You think Ruth is going to make it another year.

[ktjones]

[ATTACH]945732[/ATTACH]

[Capt.Brown]

Roberts hates trump, unless she dies she will not resign, he won’t let her.

[Man]

This is the last article I can find of her existence....and even it leaves much to the imagination.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ry/2774939002/

[texasnavy05]

Is there a certain time frame that the senate can deny/postpone a nomination? Scalia died 9 months before the 2016 election and that nomination was postponed. Surely, there is some sort of rule about this. Otherwise, the senate could just refuse to allow appointment indefinitely if the senate/president disagree.

[-HIC-]

Is there a certain time frame that the senate can deny/postpone a nomination? Scalia died 9 months before the 2016 election and that nomination was postponed. Surely, there is some sort of rule about this. Otherwise, the senate could just refuse to allow appointment indefinitely if the senate/president disagree.

I am not aware of one. Since the Republicans have the majority in the Senate it should not be an issue.

[BowBuddy2]

This is the last article I can find of her existence....and even it leaves much to the imagination.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ry/2774939002/

If anyone thinks that an 85 yo frail women will be able to recover from cancer and surgery to adequately reassume work responsibilities are disillusioned. So there is an article about this as a supreme justice and carrying on duties. I imagine the count down has started.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BowBuddy2]

BTW there is a picture that is floating around that demonstrates proof the Ruthless is still with us. It has been debunked as photoshopped


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[texasnavy05]

I am not aware of one. Since the Republicans have the majority in the Senate it should not be an issue.

Might be fine this time, but seems like a dangerous precedent to set.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

[-HIC-]

Might be fine this time, but seems like a dangerous precedent to set.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

It was set by the Dems under Oboma (Nuclear Option). BTW, it is the only way we got Gorsuch and Kavanaugh in.

[texasnavy05]

It was set by the Dems under Oboma (Nuclear Option). BTW, it is the only way we got Gorsuch and Kavanaugh in.

It's working out in favor this time, but I wouldn't assume it always will.
It seems dangerous to me that the senate that can deny a supreme court appointment to an undefined point. Scalia replacement was denied 9 months before the election. Next time it might be 12. or 15. etc. I'd be fine with saying appointments will be postponed within 9 months of a presidential election. No biggie. But, the line needs to be drawn somewhere.

The POTUS's ability to appoint supreme court justices is IMO the most important thing they can do. And, the senate should not be able to block that outside of a reasonable, predetermined time frame.

[SaltwaterSlick]

It's working out in favor this time, but I wouldn't assume it always will.
It seems dangerous to me that the senate that can deny a supreme court appointment to an undefined point. Scalia replacement was denied 9 months before the election. Next time it might be 12. or 15. etc. I'd be fine with saying appointments will be postponed within 9 months of a presidential election. No biggie. But, the line needs to be drawn somewhere.

The POTUS's ability to appoint supreme court justices is IMO the most important thing they can do. And, the senate should not be able to block that outside of a reasonable, predetermined time frame.

The way it was discussed during the Merrit Garland attempt by Oh bummer, was that the precedent was that a federal nominee was not done during an election year (last year of a term) for a president when the Senate was controlled by the opposing party... IF the senate and president are of the same party, there's no problem. The nominee can be presented, approved and confirmed if the part so wishes.

In this case, Trump can nominate a new Justice and the senate can approve it right up to the election.

[toaster]

Dems are rabid to get rid of Trump because they know he will outlast RBG.

[texasnavy05]

The way it was discussed during the Merrit Garland attempt by Oh bummer, was that the precedent was that a federal nominee was not done during an election year (last year of a term) for a president when the Senate was controlled by the opposing party... IF the senate and president are of the same party, there's no problem. The nominee can be presented, approved and confirmed if the part so wishes.



In this case, Trump can nominate a new Justice and the senate can approve it right up to the election.

So there is some consistency regarding this. Thanks for the info.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

[BowBuddy2]

By the rules she should be done, she is unable to carry one her duties


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TXHunter12]

Has she been seen recently?