Politics is about POWER! They really don't care much about anything else except MONEY! The Trump administration should try to get her replacement confirmed ASAP. That's what the Left/DemoCraps would do if the "shoe were on the other foot"... as Obama stated in 2016. With the election near, some think it would be "nice" or "fair" if her replacement were to be chosen by the next administration (hoping for a Biden win, of course), but not "necessary". The Constitution does not provide for "delaying choice of SCOTUS member just because an election is close at hand." The Conservatives should "fight fire with fire". That is, "take advantage of the opportunity as it presents"... as would the Dems!
The irony of the whole Merrick Garland thing is that if Joe is elected and Trump has not seated a justice by the time he leaves, Merrick Garland will not be appointed by Biden either. The lefterrhoids feign this big painful historical injustice toward Garland, and how they want to even that score but if they get a chance to re-appoint him, not gonna happen. Oh, and when it comes to evening scores, I am all for it. THINK KAVANAUGH.
If there's a Biden win, what are the odds they'll expand the court? That, and why didn't the Founders provide guidance on the # of Justice's?
Wasn't it FDR who wanted to expand the SCOTUS to 13 members... so that he could add 4 more DemoCraps? I've always found it curious (and annoying) that so many SCOTUS rulings are split along "party" lines. Aren't the Law and Justice supposed to be "blind" rather than political? It's sick that one group of the SCOTUS members always "sees the law this way", and the other group "sees the law that way". Wasn't the SCOTUS supposed to "protect the constitution" and act as a brake against power-hungry, overreaching Executive and Legislative branches??
Just a couple comments, if they fall within my remaining half cup of coffee: In short, my view, is that it is just another aspect of the Founders failing to see (or rather being aghast that some things would be allowed) the explosion of judicial power and thus did not foresee the need to micro-manage certain areas. The founders did a crackerjack job in some areas of judicial power -including limits- but it tended to be focused on areas where they had been abused by King George and his judges. Thus when they thought about judicial power they thought about and focused on abuses of search and seizure, right to confront witnesses, double jeopardy, habeus corpus, etc. At the same time they were pretty confident that the legislative branches of government were being vested with all the important powers (unless specifically assigned to the president.) and it was their view that they very intentionally were making the judiciary the weakest of the three branches so they were not to be feared nor could they become controlling. In the federalist papers, Hamilton, among others emphasized that there was not much that the judiciary could do because they did not have the power of the purse, did not have any control over the military, or command any law enforcement entities. And if they got rowdy, the legislative branch would just over-ride them. So much for that expectation. The rest is history. In no way did they envision and environment where the president and congress would be feverishly watching the court for their approval on everything and anything day in and day out. They did allow that the court might jump in on truly egregious matters where congress or the president had gone off the reservation in ways that could not be remedied by the people electing someone else. The power of the judiciary increased very early and exponentially when Marbury v. Madison became the law of the land - ie. the case that first ruled that the Supreme Court could overturn an Act of Congress and has just grown like kudzu since. Anyway, roundabout answer to why - in my mind- they did not focus on some of the details of the structure of the Supreme Court. They thought that they had designed a constitutional system where the Court would be the least powerful rather than the most powerful so they did not lean into some areas. It happens. As with the electoral college. For a long time it was not an issue for normal people. But knowing now how people will try to dick with it, they might have locked some things down more tightly. In regard to Joe trying to pack the court, I doubt it. That always gets messy everytime it is tried or talked about. Creates a lot of heat but no clear winners so it goes away with the party proposing it just looking like political hacks. More likely they would sneak up on it a bit by proposing terms limits or age limits which might even get bipartisan support especially if it only applies to future judges not current justices. Ironically, Demented Joe and Ruthie might be examples of why their would be support for that. The dems would pack the court if they could without having to take the heat. Unfortunately they do not know how to do that. Not to beat this to death, but most of the action is at the lower courts which serve as gateways or roadblocks for cases, and Obama left 170 lower court positions open which Trump is filling. You would think that if they had a real boner for having more judicial power they would have taken care of bidness.
Scat, for Barne's case for Barbara Lagoa as Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court to fill the seat left vacant after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg... scroll slider to 1hr10min point https://www.bitchute.com/video/HPYXXheDgq3Z/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Lagoa Barbara Lagoa (born November 2, 1967) is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Prior to becoming a federal judge, she was the first Hispanic woman to be appointed as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Florida.[2][3] According to various news outlets, President Donald Trump is considering nominating Lagoa as Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court to fill the seat left vacant after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
1hr11min Amy Barrett said would recuse herself where pope takes stand on a case? wtf https://www.bitchute.com/video/HPYXXheDgq3Z/
Yes, I do very much agree with that Barbara Lagoa discussion at about that same timemark on the video. Or at least I am sympatico with the points being made. She is very light on federal judiciary experience but the dems will tear her apart anyway so it goes with the turf. Kavanaugh had federal judicial experience up the ying yang so they just proceeded to ignore it and work other issues. And as I said yesterday, I think Amy Barrett is/was the leading candidate but that it would be loads of fun and disorienting for the dems to see Trump go with someone else- because the lefty oppo research has years and millions invested in preparing for Amy. It would be fun to see Trump go with a relative unknown and catch them unprepared and scrambling. Oh, and if the dems start getting nasty with her at a hearing and she starts replying in Spanish just to mix it up a little, I might self-stimulate a little. Or if she just speaks spanish back and forth with Rubio and Cruz and leaves Pokey and Harris looking like deer in the headlights that could be okay too. What can they do? Pipe up and say "Ms. Lagoa we speak English in America." Heh. Not the way to go. The dems have always maintained that they love all things Cuban and she is of Cuban heritage so here is their chance to show a little love.