Trump's Supreme Court nominee?

The title of “handmaiden” seems counterintuitive for somebody who’s supposed to be your leader.

If he doesn’t have to nominate a human, how about that fuzzy extraterrestrial parasite who lives on his scalp?

It’s hard to argue against the nomination of Barrett on education and judicial experience bona fides. She really does line up.

As for ideology and wing-nut factors, well…I would say those are actually what drew attention to her as a pick. One can’t be too conventional nowadays and get any traction with the Rs, the kookier the better, yah?

Oh, and while we are on the subject, can someone do SOMETHING about this Federalist Society cabal? They wield way WAY too much power on federal judicial appointments.

I happened to be visiting the Reagan Library one day last year when they were holding their annual conference/convention there. It was interesting to overhear some of the members chatting about Trump. There didn’t seem to be a lot of affection for him from this crowd. But of course, they will all pull the level for him on election day, in any case.

Handmaiden, in a Catholic organization, can (could, might) refer to the title of the Virgin Mary as the “Handmaiden of the Lord”. I still would not have used it, but, I could see why.

Oh R’lyeh?

Now being reported that Trump will “probably” announce his pick on Saturday. I wonder if it’s starting to dawn on him that the moment he makes his pick he becomes irrelevant to the process. Or maybe it’s just his reality TV instincts to draw out the drama. Maybe he’ll have a rose ceremony to select the winner.

The Babylon Bee joked about Trump detonating a big balloon of pink confetti to announce the nominee’s gender.

Looks like he’s picking Ofjesse. Blessed be the fruit.

If Democrats try to deny quorum, they would only need 3 Republican defectors, not 4. It would make their math a lot easier.

With a 50-50 tie, Pence would break the tie, but one needs 51 senators present to even have quorum in the first place. So if the D’s can get Collins, Murkowski and one more Republican to leave the premises for good until Inauguration Day…

Looks like it’s official: It’s Barrett.

The confirmation is going to happen, man. I don’t like it any more than you do, but it’s going to happen.

I read the entire Wikipedia article on the People of Praise movement that Barrett is reported to be a member of, after the recent news that she was selected by Trump. And I think it’s a huge stretch to compare it to any kind of cult or comparable to the kind of outlandish shit in Handmaid’s Tale. It’s a more parochial organization than I would want to be part of, and many people might find their ideas about gender roles to be outdated, but it seems far from the malevolent cult that many people are now depicting it as. I would frankly be much more unnerved by a justice being a member of a Southern Baptist denomination, than Barrett’s group.

(nitpick) In the part I’ve bolded, there is only one Christian group called “Southern Baptist”. There could be other Baptist denominations that exist in the southern United States, but not multiple Southern Baptist denominations as your phraseology suggests. (End of nitpick)

Personally, I hope President Trump gets reelected. But I’d rather he get this SCOTUS nomination confirmed and lose reelection than not get a good solid conservative on the court. That is what is most important in the long run for the future of America.

RBG’s dying wish and public polls are not binding so Trump’s nominee will be confirmed. That will leave the court 6-3 but three are over 70. The Democrats would be better served by working to insure they get the next few nominations versus futile efforts on this nomination that will make them look petty. Replacing Thomas and Alito would make it 5-4.

A 6-3 court could gut voting rights such that the Democrats never have a hope of winning a majority again. That’s why it’s such a danger – the Republican party is trying to rig everything, using the courts and a tilted system (the Senate, gerrymandering, the EC, etc.) to make sure they can never lose again.

Why on Earth wouldn’t you want to try and stop this using entirely legal means?

What legal means exist?

Impeach to tie up the senate? Just starting that in the house would likely trigger an immediate confirmation vote - hearings are mostly theater and not required by the constitution.

The Democratic Party is not good at the political game. Most social issues the general public sides with them, they have received more popular votes in all but one Presidential election since 1988 but they are losing where it counts.

Actually I was thinking more after the fact - expand the court, add states, etc. If you weren’t arguing against such things, then I’ll withdraw my challenge to you.

I was focused just on RGB’s replacement. Schumer trying to add an amendment to a bipartisan resolution honoring her was what I thought futile and petty.