If you had to choose one - Trump re-election win, OR, ACB confirmed and sworn before the elections?

Would you prefer Trump wins re-election and ACB not confirmed, or ACB confirmed and Trump loses?

  • Trump wins, ACB not confirmed before the election

    Votes: 28 80.0%
  • ACB confirmed before the election, Trump loses

    Votes: 10 28.6%

  • Total voters
    35

sbi

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Feb 17, 2013
Messages
2,768
Likes
1,108
Lets play a game of "what if the stars won't allign perfectly in the next 8 days" and you have to choose only ONE positive outcome, which one will it be?

I went first :)
 

snax

NES Member
Rating - 100%
23   0   0
Joined
Dec 1, 2009
Messages
5,060
Likes
4,505
Location
LA - lowell area
If Trump wins, she'll get confirmed before the new Congress. Hopefully Kelly doesn't get elected in AZ. I think that's the only seat that would flip immediately and screw up a vote after the election.
 

snax

NES Member
Rating - 100%
23   0   0
Joined
Dec 1, 2009
Messages
5,060
Likes
4,505
Location
LA - lowell area
this doesn't even make sense, it's is a no brainer. Trump wins and then he can nominate anyone he wants including her again.
Remember tho, if Congress flips to D, they will not confirm any judges, scotus especially. Unless nominees are flaming leftists. We'd have to pray for another mid term flip.
 

appraiser

NES Member
Rating - 100%
16   0   0
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
11,076
Likes
5,665
Personally the confirmation of ACB is of tantamount importance.

What any President does while in office is, in the grand scheme of things not that important, not normally any great moment in history, or something that can not be undone by future elected officials.

Roosevelt and The New Deal, Truman dropping the Bomb, Johnson (and Kennedy) and South East Asia, Regan and the fall of the iron curtain.... OK maybe Nixon and China.... those were big events, the rest of the Presidents in the Last 100 years? Yawn. Their mistakes could fill a library, what they did of any value could go on a post it note.

What does IMHO shape the nation for decades is the appointment of even a single Supreme Court Justice, as they will interpret law and issue rulings that will last until the the demise of the country.
 

TC McQuade

NES Member
Rating - 100%
24   0   0
Joined
Feb 6, 2014
Messages
2,634
Likes
1,806
Location
East Coast USA
How about Trump wins and gets three more seats!
Stephen Breyer age 82
Clarence Thomas age 72
Samuel Alito age 70


Hell, if the left wants so badly to pack the court, maybe President Trump should do it for them!
Trump is not much younger than Stephen Breyer (appointed by Clinton) the other two were appointed by one of the Bushes and are younger than Trump, are you suggesting that the three of them will die in the next 4 years or are you saying that Trump will remain "President" much longer than what the Constitution currently allows? If the second wouldn't that really be a dictatorship? And one would hope that the Justices would put the law way above political views which can flip flop as much as Trumps have. Amy Coney Barrett (48) will outlast all of them and have a longer lasting effect on the country than any of them.

Clarence Thomas - George H.W

Samuel Alito - George W

My pick would be Justice Amy Coney Barrett - No matter who President is she will still have a positive effect on this nation.
 

johnnymac101

NES Member
Rating - 100%
24   0   0
Joined
Apr 5, 2013
Messages
3,073
Likes
1,018
LOL! I'm suggesting the older justices do the right thing and retire within the next for years during Trump's second term!
Unlike the greedy RBG, who seem to think she would live forever, her legacy will forever be that she held onto her seat (even through two battles with cancer) only to give it to Trump!

RBG could have retired at 83 and allowed Obama a third appointment... He then would still have nominated a 4th with the untimely death of Scalia.
Just because you can serve until you die on the bench, doesn't mean you should! Can Thomas survive another 4 year, certainly, 8, perhaps... but I honestly don't believe he would willing retire under a democratic president who would purposely appoint the next black liberal... "returning the seat to the history of Thurgood Marshall" I can see the CNN headlines now!!!

Trump dictatorship? C'mon man, c'mon! But if he really wants to spill liberal tears, first thing in his second- adopt the Biden plan to establish a bipartisan commission to "review court packing" let the public know what a terrible idea it will be and hopefully put the issue to rest.

Trump is not much younger than Stephen Breyer (appointed by Clinton) the other two were appointed by one of the Bushes and are younger than Trump, are you suggesting that the three of them will die in the next 4 years or are you saying that Trump will remain "President" much longer than what the Constitution currently allows? If the second wouldn't that really be a dictatorship? And one would hope that the Justices would put the law way above political views which can flip flop as much as Trumps have. Amy Coney Barrett (48) will outlast all of them and have a longer lasting effect on the country than any of them.

Clarence Thomas - George H.W

Samuel Alito - George W

My pick would be Justice Amy Coney Barrett - No matter who President is she will still have a positive effect on this nation.
 

TC McQuade

NES Member
Rating - 100%
24   0   0
Joined
Feb 6, 2014
Messages
2,634
Likes
1,806
Location
East Coast USA
Trump dictatorship?

I'm suggesting the older justices do the right thing and retire within the next for years during Trump's second term!
I'm suggesting that if Trump remained "President" for the next 10 - 30 years until all three died (assuming Trump outlasts all of then on this planet). I don't know which if any Justices retired rather than fulfilling their full lifetime appointment.
 

new guy

NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
24,659
Likes
23,835
All I know is that Trump keeps f***ing winning and the left keeps f***ing losing, despite all of their unethical efforts and baseless accusations, and despite having the full backing of the media and Hollywood.
 

johnnymac101

NES Member
Rating - 100%
24   0   0
Joined
Apr 5, 2013
Messages
3,073
Likes
1,018
Some retire... we just got Kavanaugh when Kennedy retired.

I'm suggesting that if Trump remained "President" for the next 10 - 30 years until all three died (assuming Trump outlasts all of then on this planet). I don't know which if any Justices retired rather than fulfilling their full lifetime appointment.
 

daekken

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Feb 5, 2015
Messages
5,156
Likes
6,170
Location
NH
Personally the confirmation of ACB is of tantamount importance.

What any President does while in office is, in the grand scheme of things not that important, not normally any great moment in history, or something that can not be undone by future elected officials.

Roosevelt and The New Deal, Truman dropping the Bomb, Johnson (and Kennedy) and South East Asia, Regan and the fall of the iron curtain.... OK maybe Nixon and China.... those were big events, the rest of the Presidents in the Last 100 years? Yawn. Their mistakes could fill a library, what they did of any value could go on a post it note.

What does IMHO shape the nation for decades is the appointment of even a single Supreme Court Justice, as they will interpret law and issue rulings that will last until the the demise of the country.
The problem is that if Trump loses and the Senate goes Democrat, Biden can then add six liberal justices and make the court 8-7 liberal.
One would hope public opinion would then render justice after such a maneuver, but the damage would have been done.
 

center442

NES Member
Rating - 100%
40   0   0
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
8,838
Likes
1,653
Location
Southcoast of PRM
I am always very reluctant to suggest Constitutional amendments, but I think this whole situation is crying out for an Amendment. Amend the Constitution so that the number of Supreme Court Justices is set at a fixed number. It should have been done back when FDR first brought up packing the court. Now the DEMS are talking about it again.

If Biden wins, and they do pack the court, we're going to see the same thing happen the next time the Rs are in office. If it goes on long enough, and they keep increasing the number of Justices on SCOTUS, we're all going to be Justices! lol
 

daekken

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Feb 5, 2015
Messages
5,156
Likes
6,170
Location
NH
I am always very reluctant to suggest Constitutional amendments, but I think this whole situation is crying out for an Amendment. Amend the Constitution so that the number of Supreme Court Justices is set at a fixed number. It should have been done back when FDR first brought up packing the court. Now the DEMS are talking about it again.

If Biden wins, and they do pack the court, we're going to see the same thing happen the next time the Rs are in office. If it goes on long enough, and they keep increasing the number of Justices on SCOTUS, we're all going to be Justices! lol
After FDR died, they got presidential terms limits correctly implemented, but they missed this one, yes.
An 8-7 liberal majority would be rough...court packing would basically destroy the judicial branch, but I think the Democrats would take a short-term knock in public opinion in order to prevent the current tilt of the courts for a couple decades.

ETA: That said, I can't see 2/3 of the states agreeing to do it. There will be enough states like CA and NY that would oppose limiting SCOTUS that an Amendment would die. I've already seen a lot of people proposing to basically turn the Senate into the House of Representatives and give California more senators, despite it being deliberately designed to give equal weight to all the states.
 

center442

NES Member
Rating - 100%
40   0   0
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
8,838
Likes
1,653
Location
Southcoast of PRM
After FDR died, they got presidential terms limits correctly implemented, but they missed this one, yes.
An 8-7 liberal majority would be rough...court packing would basically destroy the judicial branch, but I think the Democrats would take a short-term knock in public opinion in order to prevent the current tilt of the courts for a couple decades.

ETA: That said, I can't see 2/3 of the states agreeing to do it. There will be enough states like CA and NY that would oppose limiting SCOTUS that an Amendment would die. I've already seen a lot of people proposing to basically turn the Senate into the House of Representatives and give California more senators, despite it being deliberately designed to give equal weight to all the states.
Getting such an amendment passed would be an uphill battle. Right now, it's all just talk by the DEMs, so I think a lot of people aren't seeing the dangers that are inherent in any push to pack the court. If the DEMs do make a serious attempt at it, I think that just might be the catalyst to trigger enough states to say "ENOUGH!"

As for term limits, my favorite response to that is that we already have those. We call them elections. ;) I know that eliminating Presidential term limits might have resulted in Obama getting another term or two, but really, if people are dumb enough to do that then they deserve to feel the pain. Stupidity should be painful, and I realize that the pain will affect everyone. It won't discriminate, and everyone will suffer, which is a depressing thought, but term limits are an attempt to keep fools from the consequences of their own foolishness, and that's a battle you can never win. Nature keeps building better fools. :(
 

daekken

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Feb 5, 2015
Messages
5,156
Likes
6,170
Location
NH
The only hopes for court-packing is that a.) Republicans retain the Senate or White House, which means the Democrats can't pack the court or b.) the people make it very, very clear that packing the court is not acceptable, across the board.

If the Republicans are smart, they might want to bring up Harry Reid's removal of the filibuster, which Democrats thought was a great move at the time and has now come back to bite them badly here. It's the short-sightedness that kills people.

These numbers need to shift:
1603826401771.png

I'm pleasantly surprised that many Independents are opposed, but I wish it was more like 60-65%.
 

Horrible

NES Member
Rating - 100%
16   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
11,879
Likes
3,858
Location
NOLA
The only hopes for court-packing is that a.) Republicans retain the Senate or White House, which means the Democrats can't pack the court or b.) the people make it very, very clear that packing the court is not acceptable, across the board.

If the Republicans are smart, they might want to bring up Harry Reid's removal of the filibuster, which Democrats thought was a great move at the time and has now come back to bite them badly here. It's the short-sightedness that kills people.

These numbers need to shift:
View attachment 404421

I'm pleasantly surprised that many Independents are opposed, but I wish it was more like 60-65%.
If the Dems win, they will pack the court. Doesn’t matter what the polls say
 
Top Bottom