TexasCHLforum.com

Flightmare wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:30 pm

srothstein wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:24 pm I have a problem with the hypocrisy that would be shown if they do make a nomination now. The Republicans held up a nomination for quite a long time because an election was close and they wanted to let the new president have a say (well, that was their stated reason). If they do a nomination this close, they would be showing that they were lying about it (which we all knew anyway).

The biggest tactical question is if the nomination is made now (or in October) how many votes would it cost Trump (and by extension all Republicans) in the election. I might be okay with losing the presidency for a SCOTUS appointment (though any appointment is really a guess how they will vote once on the court), but what if it gives the Democrats the presidency, control of the Senate, and control of the House?

I think the best bet is to wait until after the election. If they lose everything anyway, they can still get it done in November or December. If the win, they can take their time and make certain the right person is chosen.

That is the discussion i was having on the phone earlier with a family member, and the exact argument I made.

C-dub wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:51 pm BTW, are you gonna be at breakfast at Rudy's tomorrow?

RoyGBiv wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 10:45 pm

Flightmare wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:30 pm

srothstein wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:24 pm I have a problem with the hypocrisy that would be shown if they do make a nomination now. The Republicans held up a nomination for quite a long time because an election was close and they wanted to let the new president have a say (well, that was their stated reason). If they do a nomination this close, they would be showing that they were lying about it (which we all knew anyway).

The biggest tactical question is if the nomination is made now (or in October) how many votes would it cost Trump (and by extension all Republicans) in the election. I might be okay with losing the presidency for a SCOTUS appointment (though any appointment is really a guess how they will vote once on the court), but what if it gives the Democrats the presidency, control of the Senate, and control of the House?

I think the best bet is to wait until after the election. If they lose everything anyway, they can still get it done in November or December. If the win, they can take their time and make certain the right person is chosen.

That is the discussion i was having on the phone earlier with a family member, and the exact argument I made.

Elections have consequences.

I'm simultaneously able to offer sincere condolences for a jurist who was the antithesis of what the Founders had intended, and not a frigid RINO, able to sieze the opptunity if it indeed is presenting itself.

Does anyone think that the dems would hesitate for a microsecond? /Rhetorical

03Lightningrocks wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 11:13 pm

RoyGBiv wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 10:45 pm

Flightmare wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:30 pm

srothstein wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:24 pm I have a problem with the hypocrisy that would be shown if they do make a nomination now. The Republicans held up a nomination for quite a long time because an election was close and they wanted to let the new president have a say (well, that was their stated reason). If they do a nomination this close, they would be showing that they were lying about it (which we all knew anyway).

The biggest tactical question is if the nomination is made now (or in October) how many votes would it cost Trump (and by extension all Republicans) in the election. I might be okay with losing the presidency for a SCOTUS appointment (though any appointment is really a guess how they will vote once on the court), but what if it gives the Democrats the presidency, control of the Senate, and control of the House?

I think the best bet is to wait until after the election. If they lose everything anyway, they can still get it done in November or December. If the win, they can take their time and make certain the right person is chosen.

That is the discussion i was having on the phone earlier with a family member, and the exact argument I made.

Elections have consequences.

I'm simultaneously able to offer sincere condolences for a jurist who was the antithesis of what the Founders had intended, and not a frigid RINO, able to sieze the opptunity if it indeed is presenting itself.

Does anyone think that the dems would hesitate for a microsecond? /Rhetorical

We are way past thinking the high road is a winning route. So far taking the high road has gotten us transexuals dressed in drag reading to our children in the third grade. Boys who say they are girls in the female locker rooms. Boys who say they are girls playing on the female sports teams. Abortion on demand paid for by tax payers. God being taken out of schools while Islamic fascism is being installed. Statues of heroes from the past being removed. The national anthem being scoffed at in sporting events. Police officers being shot down in the street while pro football players put the names of criminals on their helmets. Cities being burned and looted by domestic terrorists. I could go on and on but when do we finally quit kidding ourselves with this "taking the high road" garbage?

Push through another nominee! ASAP... before the leftist scum manages to get another communist on the supreme court who thinks the Constitution is a piece of toilet paper to wipe your rear end on.

This situation is definitely a gift from God. He is trying to tell us all something. He could have taken that woman anytime. He wants us to take the opportunity to make it just a little bit harder for the godless leftist scum to completely destroy the American dream.

strogg wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:42 am After reading all of your responses, I totally understand the sentiment. I would love to play offense and smack down the liberals once and for all. It may seem very tempting, but it's the wrong choice to make in my opinion. Getting someone appointed to the vacant seat between now and the election is a virtual impossibility. By trying, we'll only be fueling the other side, which will be out in force at the polls and making this election cycle much harder than it was 24 hours ago. By downplaying this and letting things happen in due time, the other side won't get as fired up for the election. It's that simple. It'll also make the right look better with more high road action. Trust me. People are noticing these things.

At the same time, I ask that someone please prove me wrong with the timeline thing. I would love nothing but to have an additional appointment for a good justice in the supreme court.

Flightmare wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:52 am

strogg wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:42 am After reading all of your responses, I totally understand the sentiment. I would love to play offense and smack down the liberals once and for all. It may seem very tempting, but it's the wrong choice to make in my opinion. Getting someone appointed to the vacant seat between now and the election is a virtual impossibility. By trying, we'll only be fueling the other side, which will be out in force at the polls and making this election cycle much harder than it was 24 hours ago. By downplaying this and letting things happen in due time, the other side won't get as fired up for the election. It's that simple. It'll also make the right look better with more high road action. Trust me. People are noticing these things.

At the same time, I ask that someone please prove me wrong with the timeline thing. I would love nothing but to have an additional appointment for a good justice in the supreme court.

Devils advocate;

As long as a SCOTUS nomination is a guaranteed prize for a POTUS win, it will inspire the opposition to work harder. If SCOTUS is already replaced, they may lose some of the wind in their sails.