Ruth Bader Ginesburg

[WVU enginEER]

There were several women candidates on Trump's list of potential replacements. I see no reason why he won't try to fill that spot.

In the meantime, there are 3 scheduled debates looming. Should make those discussions even more heated, if not polar.

Trump asked Biden for a list of names, but Joe won't provide one.......... so I guess Trump will pull from his list.

 

[McLean.Mountaineer]

Cocaine Mitch will get someone confirmed by January

4 GOP moderates are in unison - no vote until after inauguration

 

[SilverSpringWVU]

Not sure if he'll have the votes in the Senate. Should have the votes in the judicial committee, but Romney, Murkowski and Collins will probably vote against.

Hell, I am a staunch conservative and I really don't know whether it's a good idea or not. I know with every fiber of my being the Dems would not hesitate to shove a nominee thru if they had the Senate and the Prez, so I'lm probably for it.

But let's say Trump gets it done, then the Dems get the Prez and Senate. First thing they would suspend the filibuster and expand the SCOTUS to 15 members with 6 new far, far, FAR left justices.

 

[SilverSpringWVU]

Not sure if he'll have the votes in the Senate. Should have the votes in the judicial committee, but Romney, Murkowski and Collins will probably vote against.

Hell, I am a staunch conservative and I really don't know whether it's a good idea or not. I know with every fiber of my being the Dems would not hesitate to shove a nominee thru if they had the Senate and the Prez, so I'lm probably for it.

But let's say Trump gets it done, then the Dems get the Prez and Senate. First thing they would suspend the filibuster and expand the SCOTUS to 15 members with 6 new far, far, FAR left justices.

I’m fairly certain the left is going to change the number of justices anyway. Just as soon as they have the power to do so. Hell they are campaigning on it now.

 

[TarHeelEer]

It did 4 years ago.

Elections have consequences - BHO

 

[wvu_ivey]

Does the vote happen before the election? I think it should but it’s not hard to imagine it getting drug past that point.

It will. I don't see any way the republicans would have a "lame duck"' vote after the election, especially if they lose the Prez or Senate. Democrats always vote 100% in lock-step on the big issues. Republicans always get a few folks who need to "vote their conscience".

If the Senate goes over to the Dems and Trump wins, it's safe to say that seat won't get filled. We'll just roll with 8-member SCOTUS until 2022.

 

[Raven Shaddock]

I will not speak ill of the dead, but I don't think a few million infant souls will be rolling over in their graves (if they would have been given the decency to have one) over her passing.

I'll leave it at that.

Genocide is soooooooooooooooooooooo cool!

 

[NYC_Eer]

I will not speak ill of the dead, but I don't think a few million infant souls will be rolling over in their graves (if they would have been given the decency to have one) over her passing.

I'll leave it at that.

A) You aren't an infant until after you're born. So, infants aren't rolling over in their graves. I guess you can say fetuses, but then again they aren't conscious so that seems far fetched. B) Unless half the entire country is evil, her view is not evil. She was looking at it from a female's perspective, and most of them believe it is their body and they have the right to choose. You disagree. It doesn't mean its not decent.

 

[NYC_Eer]

Trump asked Biden for a list of names, but Joe won't provide one.......... so I guess Trump will pull from his list.

No nominee prior to Trump has given a list. Trump is in no place to create any precedent. Providing a list of nominees can and probably will bias a sitting judge. Trump may not care about that, but the legal system and every other Presidential nominee in the history of the country does and has.

 

[nvEERs]

We have millions of examples of premature babies born and growing up to become healthy adults.

A) You aren't an infant until after you're born. So, infants aren't rolling over in their graves. I guess you can say fetuses, but then again they aren't conscious so that seems far fetched. B) Unless half the entire country is evil, her view is not evil. She was looking at it from a female's perspective, and most of them believe it is their body and they have the right to choose. You disagree. It doesn't mean its not decent.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

A) You aren't an infant until after you're born. So, infants aren't rolling over in their graves. I guess you can say fetuses, but then again they aren't conscious so that seems far fetched. B) Unless half the entire country is evil, her view is not evil. She was looking at it from a female's perspective, and most of them believe it is their body and they have the right to choose. You disagree. It doesn't mean its not decent.

The argument always used is “law of the land” to defend abortion and the barbaric butchering of life that occurs. If the law changes, can we call it evil then?

Personally, I’m not religious. I think abortion is wrong and it’s barbaric. That said, it’s not even in the top 5 of my issues when voting. It’s not something I’ve done, will do, or will teach my girls about.

 

[spartansstink]

A) You aren't an infant until after you're born. So, infants aren't rolling over in their graves. I guess you can say fetuses, but then again they aren't conscious so that seems far fetched. B) Unless half the entire country is evil, her view is not evil. She was looking at it from a female's perspective, and most of them believe it is their body and they have the right to choose. You disagree. It doesn't mean its not decent.

Imagine I'm 10 years old and I've been told over and over that playing ball in the house is wrong. "You play ball on the field, not in the house!" Mom says. Well, I don't listen and one day the ball gets away and breaks a priceless vase my Mother treasured because it had been passed down to her from her grandmother's grandmother. As a result, she busts my butt good and I'm surprised because nothing like that had ever happened before. Played ball in the house before, never got into trouble. But this one time, consequences like I'd never experienced before.

Now imagine its nine years later. I see your mother walking out of the grocery store. I say to myself, "That b!tch needs to die." She has no value to me so I run her over. Back up and peel out, tearing her to pieces in the process.

Its good to know you'd be ok with that. Just look at it from my perspective. I bear no responsibility because it was my right to choose whether she lives or dies and well today just isn't that b!tch's lucky day.

 

[NYC_Eer]

Imagine I'm 10 years old and I've been told over and over that playing ball in the house is wrong. "You play ball on the field, not in the house!" Mom says. Well, I don't listen and one day the ball gets away and breaks a priceless vase my Mother treasured because it had been passed down to her from her grandmother's grandmother. As a result, she busts my butt good and I'm surprised because nothing like that had ever happened before. Played ball in the house before, never got into trouble. But this one time, consequences like I'd never experienced before.

Now imagine its nine years later. I see your mother walking out of the grocery store. I say to myself, "That b!tch needs to die." She has no value to me so I run her over. Back up and peel out, tearing her to pieces in the process.

Its good to know you'd be ok with that. Just look at it from my perspective. I bear no responsibility because it was my right to choose whether she lives or dies and well today just isn't that b!tch's lucky day.

Huh?

 

[SKYHAWKBALL]

A) You aren't an infant until after you're born. So, infants aren't rolling over in their graves. I guess you can say fetuses, but then again they aren't conscious so that seems far fetched.

This may be the most absurd statement that I’ve ever read on these forums.

 

[spartansstink]

Huh?

I used that scenario to illustrate a few points:

1) My playing ball in the house was analogous to a girl having sex. For a long time, there were no consequences. Then, something bad happened (breaking the vase = getting pregnant). Now, I have to face the consequence. The whipping was analogous to being pregnant. Because of my bad choices and ill behavior, I now have to live with my choices.

2) Nine years later equates to x months later. In the second paragraph, I decide to take it out on your mother, who was completely innocent in all this, and kill her. Heinously, I might add, by ripping her apart. I equate a "woman's choice" with "my choice" to take an innocent life. Neither of us wants to accept the consequences of our bad actions and choices. We blame someone innocent and take it out on them.

3) I used the term "b!tch" for your mother. I could have used a ton of other words also - *****, slut, etc. - to illustrate this point: WORDS MATTER!

The left wants to use euphemisms like fetus, mass of cells, etc. to deflect from what it really is - the taking of a human life. By using those euphemisms, like I used ***** (which I mean no disrespect, just want to illustrate a point) you devalue a human life. That makes it easier to reconcile the fact that one is taking the life of another when if you can place no value on them. Same way the Nazis acted against the Jews. Didn't recognize their humanity, saw them as vermin that made life more difficult, and therefore they needed extinguished. Then there were the collaborators who didn't actually participate but generally accepted that it was ok because that was the German government's choice. Really no different than those that kill their children and those that believe that it is ok here in America.

 

[NYC_Eer]

This may be the most absurd statement that I’ve ever read on these forums.

You think fetuses have consciousness and are capable of rolling over in their graves?

 

[NYC_Eer]

I used that scenario to illustrate a few points:

1) My playing ball in the house was analogous to a girl having sex. For a long time, there were no consequences. Then, something bad happened (breaking the vase = getting pregnant). Now, I have to face the consequence. The whipping was analogous to being pregnant. Because of my bad choices and ill behavior, I now have to live with my choices.

2) Nine years later equates to x months later. In the second paragraph, I decide to take it out on your mother, who was completely innocent in all this, and kill her. Heinously, I might add, by ripping her apart. I equate a "woman's choice" with "my choice" to take an innocent life. Neither of us wants to accept the consequences of our bad actions and choices. We blame someone innocent and take it out on them.

3) I used the term "b!tch" for your mother. I could have used a ton of other words also - *****, slut, etc. - to illustrate this point: WORDS MATTER!

The left wants to use euphemisms like fetus, mass of cells, etc. to deflect from what it really is - the taking of a human life. By using those euphemisms, like I used ***** (which I mean no disrespect, just want to illustrate a point) you devalue a human life. That makes it easier to reconcile the fact that one is taking the life of another when if you can place no value on them. Same way the Nazis acted against the Jews. Didn't recognize their humanity, saw them as vermin that made life more difficult, and therefore they needed extinguished. Then there were the collaborators who didn't actually participate but generally accepted that it was ok because that was the German government's choice. Really no different than those that kill their children and those that believe that it is ok here in America.

I disagree and so does over 2/3 of the US.

 

[Rootmaster]

Too bad the mom's of progressive loons didn't believe in abortion.

 

[spartansstink]

I disagree and so does over 2/3 of the US.

Of course you and they do.

This goes toward the 2nd part of your paragraph above when you wrote about half the country being evil. That is wrong.

ALL of the country is evil. We all are. We all sin and fall short.

But the government doesn't exist and wasn't created to protect that sin. It was created to protect us from that evil. Almost the entire preamble lists the evils the government was created to protect us from.

Because an idea is supported by a majority doesn't make that idea correct. If that law goes against God and his inherent rights, listed by writers of the Bible, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and many others, of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness or property, then that law must be stricken down or there will be a reckoning.

This is ultimately where you and I disagree. I believe that government is necessary and created to protect those inherent rights and these are rights that no government should have the power to deny. You believe that there are no inherent rights and that government was created to give rights to the majority. If those rights can be given, they can be taken away by the whim of the majority. Therefore, there really are no fundamental rights.

If the majority believes that killing unborn children is acceptable, homosexuality should be the norm, pedophilia in the name of "art" is ok, and it is ok to take a person's life, liberty, and property away from them because you "feel" you are oppressed in some way then how much longer do we have as a country before that reckoning comes?

 

[NYC_Eer]

Of course you and they do.

This goes toward the 2nd part of your paragraph above when you wrote about half the country being evil. That is wrong.

ALL of the country is evil. We all are. We all sin and fall short.

But the government doesn't exist and wasn't created to protect that sin. It was created to protect us from that evil. Almost the entire preamble lists the evils the government was created to protect us from.

Because an idea is supported by a majority doesn't make that idea correct. If that law goes against God and his inherent rights, listed by writers of the Bible, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and many others, of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness or property, then that law must be stricken down or there will be a reckoning.

This is ultimately where you and I disagree. I believe that government is necessary and created to protect those inherent rights and these are rights that no government should have the power to deny. You believe that there are no inherent rights and that government was created to give rights to the majority. If those rights can be given, they can be taken away by the whim of the majority. Therefore, there really are no fundamental rights.

If the majority believes that killing unborn children is acceptable, homosexuality should be the norm, pedophilia in the name of "art" is ok, and it is ok to take a person's life, liberty, and property away from them because you "feel" you are oppressed in some way then how much longer do we have as a country before that reckoning comes?

Tuesday?