jobs he has no real experience for.

However, there are some real names floated at the link to aside from Comma-LA. There are presently only 9 Democrat-appointed black female judges, so that would presumably be the Biden shortlist.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
If Biden wants a black female to the Supreme Court I'd nominate Candice Owens.

She didn't vote for Joe...so "She Ain't Black".

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: DBCowboy
If Biden wants a black female to the Supreme Court I'd nominate Candice Owens.

She didn't vote for Joe...so "She Ain't Black".

Well if that's all it takes to make one black, then just about every suburban housewife in the US qualifies ... minus myself, of course.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254

Traditionally, it is a short process. Typically the Senate just rubber stamps the President's pick. That all changed when the GOP decided to politicize Supreme Court nominations under Obama..

You ever heard of Bork? There is a reason they call it getting Bork.

Why does she have to be black?

originally posted by: Xtrozero
How much time before the midterms? It is typically not a short process.

Justice Barrett was done in 8 days.. want to try again?

a reply to: Ghostsdogood
actually she voluntarily gave up her license. they both are still on the good list actually.

Apparently Breyer is ticked that this was leaked. He wanted to announce his retirement. Now the question is who dunnit?

originally posted by: Bloodworth
Why does she have to be black?

Because Democrats do not care about qualifications. Everything is optics and political points.

It should simply be someone who is a qualified fit. I have no problem with picking someone who is favorable to your sides manor political alignment, but race, sex etc.. should not factor in.

On the plus side they must know that the cheating is going to be much harder in some areas for 2022, so they are pushing him out early in anticipation of losing in a major way. If they had any hope of it being a favorable or close election cycle they would not have rushed him out.

The downside to having another dumpster fire of a justice appointed is that they will likely get 20 or 30 years out of the new one. No hope to have them replaced by someone who actually understands and respects the constitution.

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood

originally posted by: Xcalibur254

originally posted by: Xtrozero
How much time before the midterms? It is typically not a short process.

Traditionally, it is a short process. Typically the Senate just rubber stamps the President's pick. That all changed when the GOP decided to politicize Supreme Court nominations under Obama..

Nice try.

It started with Bork & Thomas.

democrats did this.

I remember the Thomas confirmation. They used the exact same playbook for Kavenaugh: Find some woman willing to make dubious evidence-free claims and pimp the hell out of her.

Didn't work against Thomas, either. Even back then, the fact that there was such a thing as a conservative black person, just offended the Dems to their very core.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Agreed

And run video clips of the democrats poor and not-properly-adjusted behavior during the past three confirmation processes

No reason to put up a fight here. We already denied Obama appointments and prevented Hillary from having 3!
We took the court 2:1, let them replace their own kind with other non intelligent hacks. Our court majority will silence their voices anyway