Worries about Justice Ginsburg’s health driving the Left to issue threats against Trump replacing he

[Jazzhead]

No reason to lighten up. Nominate a woman-for-a-woman, Barrett or another.

Ideally the GOP would have a conservative woman-of-color, if possible.

That would be "in-your-face"

That's foolish.   When the opponent is certifiably nuts, the tack is to appear sensible and reasonable.    Someone like Hardeman fills that bill.  Barrett would be like waving a red flag in front of a bull.   This isn't bloodsport.   This is trying to turn the courts in our direction.  A deliberately provocative choice only increases the odds of failure. 

[Wingnut]

[Bigun]

 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Barrett's likely to be a more controversial nominee than most,  given her association with charismatic Christianity.   Given the inherent difficulties of confirming a Justice in an election year,  it probably makes sense for Trump to nominate a solid conservative who less likely to be polarizing.   An excellent choice,  IMO, would be Third Circuit Judge Thomas Hardeman,  who has some of the strongest 2A credentials on the federal bench.

Why is it that you find a Christian is polarizing? 

[Jazzhead]

Why is it that you find a Christian is polarizing?

I never said such a thing.  I said that the nomination of Judge Barrett would be polarizing.   And in my opinion that would not be a smart move.

[Axeslinger]

@Jazzhead

You need to come to grips with the reality that ANYONE, up to and including Jesus Christ, would be MADE to be polarizing by the left and their true believers in the media.  So that should not be part of the calculus.  The ONLY thing that should be considered is how strictly will they interpret the original intent of the Constitution.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I never said such a thing.  I said that the nomination of Judge Barrett would be polarizing.   And in my opinion that would not be a smart move.

Let me rephrase:  Why do you believe the nomination of Judge Barrett would be polarizing?

[Jazzhead]

Not so, @Axeslinger .   No Trump nominee will enjoy a cakewalk,  but the left and the lamestream media don't confirm judicial nominees.  A majority in the US Senate does.   And for that audience, it does little good to nominate someone as polarizing as Judge Barrett.   We need every GOP vote.

[Jazzhead]

Let me rephrase:  Why do you believe the nomination of Judge Barrett would be polarizing?

Because she will be associated with the abortion issue.   I doubt she could be confirmed in an election year.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Let me rephrase:  Why do you believe the nomination of Judge Barrett would be polarizing?

Because she will be associated with the abortion issue.   I doubt she could be confirmed in an election year.

Do you believe that similarly when Ginsburg was nominated in 1993? 

She was far more associated with the abortion issue than Barrett ever was as the counsel for the ACLU.

[Jazzhead]

Do you believe that similarly when Ginsburg was nominated in 1993? 

She was far more associated with the abortion issue than Barrett ever was as the counsel for the ACLU.

I am not sure what you getting at. 

[corbe]

   You people are delusional if you think Trump will get another pick this term even if RBG died tonight, ain't gonna happen.  Schumer will roar and McConnell will lay down. 
   I also don't see Trump appointing Barrett, would have already happened if it was meant to be, IMHO.  Apparently Ivanka don't like her.

[Mesaclone]

   You people are delusional if you think Trump will get another pick this term even if RBG died tonight, ain't gonna happen.  Schumer will roar and McConnell will lay down. 
   I also don't see Trump appointing Barrett, would have already happened if it was meant to be, IMHO.  Apparently Ivanka don't like her.

Are you kidding? McConnel would jump on it like a lion on a wounded gazelle. The nomination would be pushed forward at whatever pace was necessary. As for who to pick...certainly their conservatism must be certain...but it would be wise to pick either a woman or a minority in the interests of not having the nominee lose a confirmation vote. My personal choice would be someone Amul Thapur...who's parents were first generation Indian immigrants AND who has already been nominated by President Trump and approved by the Senate for the Court of Appeals. Additionally, at just 50 year's old he'd be available for long service.

[Fishrrman]

I want to see Coney Barrett nominated because it will be the equivalent of throwing a bucket of hot oil into the democrat-communists' faces. The hotter and grimier, the better.

And it will be up to Mitch to push this one through.
He can do it, of course, IF he has the will to do so.

Fearless prediction:
Mittens and Collins of Maine will oppose her.
Mitch can still "get 'er done", again, if he wants.

If the democrat-communists try to stall on this RECESS-APPOINT her at the first opportunity.

[corbe]

    If you Trumpers are really that interested in 'exploding heads', like you say you are, appoint this guy, Cocaine Mitch would love to get him out of the Senate.

[verga]

   You people are delusional if you think Trump will get another pick this term even if RBG died tonight, ain't gonna happen.  Schumer will roar and McConnell will lay down. 
   I also don't see Trump appointing Barrett, would have already happened if it was meant to be, IMHO.  Apparently Ivanka don't like her.

Well you got part of it right. UpChuckie will roar, but Graham will come out swinging and Mitch the B!tch will do what Graham tells him to do. He is still smoldering over Kavanaugh and wants to pay back DiFi.

[Snarknado]

I don't see Trump having any problem getting a last-minute nominee confirmed. The key is to involve Collins and Romney in the selection, which may result in a slightly less conservative choice, but still far more acceptable than anyone Warren would appoint. It might even benefit Trump's reelection prospects.

[verga]

I don't see Trump having any problem getting a last-minute nominee confirmed. The key is to involve Collins and Romney in the selection, which may result in a slightly less conservative choice, but still far more acceptable than anyone Warren would appoint. It might even benefit Trump's reelection prospects.

Screw that, deal with "moderates" got us Souter.

[Jazzhead]

I don't see Trump having any problem getting a last-minute nominee confirmed. The key is to involve Collins and Romney in the selection, which may result in a slightly less conservative choice, but still far more acceptable than anyone Warren would appoint. It might even benefit Trump's reelection prospects.

Well reasoned.  Sensible.

[Jazzhead]

Screw that, deal with "moderates" got us Souter.

Emotional.  Idiotic.

[Mod1]

Reminder to all: please refrain from personal attacks.

[Cyber Liberty]

Emotional.  Idiotic.

Maybe, but I'd rather see the court at eight than seat another leftist.  Better to wait until after the Election if that's what's required.

[Bigun]

Screw that, deal with "moderates" got us Souter.

 

Trump needs to be in the Democrats faces 24/7/365 now IMHO.

[skeeter]

I don't see Trump having any problem getting a last-minute nominee confirmed. The key is to involve Collins and Romney in the selection, which may result in a slightly less conservative choice, but still far more acceptable than anyone Warren would appoint. It might even benefit Trump's reelection prospects.

I hate to admit it but you have a point. I'd forgotten about Romney.

What I would like to see is a departure from the current ''advise and consent" farcical standard, where the GOP virtually rubber stamps all democrat nominees yet the rats & media orchestrate a circus for all GOP nominees.

Its out of control and needs to be stopped.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I am not sure what you getting at.

yes you do.

If one avoids selecting someone due to the abortion issue, none are more complicit than Ginsburg.

Yet that never stopped her nomination.

So why does it stop Barrett's nomination?

Oh I know, in your mind it is the wrong side of the issue.