Supreme Court

62 Percent of Americans Want the Senate to Vote on Trump's Supreme Court Pick Before Midterms

The Senate should confirm or reject Trump's Supreme Court nominee before the November elections, poll respondents say.

|

Jonathan Ernst/REUTERS/Newscom

More than 60 percent of Americans think the Senate should vote on President Donald Trump's nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy before the November midterm elections, according to a new poll.

An NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll conducted between June 27 and July 1 revealed that 62 percent of respondents think the Senate should either confirm or reject Trump's pick before the midterms. On the other hand, 33 percent think the Senate should wait until after the elections.

Most Republicans and independents—85 percent and 61 percent, respectively—want the Senate to vote on Trump's nominee before the midterms. However, 55 percent of Democrats don't want a vote until after the elections. Republicans currently hold a slim 51–49 majority in the upper chamber of Congress, meaning that by waiting until after the elections, the GOP risks losing control of the Senate.

The poll's results run counter to the message top Democrats have pushed in recent days—that the Senate should wait until a new Congress is seated before voting on Trump's nominee. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) said on the Senate floor last week that Republicans "should follow the rule they set in 2016, not to consider a Supreme Court justice in an election year." He added that "millions of people are just months away from determining the senators who should vote to confirm or reject the president's nominee, and their voices deserve to be heard now."

Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D–Ill.) expressed similar sentiments, as did Sens. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) and Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.). However, Senate Majority Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) has indicated he wants to move quickly to vote on Trump's nominee.

Trump has yet to announce his choice to replace Kennedy, though he said he will do so on July 9. In a tweet early Tuesday morning, he said he interviewed "4 very impressive people yesterday."

Americans are sharply divided along partisan lines regarding what kind of justice they want on the Supreme Court. A majority of Republicans—65 percent—want Trump's nominee to be conservative, while 63 percent of independents and 53 percent of Democrats think he or she should be moderate.

The NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll also gauged Americans' opinions on whether or not they want Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that legalized abortion at the federal level, to be overturned. With the retirement of Kennedy, who, in the landmark 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, joined the plurality opinion upholding Roe v. Wade, many people are predicting that Roe could be overturned. According to the poll, though, 61 percent of Americans think Trump's nominee should uphold the 1973 ruling.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

130 responses to “62 Percent of Americans Want the Senate to Vote on Trump's Supreme Court Pick Before Midterms

  1. Fuckin’ LOL at anyone who’s delusional enough to think that Kennedy’s replacement is going to result in Roe v. Wade being overturned.

    1. They don’t actually believe this, but it’s the most effective fearmongering card they have left in the deck. It’s pretty much the ONLY card they have left, really.

    2. And even if it did, that wouldn’t make abortion illegal. it would just throw it back to the states. And i would be surprised if more than five states actually banned abortion if they could. As long as it is legal in one state, it is effectively legal everywhere. You can just drive to where it is legal and get one.

      1. They are more afraid of the fact that the Court will start allowing states to restrict abortions past twenty weeks. They talk about overturning Roe rather than discussing the twenty week restriction, because such a restriction is extremely popular with the public.

        And, yes, with Kennedy’s replacement there absolutely will be a case where the Court starts allowing states more leeway in restricting abortion in the second and third trimester. Overturning Roe, in whole, though, is exceptionally unlikely.

        http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2…..ek-aborti/

        1. “They talk about overturning Roe rather than discussing the twenty week restriction…”

          Good point. Makes the “pro-choice” faction a bit uncomfortable to have it out there, that sure, if you want to abort a 35-week old baby, no worries. So, even the abortion debate has become super-polarised where neither side can’t admit to any moderation: it’s either murder from Day 1 or a woman’s right until natural delivery, with politicians kowtowing to small but important blocks of voters, leaving the great majority of folks who are fine with time-limited abortion observing a never-ending shit show.

          But this one they can’t win. Fuck ’em. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

      2. So is abortion equivalent to child murder or not? You’d think you’d be a little less nonchalant about being able to murder children across state lines.

        1. Whatever it is, I am not paying for it. And you are a fucking flaming queer. Other than just your usual fascination with murder, what the hell do you care about abortion?

          Tony, the trans people lied to you. You can’t get pregnant you fucking moron.

          1. I hate children. The more abortion the better.

            Do you never get exhausted by being such an ridiculous hypocrite about literally everything?

            1. Yes Tony. You hate humanity. We know that.

            2. Here you see Tony outmaneuvered by John’s unexpected but effective rhetoric. Tony, unprepared for such a move, was forced to attempt to save face by spouting gibberish about hypocrisy.

              John, used to such activity, is hardly one to accept such a play.

              Let’s watch!

              1. “Flaming queer” was particularly effective rhetoric, don’t you think?

                1. It is what you claim to be Tony. What, did you go straight or something and not tell us?

                  1. Not that it matters, but I don’t flame. Too much.

              2. Yes, effective rhetoric like “you fucking flaming queer.” Good stuff.

                1. Yes Tony, indeed! “Flaming queer” was a brilliant rhetorical move! No one, even your humble narrator, expected it! Now, knowing John has his number, Tony is left in the uncomfortable position of denying what is known to be true, or resorting to the overplayed “homophobe!” card. Once a very powerful card, new SJW upgrade packs have made it nearly worthelss! Oh, what an exciting development! Can Tony make it work?!?!?

                  And now, a third player????

                  “Yes, effective rhetoric like “you fucking flaming queer.” Good stuff.”

                  OMG SHE TOO WAS LEFT FUMBLING BY JOHN’S MOVE!!!! SHE REPEATED TONY’S PLAY!!! WHAT IS SHE EVEN DOING HERE!?!!? HOW DID THIS BUSH LEAGUER END UP IN THE CAGE WITH THESE TWO LUNATICS?!??!??

                  Someone throw in the towel before she gets destroyed!!!! Oh the horror!!!!

                  1. John’s bigotry is pure comedy, and as comedy it’s the best we’re gonna get from him.

                    1. Oh dear, Tony responds with the completely ineffective bigotry card. Truth is an absolute defense as everyone knows, and Tony doesn’t seem to have a “because I DECIDED IT IS” card to turn John’s completely true attack around, and make the bigotry charge stick.

                      It seems Tony knows he’s beaten and has decided to save his resources for another day. Ah well, he was outclassed, but gave a good effort. Perhaps with some practice he can one day be an effective major leaguer.

                    2. Ah yes, how could I forget, “If I’m a shithead and all my friends are too, it makes us right”?

                    3. Listen, you seem to be an idiot Cathy, so I’ll save you any more embarrassment.

                      “”If I’m a shithead and all my friends are too, it makes us right”?”

                      That stupid post I quoted? Yeah, it doesn’t even make sense as a reply. Tony IS what John called him. It is a description Tony has used for himself before. And yes, you retard, before you were posting. It has exactly ZERO to do with “friends” you fucking clown. It’s called reality. You can’t even make a post which makes sense. Why do you even bother posting if you’re so fucking stupid that you can’t even post something that makes sense? Jesus Christ are you a jackass.

                      No one said anything about friends you moron. The truth doesn’t rely on friends you dumbass. You don’t even make sense fuckwit.

                      God damn, you are literally the dumbest fucking poster here, in basically 0 time.

                    4. Seriously are you ACTUALLY retarded Cathy? How is it you can be so self assured and yet so fucking stupid simultaneously?

                    5. The fucking idiot says “Ah yes, how could I forget, “If I’m a shithead and all my friends are too, it makes us right”?” like it has ANYTHING to do with the posts. It’s like you had a lobotomy and can’t understand anything happening and DESPERATELY want people to know it.

                      Cathy “herp derp FRIENDS herp derp SHITHEAD”

                      Me “That doesn’t make sense idiot, you are having a psychotic break, seek even more mental help than you currently receive”

                      Cathy “HERP DERP DERP HERP CALIMARI!!?’

                    6. Which one of the regulars ran out of meds today?

        2. It is equivalent to child murder to some, but that’s a value judgment that isn’t shared by everyone.

          Notably, the best rationale for legal abortion is the conflicting natural rights angle but we’ve explained it so many times that it’s a wonder you still cite religious fundamentalists as if that’s a compelling argument put forward by any majority of people.

          1. I think the debate is more binary than you are suggesting. If it’s child murder, fine. No expense must be spared to prevent it and appropriately sanction the perpetrators.

            If it’s not actually murder, then what are we talking about? Making sure women’s crotches don’t go too unpoliced, lest they encourage our daughters to be loose? If it’s not actually a moral abomination, what exactly are we compromising about? And if it is, how can we possibly compromise?

            1. If it’s not actually murder, then what are we talking about?

              I’m sure there’s a line of enforcement between “no abortions, ever” and “abortion should be legal all the way up to the point where the baby’s head is in the birth canal”.

            2. It’s only binary among people like yourself and the far right. The vast, vast majority of people throughout the country are in the middle and believe in restrictions not bans.

              Again, since you’re unable to read, it is equivalent to child murder to some and that is a value judgment not shared by everyone. However, I’d wager if you start talking abortion after 8 months you’d fine just about everyone in lock-step agreement that it’s murder and should absolutely be banned.

              The argument is more fundamentally about the legal definition of when personhood begins. To argue against a ‘total ban’ position is to argue against a position that few people actually hold and it makes you look like an idiot to extrapolate that out into the broader populace. Needless to say, the reason why is because you actually are an idiot.

              1. A total ban and the associated horrors that go with it is what they want. It’s not a secret. Isn’t that a bigger problem than whatever you’re accusing me of?

                Draw the line at the third trimester and be done with it. Make exceptions for health. Safe and legal abortions means that late-term abortions will be extremely rare. Outlawing them as much as they have in, say, Texas, actually increases late-term abortions.

                Focus on the morons with the evil ideas.

                1. A total ban and the associated horrors that go with it is what they want. It’s not a secret. Isn’t that a bigger problem than whatever you’re accusing me of?

                  I’ll repeat: “Fuckin’ LOL at anyone who’s delusional enough to think that Kennedy’s replacement is going to result in Roe v. Wade being overturned.”


                2. Isn’t that a bigger problem than whatever you’re accusing me of?

                  No, not really since as I pointed out it’s not going to happen. Your drawing of lines is pretty amusing though, and you’re either doubling down on troll or have no idea what you’re talking about. Given your history, I’ll go with both.

                  Shitting the bed and panic mongering over abortion being ruled illegal across the whole U.S. is one way to get more Trump, for sure.

          2. …we’ve explained it so many times that it’s a wonder you still…

            Deliberate obtuseness (or real honest to God idiocy) is kinda his schtick.

      3. 10 states have unenforced bans on the books, and four have bans that automatically become law if Roe v Wade is overturned. So, 14 states without any action.

        And many states already are working on de facto bans.

        1. Shush. There are a weird number of people here that think pro-life activists aren’t serious when they say they want to ban abortion.

          1. True, but the fact is that these decisions really belong at the state level. The populace of a state should have more say in what is and is not a community standard of morality. I would argue the same is doubly true of cities.

            While I obviously have my own opinions, a more grassroots level of common shared values is generally superior even when it sometimes pisses off the minority. Dictating a common national morality is, obviously, much harder and less representative.

            1. How many fundamental freedoms should your city get a vote on?

              1. Constitutionally speaking any freedoms not explicitly spelled out in the Bill of Rights since anything not written down there is assumed to be the purview of the states or the people themselves. RE: The amendment process for getting around that.

                1. And in terms of a city, they would have the say over ‘fundamental freedoms’, whatever those are, that their state allows them a say in. What they would be in particular would be up to the people, so I can’t answer that part.

          2. And they admit it, unlike the anti-2A activists who only want “common sense gun control”.

            There probably isn’t much overlap between the 2 groups, except for the desire to tell people they don’t agree with how to run their lives.

        2. Without any citation, claims you pull out of your ass are not very convincing.

          What does “many states” even mean? Likely it means none. If there were any, you would name them. Moreover, what does “working on a ban” mean? Nothing.

          If you are going to come on here and troll, at least learn how to play the game. This is just a sorry ass effort.

          1. Not everyone is trolling, you know, just because you are.

            And Google isn’t very hard to use.

            1. Imagine the horror if we had the same abortion laws as the rest of the industrialized world. The. Horror.

              1. Do you want the same freedom of speech as the rest of the industrialized world, too?

                1. Freedom of speech doesn’t involve “killing”. I think abortion should be legal, but I also think it’s insane to get riled up over infanticide being illegal. I’m weird that way

                  1. Okay, so your comparison to the rest of the industrialized world is irrelevant to your beliefs and policy position on abortion, and is just a red herring for you to constantly toss out when the topic comes up in comments. Just as I suspected.

                    1. Not at all, actually. You really don’t get the difference between disallowing an abortion after twenty weeks versus allowing it past twenty weeks?

                      I’ll break it down: before twenty weeks would still be one of the most liberal abortion laws in the industrialized world (most of Europe has twelve weeks). After twenty weeks is borderline infantcide and is practiced in great utopias like China, Cuba, and Vietnam.

                      You like infantcide. I, a normal person, don’t.

                    2. You really don’t get the difference between disallowing an abortion after twenty weeks versus allowing it past twenty weeks?

                      I do. In one case, you are preventing women from ending pregnancies after 20 weeks gestation, and in the other case, you are not.

            2. 17 states have laws that could be used to restrict the legal status of abortion.
              4 states have laws that automatically ban abortion if Roe were to be overturned.
              10 states retain their unenforced, pre-Roe abortion bans.
              7 states have laws that express their intent to restrict the right to legal abortion to the maximum extent permitted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the absence of Roe.

              17 states have laws that could be used but there is no evidence they would be used. 4 states actually would ban abortion. And 17 states would enact some measure of restriction but have no bans on the books. So you are left with 4 states it would be illegal, 17 states where it would still be legal but perhaps restricted in the late terms or by minors or such and the other 29 states where it would be likely legal and unrestricted.

              You just proved my point Cathy. Thanks.

              1. You left out the 10 where pre-Roe bans are still on the books and only unenforced because of Roe.

                1. But like the other states, there is no evidence they plan to enforce those laws. The only states you can say for sure would ban abortion are the four that automatically do so if Roe is ever repealed. Even if those ten states did, it is still 14 out of 50 states.

                  Again, you just proved my point. Thanks for saving me the time to Google it.

        3. I’ll repeat: “Fuckin’ LOL at anyone who’s delusional enough to think that Kennedy’s replacement is going to result in Roe v. Wade being overturned.”

      4. You can just drive to where it is legal and get one.

        Yeah, that won’t get any howls of derision at all from the usual suspects. (See: voter id)

      5. The biggest irony to me is that states like California have been pushing for more states rights and now that they’re going to maybe get it they’re freaking the fuck out. Legislators at the State level are no more fond of accountability or doing their jobs than their national counterparts, it turns out.

    3. I’m so glad we’re talking about abortion again!

      1. And by “we” you mean the left wing JournoList and their Professional Fake Libertarian friends here at Reason.

    4. At this point, I think the Republitards should simply ignore the Demoncraps and act as if they do not exist. Confirm whomever Trump selects. All the choices on the list are good enough.

      As for Roe v. Wade, I don’t really have a dog in that fight – but one area where the Court should rule is the important question of, “When does life begin?”

      If, for example, life begins at birth, then the status quo is fine. Conversely, if life begins when a fetus is independently viable, that changes the landscape a bit – denying women late-term abortions, something the “abortion is murder” crowd would certainly appreciate.

      The question is relevant outside the realm of the abortion issue. Suppose a pregnant woman is en route to an abortion provider to terminate her pregnancy. The biological father, unaware that this is her destination, and who does not want to be saddled with 18 years of child support payments, waylays the woman and induces an abortion, but does not injure the woman in any way. Under current law: The father is guilty of murder for terminating the pregnancy. But had the woman reached the abortionist’s office and terminated the pregnancy for the same reason – that she did not want to be a parent – no penalty would attach! These are two widely disparate results for the same situation.

  2. I think they should definitely wait. What’s sauce for the goose is good for the gander.

    1. The Democrats didn’t wait to confirm Kagan the summer before the 2010 midterms. This is no different. Waiting in 2016 was waiting to see if the new President wanted to make a different nomination. Waiting for the midterms is entirely different. It serves no purpose at all beyond needlessly delaying the confirmation vote.

      1. Don’t defend McConnell’s actions on principle. That was some pristine Machiavellian bullshit, you might as well celebrate it for what it was.

        1. The only “principle” of politics is whoever is in the majority makes the vote schedule.

        2. I just did defend it. He is acting no different than Reid did in 2010. And no one on either side complained then.

          You lost the election Tony. And chances are you are going to continue to lose elections. Watching the other side appoint and confirm Supreme Court Justices is part of being out of power. You need to get used to it. As much fun and enjoyment watching your misery is, at some point, it gets tiresome even for me.

          1. How do you think I feel, watching Past Me blow out his asshole? Lemme tell ya, that was a long month in the hospital.

          2. Yeah see I have never enjoyed other people being in misery. I don’t know whom you’re trying to impress with what is apparently an innate condition of psychopathy.

            I was just typing “I hope John blames Harry Reid for Mitch McConnell’s machinations” or some such. You beat me to the punch. You’re so fucking predictable I could set my fucking watch to you.

            1. Seriously Past Me, you gotta destress BEFORE you spend that month in the hospital.

            2. The rules are what they are. I don’t blame Reid or McConnell for flowing them. You are just pissed you are out of power. Well tough shit. Get used to it. Because you are way too crazy, stupid and evil for the country to ever trust your ilk with it again.

              1. The country already prefers my ilk by consistent majorities. You evil fuckstains just cheat to win.

                For the record I blame Democrats for not keeping up with the sheer evil anti-democracy insanity of Republicans. You really think Christ wanted all this? You think Trump is speaking in Christ’s name?

                This is really a lot of moral compromising for the sole purpose of forcing women to give birth against their will, which, it should go without saying, is evil policy all by itself.

                1. The loser’s cry of “you guys cheated” from the party that opposes EVERY effort to curtail cheating in elections.
                  Tell me; where are all those districts with zero Republican votes cast, from the election where 3.5 million fewer demoncrap votes were cast for pResident, that seemed to disappear the next go-around?

            3. You know there’s more to life than arguing about two men (McConnel and Schumer) who could care less whether you and John live or die.

  3. People want the vote ASAP to end the screaming and bullshit from the Dems. Trump makes the appt either way.

    1. Obviously, they’re waiting for #bluewave to ensure that Trump has to nominate a pro-choice antifa activist.

      1. Pretty much everyone realizes it’s for nakedly political purposes, which makes it all the more astounding that the number who want to confirm a justice now is as high as it is.

        I never really trust statistics though, so to be consistent I must also doubt these.

        I can at least hope that this means that the populace isn’t as interested in politicizing the SCOTUS as the parties themselves are, and most especially the Progressives, but I’m sure I’m wrong there.

  4. “Trump has yet to announce his choice to replace Kennedy, though he said he will do so on July 9.”

    Celebrity Apprentice: Supreme Court Edition

    “In this challenge, Justice Barrett and Justice Kavanaugh must write a court opinion in the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld based only upon President Trump’s understanding of the Bill of Rights, while blindfolded”

    1. Trump: Jessica- may I call you Jessica, Judge Barrett?

      Barrett: My name is Amy…

      Trump: Jessica, I like your penmanship. It’s very neat. Very classy. We’re all happy about it

      Barrett: Thank you, Mr. President. And the opinion that I wrote?

      Trump: Too long. People don’t want to read that. To be honest, I am probably the best read president, of all time- many people have said that- it’s true- and frankly I couldn’t get past the second sentence.

  5. I think we should wait until it’s determined whether POTUS is a traitor.

    1. How much longer do you think it will take?

      1. Through November of 2024.

    2. The 80s called and they want their foreign policy back.

      1. Reagan’s treason was small potatoes compared to this shit.

        1. And he is going to be President for 8 years Tony. 8 years. I think you should take up arms. I really do. You need to get out there and resist this.

          1. Maybe at some point during those 8 years you’ll come to the epiphany that trolling the libturds should not in fact be the primary project of modern democracy.

            1. Tony, that works both ways. Don’t pretend like you don’t troll

              1. I’m not the president.

                1. Oh, I misunderstood the comment then. Yeah, the president does exist to troll. To be fair, though, it’s very easy to troll people who are suffering from a mental breakdown over an election. But, yeah, his trolling is unbecoming and stupid

    3. We let Obama do it and he was owned by Putin and the mullahs.

    4. What? No, no. Hillary lost. So it’s OK.

  6. Now that we have NBC News/SurveyMonkey polls, why do we even need a Supreme Court anymore? It was created like a hundred years ago anyway.

    1. Or Congress, for that matter. Send everyone a Survey Monkey poll. Each Congressional District could just elect a representative, then the representatives get to vote on which 10 poll questions to send out to America each month. To ensure some stability, new laws passed by public opinion polls could only be changed after one year.

      1. Well, for one thing a direct democracy is one of the surest paths to a tyranny of the majority but I guess if you’re in the majority that would make sense.

        1. If it turns tyrannical, just have another survey/vote to not be a tyranny anymore. Do you even Change.org, bro?

  7. Most Republicans and independents?85 percent and 61 percent, respectively?want the Senate to vote on Trump’s nominee before the midterms. However, 55 percent of Democrats don’t want a vote until after the elections.

    Once again, Democrats have the correct position. And people think I’m a parody account for advocating a progressive / libertarian alliance?

    Let me be clear ? confirming another right-wing extremist similar to Gorsuch will be an absolute catastrophe. The nationwide availability of access to abortion care is in serious jeopardy. Drumpf and his religious fundamentalist base are already far too close to turning this country into The Handmaid’s Tale. We cannot allow them this victory.

    Contact your US Senators and tell them there must be no new SC justices until these three things happen:
    (a) Next year’s #BlueWave Congress is in session,
    (b) The relationship between Putin’s Puppet and Kennedy’s son has been fully explained, and
    (c) Mueller announces the conclusion of his investigation into #TrumpRussia and Congress has decided whether to #Impeach.

    1. OBL, you do realize this isn’t Twitter, right? Hashtags don’t work here.

    2. Claiming the Democrats are going to take the Senate, just gives the Republicans more reason to confirm now.

      You idiots really don’t understand how this stuff works do you?

      1. There’s that too.

      2. Only lunatics think the Senate is going to switch majorities.
        Of the seats up for election, TEN are demoncraps that are in states that voted for Trump.
        One Republican is in a state that HiLIARy carried.
        Assuming the rest maintain their partisan positions, any number, that goes with how the majority voted in 2016, will be a larger majority for the Republicans.
        The only question is how many Senate seats the Republicans will gain.

    3. If by “right-wing extremist*” you mean “strict constitutionalist” then I say we need as many more on the court as possible as they are the only justices who should be on the court in the first place. SCOTUS is not just supposed to read things into the constitution that are not there.

      *”Extreme” is a relative term and does nothing to advance your position.

    4. The relationship between Putin’s Puppet and Kennedy’s son has been fully explained.

      We all have our quirks, OBL. Some people do weird things with puppets.

  8. Any comparison to similar polls with Merrick Garland?

    1. We had a big poill about Merrick Garland. It was called the 2016 election. It was in all of the papers. And it settled the issue with Garland not getting on the court.

      1. Please stop trying to justify that. It doesn’t become you. You’ve long since relished the role of cynical assholes who don’t care about rules or decorum or precedent. Just own it and stop insulting everyone’s intelligence.

        1. The rules are the Senate is under no obligation to approve the nomination of the President. And they didn’t. If Obama wanted another person on the court, he should have appointed a conservative or not destroyed the Democratic party such that it no longer held the Senate.

          You keep acting like anyone should care or consider it a problem that the Democrats lost. The people on here are usually not Republicans but they sure as hell don’t give a shit if the Democrats lose.

          1. Putting right-wing ideologues in charge of a country’s laws for a generation should concern everyone.

            But that’s beside the point. I admire Republican audacity. I wish Democrats could match it. All I’m asking is that you end this charade that what they do is normal or decent.

            1. Actually, I rather like the fact that left-wing judges will out voted on the court for generations. I like free speech, guns, and religious liberty. Left-wing judges are pretty awful on everything

            2. I admire Republican audacity. I wish Democrats could match it

              They passed sweeping healthcare legislation in the dead of night without a single opposition vote. Mission accomplished.

              1. I don’t know why I should have to point this out, but legislators legislating is not the audacity I was referring to.

            3. Because Kagan was totally an accomplished judge, or a judge at all, before her nomination and consequent confirmation, right? RIGHT?!

              And you have the fucking audacity to accuse the right of putting ideologues on the bench.

              1. Because Kagan was totally an accomplished judge, or a judge at all, before her nomination and consequent confirmation, right? RIGHT?!

                Hey, I’m not even a lawyer. Trump should appoint me. 😀

                The Democrats will have no objections to my position on Roe v. Wade. Hopefully they won’t think to ask me about Miller. 😉

              2. Kagen is widely respected as one of the 2 smartest justices along with, allegedly, Roberts.

                1. “Widely”?
                  Maybe by those who think HiLIARy is the smartest woman in the world.

        2. Give it a rest, Tony. Both of you should just stop flinging poop with no conclusion. You’re not going to find much support for pro-police, pro-cop Merrick Garland

          Now kiss and make-up

          1. Sorry Just Say’n but I am saving myself for you.

            1. *blows kiss*

    2. Man, you don’t even hide the fact that you’re just a Democratic shill

      1. “The Libertarian Case for Merrick Garland, By Chandler Bing”: There is none

    3. Doesn’t matter when you don’t have the votes.

  9. 62 Percent of Americans Want the Senate to Vote on Trump’s Supreme Court Pick Before Midterms

    The vote should definitely come before the midterms. As they say, “elections have consequences”.

    1. “Except the election of Barack Obama. He doesn’t get his SCOTUS pick because… uh… Kenya?”

      1. “Only elections where Democrats win should have consequences.”

        1. Obama didn’t think he had to worry about Dems winning house/senate seats. He had a phone and a pen, you know.

      2. As I say above, he didn’t have the votes anyway, you disingenuous prick.

  10. Faxsibnatibng. Americans want to see what Republicans do with SCOTUS … before they vote.
    And most Americans support Roe v wade (now Casey) Might the GOp also lose the Senate?

    1. Geez, you summoned me to deal with this shit? LAME.

      1. Damn! You caught me. Elementary-school arithmetic is another progressive plot, financed by George Soros, and organized by “Pocahontas” Warren and that Obama dude from Kenya.

        Left – Right = Zero

        1. Wouldn’t Left – Right = Further Left?

          1. Algebra is beyond you. But it’s meant that left and right have the same value. Thus subtracting — actually either one — from the ther yields a Zero answer

            In 7th grade or so,you’d instantly know that Right – Left also = Zero.

        2. Fuck you talking about, asshole? You summoned me, fuck you want, tardo?

          1. I agreed with you, tardo. You also don’t know what “summoned” means. tardo squared

            Again, might this cause the GOP to also lose the Senate?

  11. I couldn’t care less about the timing concerning the ninth justice.

    I am focused on the tenth and eleventh justices.

  12. Democrats see that as a clear mandate to do exactly the reverse

    1. They’re bat-shit crazy.
      Just like Republicans.

  13. The thing here is that the Rs hold all the cards, and the Dems didn’t when Obama got shafted. They would have rammed through their pick if they could. It’s just BS politicking, and the Rs should put through whoever they decide on. Frankly if I were Trump I’d throw in the most hardcore TradCon I could find. It would make his base happy, and ensure the MAJOR things (speech, guns, etc) conservatives care about are safe. He’s probably going to get a 3rd pick, he can throw in a libertarian/centrist then.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.