RBG has passed away.

**darb72** · 09-19-2020, 06:24 AM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

Here’s the thing. Of course Democrats would do it. They wanted a vote on Merrick Garland when they weren’t the majority so there’s no question they have done it if they were.

That said, this will come of as hypocritical even though technically McConnell is right that it’s an opposing party who’s never voted on SCOTUS nominee in an election year. And with ALL the.infighting arm twisting and procedural BS there no doubt the republicans will look terrible there.

Thing is, will it change anybody's opinion? Do you think there are people out there who were going to vote for Trump but won't if he tries to fill the SCOTUS vacancy? Think anybody is going to change their vote to Trump if he doesn't?

**NCRAVEN** · 09-19-2020, 06:27 AM

Originally Posted by darb72

Thing is, will it change anybody's opinion? Do you think there are people out there who were going to vote for Trump but won't if he tries to fill the SCOTUS vacancy? Think anybody is going to change their vote to Trump if he doesn't?

No, but there may be some people on the fence for a Senator or two that will see it as hypocritical and either switch their vote or not vote for them.

I don’t think this would somehow make Biden look like he’s coherent and a viable option. Maybe a few people but I doubt many.

**darb72** · 09-19-2020, 06:50 AM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

No, but there may be some people on the fence for a Senator or two that will see it as hypocritical and either switch their vote or not vote for them.

I don’t think this would somehow make Biden look like he’s coherent and a viable option. Maybe a few people but I doubt many.

It's important for Republicans to point out that history is on their side in this.

**Don Frye's Moustache** · 09-19-2020, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

No, but there may be some people on the fence for a Senator or two that will see it as hypocritical and either switch their vote or not vote for them.

I don’t think this would somehow make Biden look like he’s coherent and a viable option. Maybe a few people but I doubt many.

Which is why you stall the vote until after the election. You have 2.5 months of a lame duck session when you can do whatever you want. Give the Senators in close races top cover by waiting until election day.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

**wickedsolo** · 09-19-2020, 07:45 AM

In reading some of Antonin Scalia's comments about RGB, I think all Americans should really take a page from their relationship.

https://medium.com/@windleydaoust/rb...es-bfe3bc2eabc

**blueridgemtnman** · 09-19-2020, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by Don Frye's Moustache

Which is why you stall the vote until after the election. You have 2.5 months of a lame duck session when you can do whatever you want. Give the Senators in close races top cover by waiting until election day.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I can see the logic in this strategy. It has it's pros and cons, but it may be the best way to approach it. I seriously doubt....would even bet on it, that there's virtually no chance that there will be 51 Republicans voting in favor of confirming a new justice before the election. Not happening. Maybe if there were 51 real, true Republicans, but there aren't. If we think the Cavanaugh debacle was bad, we haven't seen squat.

**Vlad the lad** · 09-19-2020, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by darb72

It's important for Republicans to point out that history is on their side in this.

The problem with that, is people don’t remember history. They only remember what the media tells them. And the media will play the GOP and Trump quotes over and over and over. About how they said it was too close to the election and let the next president pick.

It won’t make many switch to Biden. But it will make some stay home. It reeks of hypocritical

**steelerhater** · 09-19-2020, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by Vlad the lad

So, it sounds like some actually think trump will nominate someone before the election. I think if he does, he will lose a lot of independents.

I don’t expect him to nominate anyone before the election.

I think he has to nominate someone very soon. There’s a good chance he loses the election due to the pandemic.

**BustOfPallas** · 09-19-2020, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by steelerhater

I think he has to nominate someone very soon. There’s a good chance he loses the election due to the pandemic.

Democrats were not going to wait. They would have stuffed someone in there post haste had they the votes. Lets not pretend they would not have.

**ravenmaniac4life** · 09-19-2020, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by BustOfPallas

Democrats were not going to wait. They would have stuffed someone in there post haste had they the votes. Lets not pretend they would not have.

Agreed.

If the roles were reversed...there is little doubt that the nominee would already be named and confirmed within the fortnight.

There is ZERO precedence for the Senate to NOT push through a nominee in this scenario. This isn't the "McConnell rule" despite what the Left/MSM says. An incumbent Republican POTUS, during a re-election cycle with a Republican Senate...this is why we voted for these people. For something just like this. Elections have consequences. This is that consequence. It's going to happen. If this bothers you...go peacefully protest in front of Harry Reid's house. He's the person who made this possible.

I'll leave these 2 separate quotes by 2 different politicians here and have you all guess who said what...

"When there is a vacancy on the SCOTUS, the President is to nominate someone, the Senate is to consider that nomination... There's no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off-years. That's not in the Constitution text."

"I would go forward with a confirmation process as chairman, *even a few months before a presidential election,* if the nominee were chosen with the advice, and not merely the consent, of the Senate, just as the Constitution requires.

ACB will be nominated and likely confirmed before 11/3 as the DNC and the media erupt into a frenzy of Christianity hate which will give the GOP a huge advantage heading into November.

Furthermore, some Democrat media people are already threatening to "burn everything to the ground" if RBG is replaced.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...e-election-day

When the democrats need every vote imaginable...leftists start calling for more riots and will likely blame POTUS for those riots. It's so absurd.

Damn these people suck.

**blueridgemtnman** · 09-19-2020, 12:51 PM

Another bit of a wild card is the special election in Arizona. I believe that whomever wins (McSally is currently behind) gets to be seated around Nov. 30th. If the "R's" lose her vote, that's another one. Kelly is a lib.

**Ranger** · 09-19-2020, 01:19 PM

I think they have to, and I think if the dems are smart they let them push Barrett in. The reason is that it is a massive gamble. The obvious is if they win they really dont gain anything. Yeah we have a liberal president, and best case we have a liberal senate (best for them). So they get to choose, well thats all well and good but. They are still the minority so nothing is gained.

If they lose in November however, they arent delaying anything for four years. Trump could put up Tom Cotton 40 times and they will eventually be confirmed and there isnt shit they can do. Now its an ultra conservative slant 6-3.

This can, will, and should happen imo. They have almost 50 days which is certainly doable considering republicans own the senate and the cost of not pushing that candidate could be very high for people like Romney. If Republicans keep the majority they have around 100 days to do this which would be one if the longest in history. I think this happens.