Republicans go on record: Should RGBs seat be left open for the next president?

I'm a republican/conservative and I think RGB's seat should be left open


  • Total voters
    63
  • Poll closed .

Mattski

HR Legend
Gold Member
Jan 21, 2007
13,217
10,510
113
The mental gymnastics being done by many on both sides of this is so typical of where we are as a society.
I don't really gaf if it's filled or not. Where's that option? Life will go on for us all either way.
The fact dems tried putting up garland in 2016, and up until 24 hrs ago believed he should have been nominated and it was a great travesty he wasn't, means they don't have high ground in this argument either.
 

lr1007

HR All-State
Nov 30, 2004
757
321
63
The fair question for Democrats is:

If the Dems controlled the White House and Senate, would they fill the seat before the election?

(We ALL already know they would in a skinny minute)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Banditking

mstp1992

HR Legend
Dec 10, 2011
27,183
23,422
113
Cedar Rapids -- Iowa City
faseb.org
The mental gymnastics being done by many on both sides of this is so typical of where we are as a society.
I don't really gaf if it's filled or not. Where's that option? Life will go on for us all either way.
The fact dems tried putting up garland in 2016, and up until 24 hrs ago believed he should have been nominated and it was a great travesty he wasn't, means they don't have high ground in this argument either.
McConnell made it clear that in a presidential election year an open SCOTUS seat should not be filled until AFTER the election. If that’s the precedent, why not follow that now?
 

Tiny Hands Trump

HR All-American
Apr 11, 2017
2,733
5,969
113
go ahead and ram an pick thru... when Dems take control the SC gets expanded so that your 6-3 majority is now 7-6 minority. Just where it should be if Mitch didn't make shit up in 2016.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FlickShagwell

FlickShagwell

HR Legend
Gold Member
Jun 16, 2003
31,782
36,966
113
Omaha, NE
I don't really gaf if it's filled or not. Where's that option? Life will go on for us all either way.
With all due respect, you have a privilege not everyone else has in not giving AF. There are gay people sweating about whether their marriages will still be recognized. Women wondering if they’ll be able to get an abortion if they need one. People with pre-existing conditions wondering if they’ll still be able to get coverage. People with children wondering if they’ll grow up in a barely habitable hellhole once a corporate right wing court allows big businesses to pollute at will.

Many people have a stake in this pick, whether you think you do or not.
 

Mattski

HR Legend
Gold Member
Jan 21, 2007
13,217
10,510
113
With all due respect, you have a privilege not everyone else has in not giving AF. There are gay people sweating about whether their marriages will still be recognized. Women wondering if they’ll be able to get an abortion if they need one. People with pre-existing conditions wondering if they’ll still be able to get coverage. People with children wondering if they’ll grow up in a barely habitable hellhole once a corporate right wing court allows big businesses to pollute at will.

Many people have a stake in this pick, whether you think you do or not.
Fear mongering at its finest... the court isn't going to reverse decisions on marriage or abortion at this point. Don't be dramatic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SDHN2013 and lr1007

Mattski

HR Legend
Gold Member
Jan 21, 2007
13,217
10,510
113
McConnell made it clear that in a presidential election year an open SCOTUS seat should not be filled until AFTER the election. If that’s the precedent, why not follow that now?
Sure makes sense. Follow it, fine by me. What was the dems screaming from the rooftops position on the issue in 2016? I'm not going to dig but what was your personal argument on it then?
 

Mattski

HR Legend
Gold Member
Jan 21, 2007
13,217
10,510
113
There are mega churches packed with people who think you’re wrong.
Okay? And millions think this will be the end of society just like the last big crisis. This is what we get for giving DC the power they have over our lives. Especially when we abandon basic right and wrong principles to defend our team's current positions. Enough of the hypocrisy.
 

Mattski

HR Legend
Gold Member
Jan 21, 2007
13,217
10,510
113
People with children wondering if they’ll grow up in a barely habitable hellhole once a corporate right wing court allows big businesses to pollute at will.
I admittedly didn't read this entire post the first time. Did you type this with a straight face?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SDHN2013

Red Hills Nole

Scout Team
Mar 2, 2020
83
75
18
61
Valdosta, GA
Part of the problem is that the Senate has allowed itself to become more like the House, which is to say, more partisan and lacking in decorum. The Framers gave Senators 6 year terms to avoid this type of thing. It went off the rails year ago. My best guess is it probably started with the Bork hearings. Prior to that, most SCOTUS nominees were confirmed by large bipartisan majorities.

A new nomination and Senate vote would be legal, sure. I'm just not sure that the GOP should do it. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD do it.

It's a tough call. Politicians always try to take advantage in the here and now, not realizing that history takes a long time. The political winds change constantly.

Maybe we need a gesture of decorum from the GOP so close to the election. I'm just not sure the democrats would reciprocate, given the radical state of that party right now.
Very well stated sir as both sides have the proverbial "blood on their hands" in these matters. As a lifelong Democrat I will state that Bork should have been confirmed with some reservations. The all out assault upon him was wrongheaded and only served to drive the Republicans further to the right and increase the divide.
As to your last point I struggle to identify any of the republicans I see that would be in favor of this decorum thingy you mention.
 

TJ8869

HR Legend
Gold Member
Dec 7, 2006
39,679
29,617
113
Of course you appreciate it. TJ doing his best Mitt Romney impersonation and it serves you well.
Romney is one of a dwindling number of Republicans who are more concerned with what’s best for America than what’s best for Trump. And I know that for that reason you consider him a RINO. So go ahead and file me under RINO as well. And if Republicans forge ahead with plans to fill RBG’s seat before the election I won’t even be one in name.
 

83Hawk

HR Legend
Sep 17, 2002
15,396
6,393
113
go ahead and ram an pick thru... when Dems take control the SC gets expanded so that your 6-3 majority is now 7-6 minority. Just where it should be if Mitch didn't make shit up in 2016.
Won’t/can’t happen. If the Dems want to lose the house, senate and presidency, then they should by all means try it.
 

artradley

HR Legend
Apr 26, 2013
23,369
35,891
113
The mental gymnastics being done by many on both sides of this is so typical of where we are as a society.
I don't really gaf if it's filled or not. Where's that option? Life will go on for us all either way.
The fact dems tried putting up garland in 2016, and up until 24 hrs ago believed he should have been nominated and it was a great travesty he wasn't, means they don't have high ground in this argument either.
They lost that argument and are now asking the GOP to handle it the same way they did last time.

You are suggesting a Dem President should never get a nominee in his final year, and a GOP president should always get a nominee to their last day.

That’s ridiculous.
 

Mattski

HR Legend
Gold Member
Jan 21, 2007
13,217
10,510
113
They lost that argument and are now asking the GOP to handle it the same way they did last time.

You are suggesting a Dem President should never get a nominee in his final year, and a GOP president should always get a nominee to their last day.

That’s ridiculous.
Nope, what I'm saying is the majority on both sides have no right to really be pissed since they're all fuxking hypocrites. Up until the day she died, dems were pissed they didn't get a chance to confirm garland in an election year. Now here we are, and they're arguing for the same thing they were opposed to not all that long ago. And the shit for brains Rs are doing the exact same thing. National politics is a fricking cesspool that represent the worst of us, not the best.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Greenway4Prez

z_ape

HR MVP
Gold Member
Mar 8, 2010
2,077
995
113
In 2016 the law allowed McConnell to not proceed. The law gives the senate that power. The law is being followed in both instances. You can’t dispute that.

Face it TJ, you’ve always been politically feckless. You kind of remind me of the scene in The Outlaw Josie Wales. The ferry operator whistles the Battle Hymn of the Republic one minute and then whistles Dixie the next.

You're missing the point. There was an informal norm surrounding this process -- not law. The informal norm was that the president's pick gets voted on. (and almost always confirmed)

McConnell thwarted that norm because he could.

The democrats could do the very same thing -- for whatever criteria they wish -- the next time they have senate power and a democratic nominee comes up.

Is that how you want things to be going forward?

You either setup law, follow existing norms, or it turns in a free for all where your party gets away with whatever it can.

THAT is the precedent McConnell is setting, and it's not a good one.

The bigger picture here is that we've got lots of informal norms that are not controlled by law. Our political processes, of which these norms are a part of -- and it's processes that allow us great to be -- could descend into chaos if our politicians keep flouting norms for the sake of partisan victory.

This starts a viscous back and forth cycle with gross escalation of egregious action where violation of norms are concerned. This is really unhealthy stuff for the republic.

Make sense? That's the bigger picture. That's what's really at stake here.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mstp1992

z_ape

HR MVP
Gold Member
Mar 8, 2010
2,077
995
113
The fair question for Democrats is:

If the Dems controlled the White House and Senate, would they fill the seat before the election?

(We ALL already know they would in a skinny minute)
You just want consistency. If the sitting president always gets to nominate, and always gets a vote, so be it.
 

z_ape

HR MVP
Gold Member
Mar 8, 2010
2,077
995
113
They lost that argument and are now asking the GOP to handle it the same way they did last time.

You are suggesting a Dem President should never get a nominee in his final year, and a GOP president should always get a nominee to their last day.

That’s ridiculous.
But then McConnel would say: this is only a problem when the senate and the presidency are of differing parties, or; this wasn't a lameduck president.

Even if those conditions were met, he could toss in another variable to consider that would differentiate the situation so as to 'validate' his new 'precedence'

He's making it up as he goes because he can. That's the problem. His precedent in 2016 was bullshit. He's destroying any existing norms and throwing the entire process into chaos.
 
  • Like
Reactions: steelhawkeye

83Hawk

HR Legend
Sep 17, 2002
15,396
6,393
113
Trump is within his right to put forth a nomination. The senate is within their right to confirm. Whether they do or not is completely out of my control, and certainly not worth getting worked up over.
 

jamesvanderwulf

HR Legend
Nov 27, 2015
17,408
16,159
113
People's Republic of Johnson County
Her wish was to wait until after the election to replace her, you dumbshit!
She's been sick for a decade. She could and should have retired when Obama was still president and he would have locked in a younger activist judge for years to come. She was so sure Hil-liar-y was going to be the next president ( and she said so in an interview ) she hung on to the end. Now there is incentive for a second DJT term, when many would not have voted for him for any other reason...
 

mstp1992

HR Legend
Dec 10, 2011
27,183
23,422
113
Cedar Rapids -- Iowa City
faseb.org
She's been sick for a decade. She could and should have retired when Obama was still president and he would have locked in a younger activist judge for years to come. She was so sure Hil-liar-y was going to be the next president ( and she said so in an interview ) she hung on to the end. Now there is incentive for a second DJT term, when many would not have voted for him for any other reason...
I’ve said before that she should have retired summer of 2015. However, there’s still no excuse for voting for Trump.
 

z_ape

HR MVP
Gold Member
Mar 8, 2010
2,077
995
113
Trump is within his right to put forth a nomination. The senate is within their right to confirm. Whether they do or not is completely out of my control, and certainly not worth getting worked up over.
Missing the point here. Of course they can, nobody is debating that.

Should they?

Next time we have a dem senate and repub president, dems will could say.... nope. Just because. They're within their rights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mstp1992

83Hawk

HR Legend
Sep 17, 2002
15,396
6,393
113
Missing the point here. Of course they can, nobody is debating that.

Should they?

Next time we have a dem senate and repub president, dems will could say.... nope. Just because. They're within their rights.
Exactly. And if they choose to block a nomination, it is their right. Whether I think it should be done or not is immaterial. I have no say in the matter, and it is not worth getting upset over.
 

z_ape

HR MVP
Gold Member
Mar 8, 2010
2,077
995
113
Exactly. And if they choose to block a nomination, it is their right. Whether I think it should be done or not is immaterial. I have no say in the matter, and it is not worth getting upset over.
Ok, sure.

My concern is that this isn't going to be good for our country. People that study this sort of thing -- political scientists -- have noted that these sorts of issues can be prelude to collapse of democracy in the state. I really don't want that to happen.

Time to problem solve it. Which means getting people to understand what's at stake.
 

z_ape

HR MVP
Gold Member
Mar 8, 2010
2,077
995
113
BTW -- interesting numbers here from repub respondees to the poll. Would seem out of step with the electorate. But maybe not. Could also be that the poll selects for the sort that would say want to hold it open.
 

83Hawk

HR Legend
Sep 17, 2002
15,396
6,393
113
Ok, sure.

My concern is that this isn't going to be good for our country. People that study this sort of thing -- political scientists -- have noted that these sorts of issues can be prelude to collapse of democracy in the state. I really don't want that to happen.

Time to problem solve it. Which means getting people to understand what's at stake.
I don’t believe a Trump nominee will be confirmed before Biden takes over. He may try, and McConnell may even bring it to a vote....but I don’t think it will pass.

Since that is what I believe will happen, then I hope repubs maintain control of the Senate. This will force Biden to nominate someone who leans neither left nor right.
 

mstp1992

HR Legend
Dec 10, 2011
27,183
23,422
113
Cedar Rapids -- Iowa City
faseb.org
I don’t believe a Trump nominee will be confirmed before Biden takes over. He may try, and McConnell may even bring it to a vote....but I don’t think it will pass.

Since that is what I believe will happen, then I hope repubs maintain control of the Senate. This will force Biden to nominate someone who leans neither left nor right.
I’m perfectly fine with a centrist, one who believes in judicial restraint and respect for precedent.
 

Menace Sockeyes

HR Legend
Sep 2, 2010
33,030
42,694
113
The law allows the seat to be filled now. Why will you switch parties?
I think it is fine for a sitting POTUS to nominate someone and the Senate to decide to vote on that nominee BEFORE the election. The POTUS and the Senate are the legitimate representatives of the people based on the most recent elections for both.

Doing this after an election would be pretty bad in my opinion. It would be legal, but not the right way to go.
The President of the United States gets to fill Supreme Court justices as they come open. One is currently open so it is his responsibility to appoint a replacement.
Trump is within his right to put forth a nomination. The senate is within their right to confirm. Whether they do or not is completely out of my control, and certainly not worth getting worked up over.
Fascists gonna fascist.
 

UNIowaHawk

HR Legend
Jul 22, 2011
12,230
5,593
113
I’m highly suspect by the result of this poll as I don’t think 65% of republicans/conservatives really think it should remain unfilled until after the election and after Trump leaves office should he lose.