Pro-life Supreme Court justice = Not voting for Trump

[dUSt]

So, I have a theory.

One of the only lingering justifiable reasons I had for voting for Trump would be his likelihood of putting a pro-life justice in the supreme court.

Ironically, if he DOES succeed at this before the election, I wouldn't have much of a reason to vote for him anymore.

If, for some reason, they aren't able to get a pro-life justice in before the election, it might actually persuade me to begrudgingly vote Trump--for this one specific reason.

Kinda weird to think that it may actually be better for Trump if the Democrats are successful at stalling the nomination.

 

[cutenickname]

I couldn't vote for Trump even then, but I am in a group saying rosaries for him to successfully appoint someone before January and for the person's heart, logic, and action to align with protecting the unborn. I hope he can pull off an appointment, before he leaves office. I also hope he is headed to prison come January 21, 2021, but that is a digression.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, dUSt said:

So, I have a theory.

One of the only lingering justifiable reasons I had for voting for Trump would be his likelihood of putting a pro-life justice in the supreme court.

Ironically, if he DOES succeed at this before the election, I wouldn't have much of a reason to vote for him anymore.

If, for some reason, they aren't able to get a pro-life justice in before the election, it might actually persuade me to begrudgingly vote Trump--for this one specific reason.

Kinda weird to think that it may actually be better for Trump if the Democrats are successful at stalling the nomination.

 

Well his judge is going on the Supreme Court, regardless of the outcome of the election. Even if he loses the election, the nomination will proceed in the lame duck session.

We'll see what happens, but I don't think they will put the new judge on the court before the election. I think that the GOP is going to hold it out to make an election issue out of it. Hopefully drive more conservatives to the polls in places like FL.

[chrysostom]

5 hours ago, Peace said:

I think that the GOP is going to hold it out to make an election issue out of it.

I think this would, on the contrary, drive conservatives away from the polls for completely chickening out.

[ardillacid]

20 hours ago, dUSt said:

So, I have a theory.

One of the only lingering justifiable reasons I had for voting for Trump would be his likelihood of putting a pro-life justice in the supreme court.

Ironically, if he DOES succeed at this before the election, I wouldn't have much of a reason to vote for him anymore.

If, for some reason, they aren't able to get a pro-life justice in before the election, it might actually persuade me to begrudgingly vote Trump--for this one specific reason.

Kinda weird to think that it may actually be better for Trump if the Democrats are successful at stalling the nomination.

 

Wouldn't it be better to get a stronger majority on the court? It seems like Roberts is wishy washy anyhow. 

20 hours ago, cutenickname said:

I couldn't vote for Trump even then, but I am in a group saying rosaries for him to successfully appoint someone before January and for the person's heart, logic, and action to align with protecting the unborn. I hope he can pull off an appointment, before he leaves office. I also hope he is headed to prison come January 21, 2021, but that is a digression.

Do you also hope that every living president goes to jail with him? 

[Peace]

13 hours ago, chrysostom said:

I think this would, on the contrary, drive conservatives away from the polls for completely chickening out.

I don't mean they are gonna chicken out on it. I mean that they are going to schedule the hearings for October, advocate for the nominee in the news, etc., so that is what people have in their minds as they head to the polls. I think they'll want the election to occur right in the middle of the confirmation process.

[Anomaly]

Despite my atheism, stopping the killing of inconvenient people is one of my most important issues.   My vote for Trump is solid only for his SC pick.   I may not vote if he gets a good replacement.  

Both parties fail at identifying pre-born as persons with rights too.

[cutenickname]

2 hours ago, ardillacid said:

 

Do you also hope that every living president goes to jail with him? 

Only the ones who are corrupt businessmen, think American soldiers are losers, call Mexicans rapists, grab random women by their genitalia, are obvious Russian agents, have never needed to repent to God, and who can imagine their being very fine people in murderous crowds running around shouting stuff about Jews.

Don't bother responding to me directly though. I think we are both fairly clear about where we stand and it does not do for Christians to argue in public.

[cutenickname]

*there

[Lilllabettt]

I mean, people on the Supreme Court are going to continue to take dirt naps. Clarence Thomas is 72 and doesn't seem to take good care of himself. Stephen Beyer is 82 and is likely to go, one way or another, in the next 4 years. If the USSC was so important it would sway your vote I think it still would be the case.

The smart move for these justices is to retire on their terms regardless of who is in power.  That's what Anthony Kennedy did. He gave Trump a list of acceptable names and said, I'm willing to retire if you choose one of these as my replacement.  The only name on the list who was even close to being conservative "enough" was Kavanaugh, which is how we got him.

It seems to me this play could be made regardless of who is in power. Unless the justice waits until they are dying from a 3rd bout of pancreatic cancer in which case the prez could just say that's ok I'll wait. 

Sad to say being on the USSC takes a lot of ego and most justices don't want to retire until long past decrepitude.  

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Lilllabettt said:

I mean, people on the Supreme Court are going to continue to take dirt naps. Clarence Thomas is 72 and doesn't seem to take good care of himself. Stephen Beyer is 82 and is likely to go, one way or another, in the next 4 years. If the USSC was so important it would sway your vote I think it still would be the case.

The smart move for these justices is to retire on their terms regardless of who is in power.  That's what Anthony Kennedy did. He gave Trump a list of acceptable names and said, I'm willing to retire if you choose one of these as my replacement.  The only name on the list who was even close to being conservative "enough" was Kavanaugh, which is how we got him.

It seems to me this play could be made regardless of who is in power. Unless the justice waits until they are dying from a 3rd bout of pancreatic cancer in which case the prez could just say that's ok I'll wait. 

Sad to say being on the USSC takes a lot of ego and most justices don't want to retire until long past decrepitude.  

Yeah I just want to give you a shout out for successfully using "decrepitude" in a sentence.

[ardillacid]

2 hours ago, cutenickname said:

Only the ones who are corrupt businessmen, think American soldiers are losers, call Mexicans rapists, grab random women by their genitalia, are obvious Russian agents, have never needed to repent to God, and who can imagine their being very fine people in murderous crowds running around shouting stuff about Jews.

Don't bother responding to me directly though. I think we are both fairly clear about where we stand and it does not do for Christians to argue in public.

Okay, I was just curious. I don't think I could address all of that even if you wanted to engage. 

Where do you feel I stand?

[cutenickname]

2 hours ago, ardillacid said:

Okay, I was just curious. I don't think I could address all of that even if you wanted to engage. 

Where do you feel I stand?

At least that the ethno-nationalist in the White House is morally equivalent to his predecessors.

[ardillacid]

Is that something you would like people jailed for?

[chrysostom]

On 9/23/2020 at 9:26 AM, Peace said:

I don't mean they are gonna chicken out on it. I mean that they are going to schedule the hearings for October, advocate for the nominee in the news, etc., so that is what people have in their minds as they head to the polls. I think they'll want the election to occur right in the middle of the confirmation process.

This would be disastrous as there is a senatorial special election in one state - I forget which - in which immediately following the results, not in January, the winner will step right in. So the GOP could lose a Senate seat in November which could cost them the confirmation. To lose that opportunity to confirm the SC pick would be stupid beyond all measure.

Edited September 24, 2020 by chrysostom