More concerning is how the court might deal with Trump contesting an election result. Roberts can be relied on to uphold the law, but the country is going to need Gorsuch to do the right thing.
|
|
|
|
|
More concerning is how the court might deal with Trump contesting an election result. Roberts can be relied on to uphold the law, but the country is going to need Gorsuch to do the right thing.
More concerning is how the court might deal with Biden contesting an election result, and all the lawsuits of Dems wanting their cheating to be rubber-stamped by the SC.
You mean which justices will help the dems cheat? Which ones will deal properly with Biden contesting the election result (keep filling them out and counting them until you win, the Franken rule).Originally Posted by Guisslapp
How many vote "counters" will they be able to recruit that can read the millions of Biden ballots that are submitted using Engrish?
You, Hillary and the democrats have been contesting the election results for 4 years.. What would Gorsuch need to do that is the "right thing"?? Declare Biden the winner even if he is not? You already know as do many others who follow politics that it is expected that the democrats are going to find literally truck loads of "mail in ballots" weeks after the election is over, to try to flip the election.
You’ve learned well comrade. Projecting onto Trump what Democrats have already done and promised to do again.
Good observation. I think 80 and I were agreeing that when water ice bound in glaciers melts, sea level rises. Happened plenty times before.
I’m naive enough to believe the Court will do its job, should that be the case. It’s very unfortunate that Trump has set the table for an unsubstantiated excuse of voter fraud, though.
Yes. President Trump's nominee will receive a vote on the US Senate floor. You do realize that the Republicans still control the senate, don't you. That was your hero's problem when he nominated Garland. The Democrat Party had lost control of the senate by the end on Obama's second term and he couldn't get his nominee confirmed. That won't be the case with President Trumps third US Supreme Court appointee. I give the glory to God Almighty himself. I truly believe that Devine Intervention is in play here.
That's the way it works...the POTUS nominates someone to the SC and the Senate decides to confirm or not. Of course the ever-dangerous Krooked Killary is screaming for Senate Dems to block the nominee...no matter what. Killary has also advised Biden to not concede...ever! That bitch needs to just go away.
As for RBG. I posted months ago she should retire and enjoy her grandchildren and great grands and just enjoy the rest of her life. Instead, she vowed to stay on to prevent the bad orange man from replacing her. Oh well, Ruthie, so sorry, so sad for you.
Democrats on Reddit and Dem underground are in nuclear meltdown.. Quite a few of them are very ticked off at RGB saying she should have resigned during Obama's admin so he could have picked her successor, now Trump gets to pick one. I hope Trump picks Amy Coney Barrett.. Good Catholic Louisiana woman, Constitutional Conservative.
She sounds good to me. Of course, the Left would go bonkers if a Catholic is nominated for the SC. The Left is engaged in terrorism now against the Catholic Church, you can just imagine how that would ramp up.
Here's my view of the SC...it seems to me that both sides (maybe I should say ALL sides) would want justices who uphold the law, not make it. At times the Dems have control of Congress and pass all kinds of goofy lefty laws. You would think they, as legislators, would not want the SC overturning those laws, and worse, making new laws in lieu of them. In other words, any and all legislators SHOULD want a "conservative" SC, one that would uphold and defend the legislative process. Even if the SC rules some law is unconstitutional the proper process is to send it back to that legislative body and advise them to "fix it." At least that body, duly elected, has the opportunity to write the revision and still have control of the law-making aspect of the separation of powers. BUT! libtards want to abdicate that power and turn it over to a group of unelected (by the people) judges.
RBG said of Roe v. Wade she wished it had become law via the legislative process, and went as far to say she would have preferred all 50 states to pass it, or something similar, and NOT have the court, especially the SC, make it law. Of course, she never used her position on the SC to undo Roe v. Wade. She understood that when one leans on, depends on, a 9-member body to make a law you like, it could just as easily reverse itself.
That’s not what McConnell thought for Scalia’s replacement. Now, as I predicted, he flip flopped.
Quoting your hero, elections have consequences.
What do you think the democrats would do if the situation were reversed?
Puhleeze!! this is an easy one. McConnell was interviewed in 2016 and clearly said that in a POTUS election year when...now, Goosey pay attention...the party holding the WH and the party holding the Senate are DIFFERENT!! then he would not engage in the confirmation process. That was the case in 2016. Now, in 2020 the same party holds both the WH and the Senate. I know it can be confusing for you so maybe a chart will help...
2016 WH Dem Senate GOP
2020 WH GOP Senate GOP
Got it?
You mean like when Obama nominated Garland? Or when Reagan nominated Kennedy as a lame duck and a Democrat Senate confirmed?
Lately it is Republicans that only follow the Thurmond rule when it suits them politically.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
