1, 2, and 3 ... can you imagine the fire storm if Candace Owens were nominated? LOL!

Which is really odd, since a nominee hasn't been named yet.

One thing that seems to be forgotten in all this is Senate "hearings" to confirm a nominee are not mandated in the Constitution and don't need to be held. The Senate's "advice and consent" mandate can simply be a "yes" or "no" vote all in one action. There is actually no need whatsoever to drag out a circus for weeks on end.

ThanQ FFA, one small correction. Soros is using our money with his NGO’s to fund the campaigns of local sheriff and DA races, in addition to his and Hussein’s insurgent BLM, Anti-fa , And Organizing for Action (OFA)
https://nypost.com/2017/02/18/obama-l...
is a nonprofit 501(c)4 organization and community organizing project that advocates for the agenda of former U.S. President Barack Obama. So grants made around the world are funneled to Soros NGO’s and he creates chaos with our money. It is really what Ukraine is all about.

Tired of winning? Trump will get his Judge . The Deep State is panicked. The senate is the key.
Trust the plan and enjoy the show. The woman with Seven children including 2 adopted blacks
Is a strong choice also fairly young.
This SC justice kills the left’s legal plan to cheat US out of a duly elected President Trump.

6 Justices? How is that happening?

Thank you for that explanation. It puts it all into perspective. I didn’t know that about if it went to the House, and frankly, I don’t trust the House to do anything right!

I appreciate the help with this.!

Everyone on all sides of this issue agrees that there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent a president of one political party and a Senate controlled by that same party from advancing a nominee, holding confirmation hearings, and voting on RBG’s replacement, whether it’s an election year or not. There just is no law against this. People who are opposed to this happening are arguing procedural precedent, not law. The Senate – indeed, BOTH chambers of Congress - make “new” precedent every day. That’s politics. The real question is not its legality, but whether or not it’s a politically smart thing to do, given the impact that it could have on the upcoming General Election.

Everyone also agrees that confirming – or FAILING to confirm – a nominee prior to the election may very well determine the actual outcome of that election. With a vacant seat on the Supreme Court, if there’s a contested election, a repeat of Bush v Gore 2000, and the Justices are once again called upon to settle the matter, with only 8 seated on the Court, there’s a very good possibility of a 4-4 deadlock. If that happens, the decision then goes to Congress. That’s what the Constitution says.

That Founding Document further says that the House of Representatives elects the president, and that the Senate chooses the VP. In common parlance, it’s called a “Contingent Election.” I wasn’t entirely familiar with the term, so I Googled it, just to make sure. Yup… that’s the way it works. Here’s where it gets tricky, though…

In the House, it’s not a “normal” vote… if it were normal, with a 34-seat majority, the Democrat Party would definitely prevail. But in a Contingent Election, the Constitution specifies that each state delegation gets JUST ONE VOTE. That means California, even though it has 53 members in the House of Representatives, the STATE only gets one vote. Same for New York’s 27 members and Illinois’ 18. One state, one vote.

Now, do the math… there are 50 states. Take a look at the ideological breakdown on a state-by-state basis, and there is very, VERY high probability that a contingent election would simply re-elect President Donald J. Trump, and there’s no question whatsoever that the Senate would choose Vice President Pence.

So, long story short, if the Left insists on holding up RBG’s replacement and contests the outcome of the election, a potentially deadlocked Supreme Court would hand the decision off to Congress who just may very well tell #45 that he’s now, officially, #46.

Is it splitting hairs to note that they say they don't want the vote to happen before the election. But it IS going to happen, per Mitch. So the real question is: how will they vote? They aren't saying they would be against the nominee...they're just against bringing it to a vote. It's possible (probably not too likely) that they would vote in favor of the nominee, once they have gotten over the vote/no vote decision. I guess they would - out of spite - vote NO (or maybe present). But why vote against someone if they are a good choice, just because you didn't want it to happen yet?

I suppose this is part of why I will never be a politician.

I don`t know I would call it optimistic, either way, there will be a fight, the question is, how big and how long.

Not only that, the Republicans then only need 48 votes to confirm.

Yep, she gambled and lost.

I wish I could be that optimistic.

...then watering the Tree of Liberty may be required,

Of course. Then he could run the country for another 30 years.

She missed her chance to do that when Obama was President and the Dems had the Senate.

...and a good one.

Except it would not be "long term" or anywhere near it. If Biden wins, the Dems will kill the Senate filibuster and then pack the Court with 6 leftists. Then make DC and Puerto Rico States with 4 brand-new Democrat Senators. The country is toast after that.

I agree. McConnell and his wife, Elaine Chou, are in the Chinese food trough bigtime; q.v. Peter Schweizer's book, "Secret Empires."

Maybe its just too late for America as we know it. Might as well let the government collapse and let freedom loving people get together and start anther one

There is no mention of the Judiciary Committee in the Constitution. McConnell could short-circuit the process by going DIRECTLY to a Senate vote, up or down within two weeks of the President's nomination.

I've avoided the "a" word but one has to realistically consider that some nut may try it. Not only Trump, but Barr and several key Senators and House Republicans are at risk, not to mention several cabinet members.

Not quite true, but close. If Collins, Murkowski, and Romney could be convinced to vote "present" then the R's only need 48 votes to confirm.

The progressive/communists (one & the same) in govt. , both elected and appointed were sure the 100 year struggle was paying off when BHO was elected with control of both houses. Then they did what communists do, they went all in on usurping healthcare because its one of the big legs needed to stand up the red table, that pissed of folks that usually just go to work and mostly ignore govt. and the TP was born . That movement caused a ripple in congress in 2010, that grew in 2012 to cause a historic loss of DNC seats nationwide. Meanwhile BHO is loading up govt. with comrades working in every dept. and appointing judges that are in step. They were building the guts of the machine to take over and operate America, Hillary was sure to be elevated and eager to wield the power. In 2016 those same folks that just go to work and are now paying attention, sent Trump as a last resort. The comrades had a cow. Turns out, Trump is pretty good at the job and now pissed off by what was done to him - and the Country, by the DNC comrades. We are witnessing the snake striking out blindly, biting itself in it s frenzy, they know if he puts up another Justice to SCOTUS, then makes public some very damning information regarding some career public officials, it is over. The 100 year struggle will end as all communist endeavors do, with chaos, then defeat.

Q: Is there a
1)woman
2)of color
3)who can be trusted and
4)is best qualified?
A: ??

The threats from Democrats pretending they have some weapon is close to an empty threat.
They have already used all their ammunition in the past 4 years, except for assassination.
They have already had at least one murder done for political reasons since 2016, so I wouldn't bet against an assassination (and the threat of more than one.)
Republicans will show their allegiance in the next few weeks.