SCOTUS Replacement

[Artos]

I think the biggest argument against a nomination is the Merrick Garland nomination from 2016 that McConnell refused to hear.

For me it boils down to being at war & winning at all costs to save the country & see no downside to moving forward...this is ugly politics at her worst & both sides are hypocritical looking back at their Garland quotes & now voicing the counter. Can you imagine where our country would be headed if the Dems had the senate & the witch would have won in 16!?!? If the rinos don't rally around this nomination & get this done, then we know their souls are tarnished with tds. We all know what action would be happening if the dems were in control & it's time to hammer this down & let them continue to show their dirty sides. About to see what we're made of & these riots we've been seeing are child's play to what's coming.

The hardest part is going to watch the nomination process & the evil that is going to spill over at an attempt to turn an otherwise good person into trash...if we thought the Kav hearings were nasty??

[Todd.K]

I think the biggest argument against a nomination is the Merrick Garland nomination from 2016 that McConnell refused to hear.

Do elections still have consequences, or is that only if Dems are in control?

[Alex V]

Another key here is that if left for after the election, then the election becomes about SCOTUS again. Remove the empty seat and you remove the incentive.

Right now the incentive will drive the left more and it could mean a greater turn out for Dems. With no seat to fill, that motivation may not be there. Then again, revenge is a very powerful motivation as well. So who the hell knows.

Also, with all the dirty tricks the Dems are going to play with voter fraud, this election will most likely go to SCOTUS like 2000. We need an odd number of justices to prevent a tie if that happens.

[ABNAK]

I would like to know these top candidate's views on the RKBA. This being a gun board that should be of interest to everyone on here.

I would also like to opine that, in concert with all the other degradation of our society occurring, the stage is being set---by both sides---to delegitimize rulings from SCOTUS in the future. For the Left it's "But but Merrick Garland! Waaahhh!!!" For our side if they try to pack the court it'll be "Screw them, their rulings are only because they cheated".

I will add that I personally don't bestow deity status on the Black Robes. They are fallible, they are political. They once upheld slavery. The Kelo ruling was horseshit. Unfortunately they seem to have the last say in matters, rightly or not.

Dual scenarios, of course gun-based:

A) Dems win and pack the court. They subsequently rule Biden's coming gun grab constitutional. No one on our side is gonna say "Aw shucks, I guess we have to turn 'em all in 'cause the Black Robes said so".

B) Trump wins and we have a 6-3 court. Dems win in 2024 and pass a new grab-'em-up AWB. SCOTUS subsequently rules that unconstitutional. The Dems say 'Fvck you, we're going after them anyway".

Like I said, the stage is being set for just about everyone to thumb their nose at SCOTUS.

[Firefly]

It’ll be somebody stupid, who in a menopausal fit will rule that 2nd Amendment means we can have the National Guard and it only covers hunting with reasonable restrictions.

Why? Why do they always do this?

I want a hardcore, Don Draper esque 1950s style conservative who says “Constitution is just what you see, pal. Now pull up yer pants and get a goddamn job, ya hippie!” male in absolute ideal physical shape, preferably in his 40s.

No more “be the better man” BS. Why? WHY?! Why Republicans always gotta cuck?

[ABNAK]

Do elections still have consequences, or is that only if Dems are in control?

Remember "We President now"? Well, "WE President now". Of course that is only if it's them. They always whip out the Golden Double Standard Card.....and don't leave home without it!

[AndyLate]

THAT is the key take away. It is not at all uncommon for this to happen when The Senate and POTUS are the SAME Party.

Only ONE person is to blame here for the (D)s. RBG should have retired under BHO. She did not. Out of respect, I shall say no more. R.I.P..

I don't feel it's disrespectful. She could have safely been replaced while BHO was president. She rolled the dice on HC because she wanted her legacy to include being replaced by a Justice nominated by the first woman president. She also stayed true to her liberal views and stated she did not want to be replaced by President Trump after the election and her health both came up snake eyes.

No one really cares what the Republicans or Democrats said about nominating a justice before it became a reality. I certainly don't; all I care about is whether or not all the Republicans in Senate want to save our country or drop to their knees and service the marxists.

Hell, the marxists can impeach and remove justices if they control the senate and house strongy enough. We have already seen them band together and vote to impeach the president in a purely partisan action with zero facts required.

Andy

[Det-Sog]

Like I said, the stage is being set for just about everyone to thumb their nose at SCOTUS.

Correct. See Andy's next comment.

Hell, the marxists can impeach and remove justices if they control the senate and house strongy enough. We have already seen them band together and vote to impeach the president in a purely partisan action with zero facts required.

Then SCOTUS becomes an irrelevant paper tiger.

[P2Vaircrewman]

Consider it from the internet but word was that some wanted Trump to pick Cony Barret at the last nomination and he remarked he was saving her for RBG.

[Grand58742]

Understand, my Garland comments were not in defense of not nominating anyone, that's the only argument the left has used so far with this.

The question is, will enough Republicans go along with it to make it mattter?