Breaking: Supreme Court Justice #Kennedy plans to retire!!!! @POTUS gets another pick

[hcap]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

That's a shame. Unfortunately for you, it won't happen. Harry Reid made sure of that in 2013.

Too bad, so sad.

Enlighten us. Otherwise I am tempted to use "fact-free" again.

[PaceAdvantage]

Enlighten what? Republicans only need 51 votes (which they have) to end debate and move to a vote. Harry Reid was the first to use the nuclear option via his now infamous "filibuster reform," and Republicans have him to thank for that today.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

....as well as the impropriety of the president nominating a justice who could impact the outcome of the Russia investigation at some point down the line.

Someone, please ask Hopelessly Confused Cap what I asked yesterday, since he has me on iggy: By what constitutional authority could the Supreme Court, or any justice thereon, circumvent Congress' sole constitutional authority to impeach a sitting president for "high crimes or misdemeanors", thereby impacting the outcome of any special counsel's investigation of such a sitting president?

Or maybe one you other libs will take up Hcap's mantle and answer this question. (Or are all you libs Constitution-illiterates?) Help poor Hcap out here because he's stark-raving mad, wildly flailing his arms in the air.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Enlighten what? Republicans only need 51 votes (which they have) to end debate and move to a vote. Harry Reid was the first to use the nuclear option via his now infamous "filibuster reform," and Republicans have him to thank for that today.

Actually, although Reid did change it, Mitch McConnell changed the rules specifically as far as Supreme Court goes at the Neil Gorsuch, confirmation.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-...unprecedented/

WE ALL KNOW the strategy moves to the entire senate, it does not contradict what I just posted. Fighting tooth and nail.

Democratic senators have some options available.

Originally Posted by mostpost

Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins are pro Choice Republicans. Anyone Trump nominates will vote to overturn Roe v Wade. They will vote no.

In theory, Republicans, with 51 seats, can afford one defection and let Vice President Mike Pence cast the tiebreaking vote. In practice, however, remember that Arizona Sen. John McCain, suffering from brain cancer, has not been in Washington for months. So if McCain doesn’t vote and the nomination is voted on by the 99 remaining senators, then 49 Democrats plus one Republican could stop block Trump’s nominee.

Collins and Murkowski are the ones watch. They voted against that Planned Parenthood provision and have opposed a number of anti-abortion measures in Congress.

[PaceAdvantage]

Talk about fear-mongering. Overturn Roe v Wade...

[hcap]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Talk about fear-mongering. Overturn Roe v Wade...

I am of the same view as you are. I believe in a womans choice but consider abortion only as the last resort. Yes overturning Roe v Wade is concerning, but the apparent conflict in interest in Trump installing a Justice that may decide on the outcome of the criminal investigations into him and staff is much more troubling.

United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case which resulted in a unanimous decision against President Richard Nixon, ordering him to deliver tape recordings and other subpoenaed materials to a federal district court.

[lamboguy]

legal or illegal they aren't going to stop abortion's.

what they should do is tax people and throw in some licensing fees for those that want to perform them. just like they do with the marybella these days. for that matter the guys with the legal drug company's are paying off as well to push their rotten drugs.

bottom line is if you want to play you have got to pay just like all the other guys that skate through our great laws

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by hcap

I am of the same view as you are. I believe in a womans choice but consider abortion only as the last resort.

Holly crap, I agree with HCAP. Not sure how to deal with that. I may need to get counseling, I have never seen a psychiatrist before, does anyone know a good one in the greater Richmond Virginia area? That is 40 miles away.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

Holly crap, I agree with HCAP. Not sure how to deal with that. I may need to get counseling, I have never seen a psychiatrist before, does anyone know a good one in the greater Richmond Virginia area? That is 40 miles away.

I really feel for you. Thankfully, I don't have that problem.

[OntheRail]

Originally Posted by hcap View Post
....as well as the impropriety of the president nominating a justice who could impact the outcome of the Russia investigation at some point down the line.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Someone, please ask Hopelessly Confused Cap what I asked yesterday, since he has me on iggy: By what constitutional authority could the Supreme Court, or any justice thereon, circumvent Congress' sole constitutional authority to impeach a sitting president for "high crimes or misdemeanors", thereby impacting the outcome of any special counsel's investigation of such a sitting president?

Or maybe one you other libs will take up Hcap's mantle and answer this question. (Or are all you libs Constitution-illiterates?) Help poor Hcap out here because he's stark-raving mad, wildly flailing his arms in the air.

I would guess it just a Talking/Trigger Point for the Uniformed by the Loons on the Left.

Boxcar don't hold your breath... but here you go hcap have an answer?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by OntheRail

I would guess it just a Talking/Trigger Point for the Uniformed by the Loons on the Left.

Boxcar don't hold your breath... but here you go hcap have an answer?

Don't worry, I won't. I know better.

[FantasticDan]

Twitter

[woodtoo]

Seth Abramson, damn you!!

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by hcap

I am of the same view as you are. I believe in a womans choice but consider abortion only as the last resort. Yes overturning Roe v Wade is concerning, but the apparent conflict in interest in Trump installing a Justice that may decide on the outcome of the criminal investigations into him and staff is much more troubling.

First off, I would be shocked if RvW was ever overturned, even if the court was packed to the gills with conservatives.

Second off, this whole conflict of interest thing is absolutely ridiculous.

Make sure the next SC justice isn't a Russian plant too, while you're at it.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by FantasticDan

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/sta...84826622664705

Originally Posted by FantasticDan

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/sta...84826622664705

Hey, Fanny Dan, do Seth a favor and teach him the Constitution. He just might become indebted to you for the rest of your life.

But in addition to his and your ignorance of the Constitution in terms of who gets to "try" a sitting president, there is another "little factoid" to which both of you are equally as ignorant. Here it is, ready?

Let's go with the stupid hypothetical that a case is made against Trump and it somehow makes it to the SC, in spite of the fact that it has exactly two chances: Zero and None. SC justices are appointed for life. So, where, precisely, is the incentive for the new justice to swing his/her vote Trump's way? The new guy or gal is risking nothing. There is nothing at stake! (S)he would be there on the court for life! What can Trump or anyone else do this new justice?

Did I hear someone say "gratitude"? But gratitude wears thin very quickly when there is nothing at risk.

Man...are liberals dumb or what!?