The Savior wrote:

mcare89 wrote:I think the four you need are Collins, Gardner, Murkowski, and Romney. But the problem with Collins and Gardner is that their vote is entirely tied to the election, and if they lose, there's nothing stopping them from confirming in a lame-duck.

Here’s the political needle Mitch needs to thread - adding a justice without losing the senate and presidency.

Here’s my guess - they float that they’re gonna do it and see what it does in polling. I think this could tip the scales heavily against republicans in swing states.

threecount wrote:Amy Coney Barrett is going to be the nominee...I would almost guarantee it....in her 40's with seven kids, worked for a pro-life group...

Goodbye Roe v. Wade

06hawkalum wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:There is no other future if we do not win. That's it.

Yup, if we win Dems are gonna have to pack that court with Mitch Garland being the first nominee.

Augustus wrote:Trying to wrap my head around the political calculus of this...

At this point, a lot of your gettable "swing voters" are low information undecideds and anti-Trump Republicans. The low info types probably don't understand the significance of the Supreme Court and the anti-Trump Republicans want conservative justices. With the exception of R senators in blue states like Gardner and Collins, not sure I see the political downside for McConnell and Trump here.

As for Roberts, Vox had a good piece today about how openly contemptuous he is of voting rights. He is unlikely to be an ally here.

MoBettle wrote:They're not gonna appoint anyone before the election. Not after they basically won the last one based on an open seat.

CFP wrote:

06hawkalum wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:There is no other future if we do not win. That's it.

Yup, if we win Dems are gonna have to pack that court with Mitch Garland being the first nominee.

He’s going to be 68 a week after the election

philliesphhan wrote:

MoBettle wrote:They're not gonna appoint anyone before the election. Not after they basically won the last one based on an open seat.

That was to replace their "own" though. They have the chance now to replace a left wing justice with a far right one. They're not going to want to wait.

philliesphhan wrote:

CFP wrote:

06hawkalum wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:There is no other future if we do not win. That's it.

Yup, if we win Dems are gonna have to pack that court with Mitch Garland being the first nominee.

He’s going to be 68 a week after the election

And would be a shitty pick anyway. I don't want them to replace RBG with a fucking centrist judge.

thephan wrote:Man,Wray testified that Russia is a clear and present danger, and Trump is hinting that he might push him in front of a moving bus.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:I don't usually agree with azrider on much but I think I see what's he's saying here. just this week the Russian bounties story was confirmed to be bullshit, no mea culpa from those who boosted it, or even acknowledgment. Dems run an impeachment designed to fail, then still cry that Trump needs to be impeached. Dems boost and protect sexual predators but expect Republican voters to clutch their pearls. at some point when both parties are so deep in the mud, this stuff only works on the base

"It just has not been proved to a level of certainty that satisfies me,” Gen. McKenzie told NBC. He said it’s “not a closed issue,” and the U.S. is still seeking new information on the matter.

slugsrbad wrote:McConnell says Trump’s nominee will get a floor vote. Don’t know if it was said here or if I already reacted. I’m just seeing red right now.

The Savior wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:McConnell says Trump’s nominee will get a floor vote. Don’t know if it was said here or if I already reacted. I’m just seeing red right now.

Look, he has to say this. He has ALL the leverage right now. How he deploys it is what will be of interest.

Werthless wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:I don't usually agree with azrider on much but I think I see what's he's saying here. just this week the Russian bounties story was confirmed to be bullshit, no mea culpa from those who boosted it, or even acknowledgment. Dems run an impeachment designed to fail, then still cry that Trump needs to be impeached. Dems boost and protect sexual predators but expect Republican voters to clutch their pearls. at some point when both parties are so deep in the mud, this stuff only works on the base

You are overstating the comments from the military this week, Housh. The evidence of the bounty program, a system of cash payments, is not solid. It was not confirmed to be bullshit.

"It just has not been proved to a level of certainty that satisfies me,” Gen. McKenzie told NBC. He said it’s “not a closed issue,” and the U.S. is still seeking new information on the matter.

Edit: your post is surprising on many levels. I don't understand your perspective on sexual predators, or really any of it.

Wolfgang622 wrote:

The Savior wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:McConnell says Trump’s nominee will get a floor vote. Don’t know if it was said here or if I already reacted. I’m just seeing red right now.

Look, he has to say this. He has ALL the leverage right now. How he deploys it is what will be of interest.

I wonder what it is like to have absolutely no conscience whatsoever.