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

[Cyber Liberty]

We don't need a "social anything."  An originalist is what is needed.

[Bigun]

We don't need a "social anything."  An originalist is what is needed.

     

[Jazzhead]

I'd rather see an eight-seat SCOTUS than another lifetime appointment to a squish who wanders from original intent.  And that there are Romneys in the Senate is no excuse for caving to them, because that's how we get squishes on the court.

Then you won't have an eight-seat SCOTUS for long.   The Dems will name the ninth Justice,  and then your gun rights will be screwed. 

I mentioned earlier the name of Judge Thomas Hardeman.   Look him up.   He's got a proven track record of supporting the 2A,  and the individual right affirmed by Heller.   Someone like him can gain the 50 votes needed in the current Senate,  and help protect your gun rights for the rest of your and my lifetime.   

Your eight-seat SCOTUS absolutism works only if the GOP continues to control the Presidency and Senate.   I think there's little chance of that.    Trump likely loses to the Democrat.  Even more likely,  the Senate flips.   If Trump wins and the Senate flips,  you'll get your "squish".    If Trump loses,  you'll get another Ginsberg. 

If Trump gets the opportunity to name another SCOTUS justice, don't look that gift horse in the mouth.   Get the best jurist we can on the Court, and don't blow the opportunity.   

[Jazzhead]

We don't need a "social anything."  An originalist is what is needed.

No, an "originalist" (whatever that buzzword means) is what you want.   What you want and what you'll get is a whole 'nother thing.   

[Cyber Liberty]

No, an "originalist" (whatever that buzzword means) is what you want.   What you want and what you'll get is a whole 'nother thing.   

 

You have made it clear hundreds of times that you love Judges who spew penumbras and emanations, if they support your flexible notion of "morality."  We won't be letting you get away with redefining "original intent." 

[EdJames]

No, an "originalist" (whatever that buzzword means) is what you want.   What you want and what you'll get is a whole 'nother thing.   

 

[EdJames]

You have made it clear hundreds of times that you love Judges who spew penumbras and emanations, if they support your flexible notion of "morality."  We won't be letting you get away with redefining "original intent."

 

[Jazzhead]

You have made it clear hundreds of times that you love Judges who spew penumbras and emanations, if they support your flexible notion of "morality."  We won't be letting you get away with redefining "original intent."

You mean like Justice Scalia, who found an individual RKBA not found within the strict text of the document?   

Look,  what I'm saying is hardly controversial - whoever is nominated needs to garner 50 GOP votes.   The judge whose name I suggested,  in fact, would strongly support Scalia's decision in Heller.   Why is he not "originalist" enough for you?   Because the despised Jazzhead suggested him?   

[Cyber Liberty]

You mean like Justice Scalia, who found an individual RKBA not found within the strict text of the document?   

Look,  what I'm saying is hardly controversial - whoever is nominated needs to garner 50 GOP votes.   The judge whose name I suggested,  in fact, would strongly support Scalia's decision in Heller.   Why is he not "originalist" enough for you?   Because the despised Jazzhead suggested him?   

Your observation of 50 votes (plus 1) is not controversial.  What is, is your bleating that a squish is better than nothing.   I profoundly disagree.

[Jazzhead]

Your observation of 50 votes (plus 1) is not controversial.  What is, is your bleating that a squish is better than nothing.   I profoundly disagree.

Cut me a g-damn break.  I never said I supported nominating a "squish".   I suggested Judge Thomas Hardeman, who was on President Trump's short list when he ended up picking Gorsuch.   Are you suggesting Judge Hardeman is a "squish"?   If so, why? 

All I am saying is that picking a deliberate fight between GOP social conservatives and GOP social moderates by nominating Judge Barrett would be a very foolish move.   We need all 50 GOP votes.   

[Cyber Liberty]

Cut me a g-damn break.  I never said I supported nominating a "squish".   I suggested Judge Thomas Hardeman, who was on President Trump's short list when he ended up picking Gorsuch.   Are you suggesting Judge Hardeman is a "squish"?   If so, why? 

All I am saying is that picking a deliberate fight between GOP social conservatives and GOP social moderates by nominating Judge Barrett would be a very foolish move.   We need all 50 GOP votes.   

Correct, you did not say "squish," but you specified there must be 50 votes today to confirm a nominee.  This means, in practical terms, we "need" a squish, because only that kind of nominee will get the votes of Collins, Romney and others.  Even a Hardeman would not be confirmed.

I'd rather see the seat remain vacant than see another Souter there.  You can label that any way you choose, I'm fine with that because it's just my humble opinion.

[Jazzhead]

Correct, you did not say "squish," but you specified there must be 50 votes today to confirm a nominee.  This means, in practical terms, we "need" a squish, because only that kind of nominee will get the votes of Collins, Romney and others. 

No it doesn't.   All 50 votes can be garnered for a conservative who isn't consumed by an agenda to take away the rights of women.   The real emergency at this point is to defend the Heller decision.   

[Cyber Liberty]

No it doesn't.   All 50 votes can be garnered for a conservative who isn't consumed by an agenda to take away the rights of women.   The real emergency at this point is to defend the Heller decision.

I thought I understood you to say Heller must be codified by Statute.  I maintain putting another Souter on the bench endangers Heller, and much, much more.  I also think the bogus dead hand of the "Biteme Rule" would prevent the confirmation of exactly the type of Justice you want.  (For the record, I'd be fine with Hardeman.  I am not wedded to the female in this game, but I'd point out there are Senators who would not replace RBG with a male.)

[Jazzhead]

I thought I understood you to say Heller must be codified by Statute.  I maintain putting another Souter on the bench endangers Heller, and much, much more. 

Yes, codification of Heller would be helpful.   But a Dem President and Senate in 2020 will doom such an effort,  and will likely permit the Dems to nominate Justices who will overturn it.

You fail to appreciate just how precarious your rights are.   You'd rather, it seems, just bash folks like me who ARE ON YOUR SIDE.   

We are in agreement, for what it's worth,  that we don't need another Souter. 

[Cyber Liberty]

We are in agreement, for what it's worth,  that we don't need another Souter.

It's worth a couple of beers from the Castle bar!   

[Jazzhead]

Cool.     Always good to find an excuse to start drinking mid-day. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Cool.     Always good to find an excuse to start drinking mid-day.

Right on, Daddio!  I hope you've gotten well enough to not have a ripped quad producing that excuse?  I cringed at that, you know.  I know how much that stings.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

A fight is warranted only if you win.   Unlike you, I have no appetite for martyrdom.   Barrett will be an unnecessary lightening rod.   Better to nominate a conservative without her perceived baggage.   

And, no, this has nothing to do with my own views about abortion (which I oppose) and the rights of women (which I support).   This is about taking advantage of a golden opportunity and not blowing it.

Am so glad no one listened to that line of reasoning when Barrett was appointed for her current job, and trust no one listens again when she is appointed for her next one either.

[Jazzhead]

Am so glad no one listened to that line of reasoning when Barrett was appointed for her current job, and trust no one listens again when she is appointed for her next one either.

There's a helluva lot more political hullabaloo in approving a SCOTUS nominee.   And there was a lot of hullaballoo when Barrett was nominated for her judgeship.  You and I both know she's a lightning rod.   

Why are you so hung on fighting for Barrett?   Why not nominate - and confirm - someone without her unique baggage?   

[Bigun]

There's a helluva lot more political hullabaloo in approving a SCOTUS nominee.   And there was a lot of hullaballoo when Barrett was nominated for her judgeship.  You and I both know she's a lightning rod.   

Why are you so hung on fighting for Barrett?   Why not nominate - and confirm - someone without her unique baggage?   

I happen to like her "baggage"! Every damned bit of it!

[Cyber Liberty]

I happen to like her "baggage"! Every damned bit of it!

I would add to that the idea I don't like Rats and squishes having veto power.  But I suppose that's inherent to the Advise and Consent business. 

[Wingnut]

 

Why are you so hung on fighting for Barrett?   Why not nominate - and confirm - someone without her unique baggage?   

Just because the left hates Catholics is no reason to withhold her.
"The dogma lives loudly within you,” as California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said is why I like her.

Piss on the haters and the people who support the party of death.

[Jazzhead]

Piss on the haters and the people who support the party of death.

I understand and share your anger and frustration. But this not a pissing contest. This is serious as your life.   If Ginsberg should step down,  the window of opportunity will be narrow.  And the consequences of failure - we will likely not hold the reins of power much longer - make it essential that Trump make a serious choice that will not divide the GOP coalition.

[DCPatriot]

I understand and share your anger and frustration. But this not a pissing contest. This is serious as your life.   If Ginsberg should step down,  the window of opportunity will be narrow.  And the consequences of failure - we will likely not hold the reins of power much longer - make it essential that Trump make a serious choice that will not divide the GOP coalition.

How is Amy Barrett going to divide the GOP coalition??     

She's a sweet heart.  Mary Tyler Moore with a cup of Sister Mary Perpetua.

[Cyber Liberty]

This entire discussion is amazing because the notorious RBG is still alive and kicking.  Some would even say, "poor taste."  Be that as it may, pray continue....