RIP RBG

[Hot Pepsi]

Absolutely. Someday.

[DCI Harry Batt]

Isn't there plenty of time after the election to appoint and confirm? Then those senators who have already lost don't need to worry about upsetting voters, right?

[Sporting]

How much pro and con support is there for abortion rights in Senate swing states? (For example.). I fear that the zealots are more determined than ever. As per usual.

[Eggchaser]

So long America, hello Gilead.

[Satchmo Distel]

I'm wondering if the election matters now. Trump can somehow dispute it to the Supreme Court and the coup is complete.

I think it matters even more, to prevent all the organs of state being in the hands of fascists.

Speculation that Collins et al are not going to cave seems incredibly naive.

[Satchmo Distel]

https://twitter.com/mmpadellan/status/1307199942688149505

https://twitter.com/YahooNews/status/1047509950778335232

[Eggchaser]

https://twitter.com/mmpadellan/status/1307199942688149505

https://twitter.com/YahooNews/status/1047509950778335232

To be honest, I'm not sure why anyone is bothering. The GOP will fuck everyone that gets in their way, and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it because they, as conservatives, live in the gutter, fight dirty and have the money and lawyers and, as conservatives, have the appeal to society, which by its nature is conservative, looking for excuses for its failure and is happy to see others brutalised as scapegoats as long as they don't have to worry about seeing it in action.

It is nigh on impossible to win a fight against people who not only believe but know that the rules don't apply to them. And that the referee is one of them.

[Sporting]

To be honest, I'm not sure why anyone is bothering. The GOP will fuck everyone that gets in their way, and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it because they, as conservatives, live in the gutter, fight dirty and have the money and lawyers and, as conservatives, have the appeal to society, which by its nature is conservative, looking for excuses for its failure and is happy to see others brutalised as scapegoats as long as they don't have to worry about seeing it in action.

It is nigh on impossible to win a fight against people who not only believe but know that the rules don't apply to them. And that the referee is one of them.

We keep on fighting. It can be done.

[anton pulisov]

I am actually curious about what Trump will do. This guy has no principles other than self-preservation. Will he nominate Merrick Garland just to try and win the election?

[Satchmo Distel]

He will nominate whomever he thinks will turn out the religious vote.

[San Bernardhinault]

I feel like I should point out to those who claim we are doomed because Trump may get another nominee through: We already have a majority of extremist conservatives on the court. And the last Democratic nominated justice to leave the court was Thurgood Marshall in 1991. It has been a very Republican institution for a long time. Making the court 6-3 ultra-conservative is obviously bad, but the court would already have been happy to throw the election to Trump given the slightest excuse. See: Gore-Bush.

[San Bernardhinault]

Nominating Garland would lose him lots of the base; but nominating anyone with extreme views on overturning precedent and abortion is likely to turn out the Democratic base.

The smart choice for him is to say who he’ll nominate who’ll appeal to the base - someone who’s a hero on the religious right, but not have any hearings - that will give cover to the Senators who don’t have to vote and make sure the base knows they need to show up in November, and pretend to be behaving under reasonable order and appear to not be shoving this through.

[Satchmo Distel]

SB, on your first post: Yes, but there have been some key decisions this year that went 5-4 in favour of sanity but after this would go 4-5.

2nd post: "smart choice" and Trump don't compute. He'll make the decision that most pisses off his perceived enemies.

[Snake Plissken]

Why is it all the luckiest people in the world are cunts?

[San Bernardhinault]

I agree on both points, Satchmo: Trump won't do the smart thing. And that 6-3 is worse than 5-4. But on the big constitutional questions that allow elections to be stolen, the court was already loaded.

[Eggchaser]

Why is it all the luckiest people in the world are cunts?

Only the good die young.

Edit: Or they live long enough to see their youthful radicalism die and they start reading the Daily Mail.

[Nefertiti2]

To be honest, I'm not sure why anyone is bothering. The GOP will fuck everyone that gets in their way, and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it because they, as conservatives, live in the gutter, fight dirty and have the money and lawyers and, as conservatives, have the appeal to society, which by its nature is conservative, looking for excuses for its failure and is happy to see others brutalised as scapegoats as long as they don't have to worry about seeing it in action.

It is nigh on impossible to win a fight against people who not only believe but know that the rules don't apply to them. And that the referee is one of them.

A lawyer speaks...

[Nefertiti2]

If he has a majority on the Supreme Court he can do what the fuck he likes, “dumb” or “smart”

[Diable Rouge]

I am actually curious about what Trump will do. This guy has no principles other than self-preservation. Will he nominate Merrick Garland just to try and win the election?

You're talking about a country where turnout hasn't reached 60% since 1968 - if Trump manages to overturn Roe v Wade, the Christian vote will make all the difference in the swing states.

[ursus arctos]

In 2024?

There is no case allowing them to overturn Roe currently before the Court.

Nor is there a monolithic "Christian vote". There are a White Evangelical vote and a Traditional Catholic vote, but each is shrinking and neither is particularly well-represented in the current set of swing states.

[Nefertiti2]

"without delay"

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1307321159113936896?s=20

[Nefertiti2]

In 2024?

There is no case allowing them to overturn Roe currently before the Court.

Nor is there a monolithic "Christian vote". There are a White Evangelical vote and a Traditional Catholic vote, but each is shrinking and neither is particularly well-represented in the current set of swing states.

https://twitter.com/hawleymo/status/1307328015999926277?s=21

[Eggchaser]

The woman's not even in her grave and they're pissing on it.

[anton pulisov]

The entire thing is a politicised farce. Mayor McKinsey Pete had the best idea I heard of: any new appointment to the court must be approved by a unanimous vote by the court itself.

[ursus arctos]

Clarence Thomas wouldn't vote for any of his current colleagues