Wow, the stupidity of liberals continues to amaze me!

YouBet said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

The GOP would be wise to not expend political capital opposing the forthcoming nomination.

It's not a winnable fight, and will likely only result in lots of accusations of Republicans being racist and such. It'd be a silly self-inflicted wound months before an election that is setting up to be a windfall for Republicans.

Know when you've got the cards and when to bet big. This ain't it.

---

I would agree. It's a 1:1 swap. Hope that Biden nominates someone who is somewhat qualified and might trend to the middle every now and then and move on.

---

Is it a 1:1 swap if hilary ends up as the second selected versus elected president?

i'm sure whoever the nominee will be is in for an unpleasant confirmation process. no doubt republicans and conservative media are salivating at the chance to get some revenge for kav and ACB here, but the stakes are pretty low for republicans. a comfortable conservative majority is assured for quite some time regardless of who ends up taking Breyer's spot.

my bet is the dems unite to push through whoever Biden nominates. don't see much incentive for the moderate dem senators to stonewall.

WTH?

Anyone who voted for this dumbass because "muhhhh Trump" is a colossal moron.

Biden's nominee grabbed my ass

BenFiasco14 said:

---

Biden's nominee grabbed my ass

---

You too?

You're lucky. All I got was a hair on a coke can.

Mr. AGSPRT04 said:

---

You're lucky. All I got was a hair on a coke can.

---

Believe that was a pubic hair on a Coke can.

aggiehawg said:

---

Mr. AGSPRT04 said:

---

You're lucky. All I got was a hair on a coke can.

---

Believe that was a pubic hair on a Coke can.

---

She kept wanting me to watch some seafaring tale about Long something Silver

Keegan99 said:

---

The GOP would be wise to not expend political capital opposing the forthcoming nomination.

It's not a winnable fight, and will likely only result in lots of accusations of Republicans being racist and such. It'd be a silly self-inflicted wound months before an election that is setting up to be a windfall for Republicans.

Know when you've got the cards and when to bet big. This ain't it.

---

Which people on the fence are we trying to impress by just standing by?

If a justice is wrong for America, then a Senator is duty bound to stand up.

FJB said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

The GOP would be wise to not expend political capital opposing the forthcoming nomination.

It's not a winnable fight, and will likely only result in lots of accusations of Republicans being racist and such. It'd be a silly self-inflicted wound months before an election that is setting up to be a windfall for Republicans.

Know when you've got the cards and when to bet big. This ain't it.

---

Which people on the fence are we trying to impress by just standing by?

If a justice is wrong for America, then a Senator is duty bound to stand up.

---

Which people?

The swing voters that decide elections.

I don't like their wet-noodle worldview either, but if the GOP is committed to alienating them - in a fight the GOP can't win! - then it's going to lose a lot of elections.

Keegan99 said:

---

FJB said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

The GOP would be wise to not expend political capital opposing the forthcoming nomination.

It's not a winnable fight, and will likely only result in lots of accusations of Republicans being racist and such. It'd be a silly self-inflicted wound months before an election that is setting up to be a windfall for Republicans.

Know when you've got the cards and when to bet big. This ain't it.

---

Which people on the fence are we trying to impress by just standing by?

If a justice is wrong for America, then a Senator is duty bound to stand up.

---

Which people?

The swing voters that decide elections.

I don't like their wet-noodle worldview either, but if the GOP is committed to alienating them - in a fight the GOP can't win! - then it's going to lose a lot of elections.

---

In a fair and transparent election, I would be more open to actually winning over voters. In the world we live in today it is literally fighting with one hand already behind your back. Every liberal judge, justice, or politician elected or appointed only cements the likelihood that it never becomes honest.

Gigemags382 said:

---

PredictIt betting odds for SCOTUS nominee. It is obvious that the the Dems are expected to nominate someone solely based on the quality of their character and not the color of their skin.

K Brown Jackson - $65c
Leondra Kruger - $23c
J Michelle Childs - $14c
Kamala Harris - $2c
C. Jackson-Akiwumi - $1c

---

If it's Leondra Kruger, the Senate should confirm her right away. There's a lot of way worse picks that could be made, and she's the best bet to not be another Ginsberg on the high court.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Gigemags382 said:

---

PredictIt betting odds for SCOTUS nominee. It is obvious that the the Dems are expected to nominate someone solely based on the quality of their character and not the color of their skin.

K Brown Jackson - $65c
Leondra Kruger - $23c
J Michelle Childs - $14c
Kamala Harris - $2c
C. Jackson-Akiwumi - $1c

---

If it's Leondra Kruger, the Senate should confirm her right away. There's a lot of way worse picks that could be made, and she's the best bet to not be another Ginsberg on the high court.

---

There will be nothing moderate about this pick. They may act moderate but once in they'll be as radical as you'd expect. Look at Garland, he was sold as a moderate and he's doing things to make Putin blush.

FJB said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

FJB said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

The GOP would be wise to not expend political capital opposing the forthcoming nomination.

It's not a winnable fight, and will likely only result in lots of accusations of Republicans being racist and such. It'd be a silly self-inflicted wound months before an election that is setting up to be a windfall for Republicans.

Know when you've got the cards and when to bet big. This ain't it.

---

Which people on the fence are we trying to impress by just standing by?

If a justice is wrong for America, then a Senator is duty bound to stand up.

---

Which people?

The swing voters that decide elections.

I don't like their wet-noodle worldview either, but if the GOP is committed to alienating them - in a fight the GOP can't win! - then it's going to lose a lot of elections.

---

In a fair and transparent election, I would be more open to actually winning over voters. In the world we live in today it is literally fighting with one hand already behind your back. Every liberal judge, justice, or politician elected or appointed only cements the likelihood that it never becomes honest.

---

So, you are convinced Republicans can't win an election, and should just go down in a blaze of glory. Sounds like a winning strategy to me.

FJB said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

FJB said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

The GOP would be wise to not expend political capital opposing the forthcoming nomination.

It's not a winnable fight, and will likely only result in lots of accusations of Republicans being racist and such. It'd be a silly self-inflicted wound months before an election that is setting up to be a windfall for Republicans.

Know when you've got the cards and when to bet big. This ain't it.

---

Which people on the fence are we trying to impress by just standing by?

If a justice is wrong for America, then a Senator is duty bound to stand up.

---

Which people?

The swing voters that decide elections.

I don't like their wet-noodle worldview either, but if the GOP is committed to alienating them - in a fight the GOP can't win! - then it's going to lose a lot of elections.

---

In a fair and transparent election, I would be more open to actually winning over voters. In the world we live in today it is literally fighting with one hand already behind your back. Every liberal judge, justice, or politician elected or appointed only cements the likelihood that it never becomes honest.

---

So you feel it is worth sacrificing senate seats and house seats in a futile effort to stop a nominee that will inevitably be confirmed to sit on the Supreme Court? Do I have that right?

HTownAg98 said:

---

Gigemags382 said:

---

PredictIt betting odds for SCOTUS nominee. It is obvious that the the Dems are expected to nominate someone solely based on the quality of their character and not the color of their skin.

K Brown Jackson - $65c
Leondra Kruger - $23c
J Michelle Childs - $14c
Kamala Harris - $2c
C. Jackson-Akiwumi - $1c

---

If it's Leondra Kruger, the Senate should confirm her right away. There's a lot of way worse picks that could be made, and she's the best bet to not be another Ginsberg on the high court.

---

Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog wrote an in depth review on Kruger.

It is HERE if anyone cares to read up her.

Biden doesn't seem to be in a rush.

Quote:

---

"It is my intention," Biden says at the end of this clip, "to announce my decision before the end of February. … I have made no choice at this point."

---

Link

Oh crap.

Quote:

---

"I want us to make sure that it is a black woman, I want to make sure that it's a woman that will get universal support. When I say universal, I mean bipartisan support," Clyburn, the House majority whip, told CNN Wednesday night.

"And I know that Michelle Childs will have the support of several Republicans, including the two Republican senators from South Carolina," he added, referring to Sens. Tim Scott and Lindsey Graham.
Clyburn told ABC News that he had talked with Scott and Graham and described both as "very high on Michelle Childs, and so I think that both of them would vote for her if her name were to be put in nomination."

---

Link

Too old and doesn't have the academic pedigree.

Keegan99 said:

---

Too old and doesn't have the academic pedigree.

---

But what is more important to Biden? The huge favor he owes Clyburn?

Or having a nominee that will get at least two GOP Senator's for supporting the nom? Lindsey can be the vote that gets her out of committee.

Besides, she's 55. Easily 25+ years on the Court.

Clyburn was just doing what the party bosses told him to do.

Again, she went to USCe Law School. That ain't gonna get ya a SCOTUS seat.

Lindsey will be collegial and support the nominee barring scandal. There was a lot of collegiality on the committee throughout the ACB hearings. This will return the favor.

Keegan99 said:

---

Clyburn was just doing what the party bosses told him to do.

Again, she went to USCe Law School. That ain't gonna get ya a SCOTUS seat.

Lindsey will be collegial and support the nominee barring scandal. There was a lot of collegiality on the committee throughout the ACB hearings. This will return the favor.

---

I'm not that sure that educational facilities attended are that big of a deal right now. Ivy League schools are not that in favor, especially with the Harvard admissions policies coming up for next term.

At least four sitting Justices received the email sent out by the Harvard University President which he sent out in response to the grant of cert on that case.

I have already laid out the reasons that Ketanji would have to recuse and possibly Kagan over that case. Balancing act.

Law School attended is ALWAYS a big deal for a SCOTUS nominee. It is very much about the pedigree.

The Ivy League/Stanford fetish of recent decades will not last forever.

aggiehawg said:

---

Something else to consider Feinstein is in her late 80s, Leahy is over 80 as well. Feinstein keels over Newsome just appoints another lib Dem, may or not be on the committee. Schumer can sub someone in to keep the numbers. BUT, if Leahy keels over, Governor of Vermont is GOP. Power shifts in the Senate and Schumer is not Majority Leader.

There could be some twists and turns to come.

---

NM

That was last year.

Oops. My bad.

will25u said:

---

Oops. My bad.

---

You got my hopes up.

BREAKING NEWS: Joe Biden announces he will replace Tom Brady with a black woman.

— Randy Griggs (@RandyGriggs13) January 29, 2022