# Leading Candidates to Fill Supreme Court Vacancy



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

> Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death on Friday created a Supreme Court vacancy that President Trump has vowed to fill "without delay." He has issued four lists of potential nominees, the most recent one last week. Here is a look at some of the leading candidates on those lists.


So by now I'm sure everyone has heard the news about RBG. What are the chances that Trump gets his nominee confirmed and who on the list is the most likely nominee?

Leading Candidates to Fill Supreme Court Vacancy


----------



## Hush (Feb 1, 2009)

ACB FTW. Up to the senate, Mitch needs to man up and force a vote. If there was ever a time to hold a gun to Romney and Collins's head....this is it.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


----------



## 02136colonel (Jul 21, 2018)

Hush said:


> ACB FTW. Up to the senate, Mitch needs to man up and force a vote. If there was ever a time to hold a gun to Romney and Collins's head....this is it.
> 
> Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


Honestly, they can afford to let three Republicans defect. I'd let Collins vote no, because it would probably help her with her re-election. Not a courageous position and realpolitik at its finest, but if it helps us keep the Senate I'd go for it.
Romney is in much less danger so party leadership should hold him strictly accountable for his vote 
Hopefully this vote will solidify Doug Jones loss in AL too.
As for a nominee- my moneys on Amy Barrett, who I think would be a phenomenal choice, but anything's possible.


----------



## PG1911 (Jul 12, 2011)

02136colonel said:


> Honestly, they can afford to let three Republicans defect. I'd let Collins vote no, because it would probably help her with her re-election. Not a courageous position and realpolitik at its finest, but if it helps us keep the Senate I'd go for it.
> Romney is in much less danger so party leadership should hold him strictly accountable for his vote
> Hopefully this vote will solidify Doug Jones loss in AL too.
> As for a nominee- my moneys on Amy Barrett, who I think would be a phenomenal choice, but anything's possible.


I'm for Barrett as well. I've read her decisions and she's good and she's an originalist.

I'm getting worried about the left though. A few idiots claiming they're going to burn Washington down and willing to kill and die to prevent nomination, but other than that...crickets. The laypeople, celebrities, and politicians aren't saying much considering this huge event. Angry and threatening messages are very minimal right now. It's too quiet right now; something is wrong. I feel some very bad shit is about to go down.


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

PG1911 said:


> I'm for Barrett as well. I've read her decisions and she's good and she's an originalist.
> 
> I'm getting worried about the left though. A few idiots claiming they're going to burn Washington down and willing to kill and die to prevent nomination, but other than that...crickets. The laypeople, celebrities, and politicians aren't saying much considering this huge event. Angry and threatening messages are very minimal right now. It's too quiet right now; something is wrong. I feel some very bad shit is about to go down.


I don't know if it's related or not, but they did cancel their big protest outside the White House. So far the only thing I've really heard is the "we have to wait until after the election because that's what we did with Obama's last pick" argument. Except we knew then that we'd definitely have a different president after the election in that case. My big concern about violence is after the election. The only outcome they're going to accept is a Biden landslide and when that doesn't happen it's going to get ugly. The only way I see it ending is if these people start seeing real consequences for their actions.


----------



## Quo Vadis (Mar 18, 2020)

This could mean the (eventual) end of a lot of gun restrictions in MA and CT, etc. Trump already flipped the 9th to the point that Californians have now stocked up on «high capacity» magazines. Permit-less concealed carry in Boston sounds like a reasonable benchmark for things getting to the way they should be.


----------



## PG1911 (Jul 12, 2011)

Quo Vadis said:


> This could mean the (eventual) end of a lot of gun restrictions in MA and CT, etc. Trump already flipped the 9th to the point that Californians have now stocked up on «high capacity» magazines. Permit-less concealed carry in Boston sounds like a reasonable benchmark for things getting to the way they should be.


The gun restrictions should have ended a long time ago, but John Roberts is a dickless coward. He ruled correctly in DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, but has punted every gun case since then. Barrett has ruled pro-2A in the few cases that came her way, so if they get her in there, that could be really good.


----------



## mpd61 (Aug 7, 2002)

PG1911 said:


> The gun restrictions should have ended a long time ago, but John Roberts is a dickless coward. He ruled correctly in DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, but has punted every gun case since then. Barrett has ruled pro-2A in the few cases that came her way, so if they get her in there, that could be really good.


THIS 100%
DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago are both being blatantly ignored by, or intentionally misinterpreted by county and state courts continuously. We saw NY pull the "moot grenade" before the SCOTUS this past session, and the SCOTUS further punted TEN (10) Second Amendment cases. Please don't expect any groundswell of change sweeping the nation from the Ninth Circuit ruling in California. Massachusetts is stuck in the mud regarding relaxing any firearms restrictions.


----------



## 02136colonel (Jul 21, 2018)

PG1911 said:


> I'm for Barrett as well. I've read her decisions and she's good and she's an originalist.
> 
> I'm getting worried about the left though. A few idiots claiming they're going to burn Washington down and willing to kill and die to prevent nomination, but other than that...crickets. The laypeople, celebrities, and politicians aren't saying much considering this huge event. Angry and threatening messages are very minimal right now. It's too quiet right now; something is wrong. I feel some very bad shit is about to go down.


I think we can count on rioting if/when Trump wins re-election, but the more of that shit goes down, the more the silent majority wakes up.
Minnesota was ground zero of rioting earlier this year, and now Trump is the first Republican within striking distance of winning that state in a generation.


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

mpd61 said:


> THIS 100%
> DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago are both being blatantly ignored by, or intentionally misinterpreted by county and state courts continuously. We saw NY pull the "moot grenade" before the SCOTUS this past session, and the SCOTUS further punted TEN (10) Second Amendment cases. Please don't expect any groundswell of change sweeping the nation from the Ninth Circuit ruling in California. Massachusetts is stuck in the mud regarding relaxing any firearms restrictions.


Too many of these judges are interpreting things to fit their personal beliefs. I just heard a recording of RBG from my May when SCOTUS was doing things by phone. It was the Little Sisters of the Poor case. She actually argued that they shouldn't be exempt from providing coverage for birth control based on their religious beliefs because that's not what Congress intended when they passed the law. Seriously? So using her logic (which it seems many of these judges do) any part of or the entire constitution can be negated on the whims of the legislature.


----------



## PG1911 (Jul 12, 2011)

02136colonel said:


> I think we can count on rioting if/when Trump wins re-election, but the more of that shit goes down, the more the silent majority wakes up.
> Minnesota was ground zero of rioting earlier this year, and now Trump is the first Republican within striking distance of winning that state in a generation.


I know quite a few people who either didn't vote for either party in 2016 or voted extremely reluctantly for Hillary who are voting for Trump in November. Since CT always goes Dem, I was thinking about not voting for either or writing in a candidate because Trump had pissed me off so many times. But now, I'm absolutely pulling the lever for him again. He's an asshole, but he appoints good judges and it ain't the MAGA crowd burning shit down and killing cops.


----------



## Kilvinsky (Jan 15, 2007)

This opinion will NOT be popular here, but, here goes...

I believe that the choice should wait until AFTER the election, just like was demanded four years ago; tit for tat. I don't like the thought of belonging to a party that is hypocritical which would only make the Republicans EXACTLY like the Dems. That thought scares the BEJEEZUS out of me. Since there is little doubt (some, absolutely) that Trump is going to win, why NOT wait?

Besides, if Biden wins, he'll probably nominate someone like John Jay or Oliver Ames.


----------



## PG1911 (Jul 12, 2011)

Kilvinsky said:


> This opinion will NOT be popular here, but, here goes...
> 
> I believe that the choice should wait until AFTER the election, just like was demanded four years ago; tit for tat. I don't like the thought of belonging to a party that is hypocritical which would only make the Republicans EXACTLY like the Dems. That thought scares the BEJEEZUS out of me. Since there is little doubt (some, absolutely) that Trump is going to win, why NOT wait?
> 
> Besides, if Biden wins, he'll probably nominate someone like John Jay or Oliver Ames.


The point is to do what is best for the country. There's no guarantee that Trump will win and Roberts keeps stabbing us in the back, so putting a choice off for the sake of taking the perceived high road could be disastrous for the U.S. Trump is still behind in the polls and while he won in the same position last time, this time could be different. McConnell did his job last time, and he's doing his job this time. I don't see any hypocrisy in it, and it's the reason we have more than one party. It would only be unfair and hypocritical if the Democrats could be trusted to wait until the election if they were in the Republicans' shoes. Right now, we're at war, and the right has NO incentive whatsoever to fight fair.


----------



## Hush (Feb 1, 2009)

Every single time we try to take the moral high road, or extend an olive branch, we get zero back from the demorats. Mittens Romney and McCain are examples of how that approach doesn't get you squat. The dems threw the rule book out with the Kavanaugh mess, it's time to shit in their mouth and work their jaw until they swallow it. Fuck them, this IS war. 

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

Kilvinsky said:


> This opinion will NOT be popular here, but, here goes...
> 
> I believe that the choice should wait until AFTER the election, just like was demanded four years ago; tit for tat. I don't like the thought of belonging to a party that is hypocritical which would only make the Republicans EXACTLY like the Dems. That thought scares the BEJEEZUS out of me. Since there is little doubt (some, absolutely) that Trump is going to win, why NOT wait?
> 
> Besides, if Biden wins, he'll probably nominate someone like John Jay or Oliver Ames.


At first I agreed with that sentiment, but it's more nuanced than a simple tit for tat. Now keep in mind, that I've had a Hell of a day and since this year has already been 7,683 days long I don't really remember what happened in 2016. However, after a wee bit of research, this scenario is slightly different. In 2016, we had a republican senate looking at a dem nominee for SCOTUS and they declined to put it to a vote considering there was zero chance that a new president would not be elected. Now we have a republican senate voting on a republican president's nominee and there is a fair chance that Trump will win. (I don't trust the polls because the way things are these days I wouldn't tell most people I'm voting for Trump. There are less than 5 people who are not related to me that know how I'm voting. Everyone else gets told that either "yes I have decided" or "don't worry I'll vote correctly.") Anyway given that the dems changed the rules to allow a simple majority to win a vote, I can't blame the republicans for taking advantage of the opportunity presented to them. Hopefully that made sense because I'm dead tired and not entirely sure I'm even typing in English.


----------



## Goose (Dec 1, 2004)

HistoryHound said:


> At first I agreed with that sentiment, but it's more nuanced than a simple tit for tat. Now keep in mind, that I've had a Hell of a day and since this year has already been 7,683 days long I don't really remember what happened in 2016. However, after a wee bit of research, this scenario is slightly different. In 2016, we had a republican senate looking at a dem nominee for SCOTUS and they declined to put it to a vote considering there was zero chance that a new president would not be elected. Now we have a republican senate voting on a republican president's nominee and there is a fair chance that Trump will win. (I don't trust the polls because the way things are these days I wouldn't tell most people I'm voting for Trump. There are less than 5 people who are not related to me that know how I'm voting. Everyone else gets told that either "yes I have decided" or "don't worry I'll vote correctly.") Anyway given that the dems changed the rules to allow a simple majority to win a vote, I can't blame the republicans for taking advantage of the opportunity presented to them. Hopefully that made sense because I'm dead tired and not entirely sure I'm even typing in English.


Ruff ruff, quack, meow


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

Goose said:


> Ruff ruff, quack, meow


Exactly.


----------

