Sunday Talks – Jim Jordan Discusses Potential SCOTUS Replacements for Justice Ginsburg and Other Issues With Durham Probe of FBI/DOJ Conduct…

Representative Jim Jordan gives his perspective and analysis on the passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and his thoughts on her replacement.  Additionally, Jordan discusses the ongoing material in the background of the Durham probe and the potential for investigative findings to surface prior to the election.

.

The SCOTUS pick will be important not just for long-term legal direction, but also for anticipated legal challenges likely to surround ballots, dates, votes and the 2020 election.

Challenges to recent ballot decisions in Pennsylvania and Michigan will likely fast-track to the Supreme Court.  Any 4-4 tie vote in SCOTUS means the lower court ruling will stand.  As expected this is shaping up to be a very interesting election year…

.

This entry was posted in 1st Amendment, Activist Judges, AG Bill Barr, Big Government, Cold Anger, Decepticons, Deep State, Dept Of Justice, Donald Trump, Election 2020, FBI, President Trump, Supreme Court, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

184 Responses to Sunday Talks – Jim Jordan Discusses Potential SCOTUS Replacements for Justice Ginsburg and Other Issues With Durham Probe of FBI/DOJ Conduct…

  1. bertdilbert says:

    Video link not working for me.

    Liked by 8 people

  2. A Call for Honesty says:

    Explain what is wrong about wanting to quickly appoint a justice who respects the constitution and want to uphold the law of the land. Every decent, law abiding citizen would welcome this. Why would certain politicians both Democrat and Republican have any objection to this?

    Liked by 11 people

    • bertdilbert says:

      Trillions are at stake and it is about continuing their life of living off your back. There is nothing honest about it. Trump is a threat to their continued skimming and lifestyle.

      Liked by 25 people

      • Eagle Driver says:

        There might be Trillions at stake but is being used by NEFARIOUS AND DUBIOUS character(s) of the United States… When President Trump is sworn in on 22 Jan 2021, MAY THE FIRE AND BRIMSTONE RAIN DOWN ON THE INDIVIDUALS WHO TRIED TO OVER-THROW A DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT!!!

        Hosea 9:14:
        “Give them, O Lord— what will you give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.” Daniel 10:13

        Liked by 6 people

        • jeff montanye says:

          this one, unlike say russiagate or impeachment or campaign irregularities in ’16, is more symmetric imo. republicans opposed garland in ’16, democrats opposed ? in ’20. same old same old.

          Liked by 1 person

          • steph_gray says:

            Nope, not symmetrical. That was when there was a different party as President than in the Senate. Now they are the same party (yes, I know about the UniParty).

            The left wants to act as if this is symmetrical, but don’t let them push yet another – their latest – lie.

            Liked by 4 people

            • Dwayne Diesel says:

              And they fail to mention that every single time a SCOTUS vacancy aligned with an election year the President always presented someone to the Senate for the appointment. Every single time…..Hey liberals, I will repeat that again- every time in the history of this country and the SCOTUS vacancy fell on an election year the President at the time presented someone to the Senate for the appointment.

              What’s also amaizing- when the Executive and the Senate majority were of the same party….hold on…..wait for it….the individual was appointed as a Supreme Court Justice. And, this will be another shocker for you liberals….when they didn’t align….the person was never appointed…holy moly…I’m shocked I tell you.

              Liked by 2 people

    • Right to reply says:

      50% are no longer law abiding, and that is the problem!
      People need to stop providing what their kids don’t need, and make them work for it if they want it. The issues we are seeing are kids given everything without the ability to get it for themselves.

      People make me want to vomit when they say “I want my kids to have everything I never had”. What did you never have?

      Liked by 14 people

      • boogywstew says:

        One problem is the government has created a class of super citizens … teenagers. They have almost every right of an adult and no responsibilities. You can’t physically touch them. There’s only so much you can take away without the authorities being involved. They can legally “divorce” you, go to live at a friend’s house and you pay them support. If you have one that thinks nothing of lying than you’re in for a life of living hell. NY State will put your child and yourself into counseling, which you pay for. You’ll have to take time off from work to attend and the counselor decides when the counseling you’re paying for is finished.

        Like

        • Maquis says:

          In Germany kids can self-emancipate at eleven, get an apartment and a stipend, drink and smoke in the street. I’ve seen the corrosive effects of this “progressivism” and it’s ugly.

          Liked by 3 people

          • boogywstew says:

            It’s bad enough dealing with the State, but when you throw a vindictive ex into the mix and children learn to play one side against the other using the State … talk about UGLY!

            Like

    • hocuspocus13 says:

      “Fill The Seat”

      Liked by 11 people

      • Rowdyone says:

        Darn right! Does anyone seriously think that if the situation was reversed the Dims and their sycophants in the media wouldn’t be gleefully quoting Obama’s statement about “elections have consequences” as they rushed to confirm their candidate? And while we press ahead, lawfully, they are out there demanding illegal means to stop us.

        Liked by 4 people

    • Every decent, law abiding citizen would welcome this. Why would certain politicians both Democrat and Republican have any objection to this?….

      So…do you always give the answer to your own question before asking? 🙂

      Like

    • Rob says:

      Well, first of all, most democrats despise the Constitution. Why would they want a judge that respects it?

      Like

  3. thedoc00 says:

    As an interesting exercise, overlay potential battleground states and Federal Court Districts. There would potentially be 5-7 different Federal District Courts involved with challenges and injunctions. This fact sets up a great argument to have a full Supreme Court seated to decide the legal issues of the election as there is the possibility of multiple Federal District Court Findings.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Alex1689 says:

      The real battle is at the Circuit Court level. Overlay the states with Dem Governors who will order cheat by mail with the circuits that include swing states that have not flipped to majority Republican appointments (though I would not trust many Bush appointees). That’s where they are looking for the circuit court win that will remain on a S Ct 4-4 split.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Alex1689 says:

        Circuits to look at: 1st (ME)
        3rd (PA, but circuit is majority Republican )
        4th (NC, VA)
        6th (MI)
        7th (WI)
        8th (MN)
        10th (NM)

        Alison Rushing Jones (4th) and Amy Coney Barrett (7th) may be needed on their circuits. If the vote ends up in the Lame Duck, a nominee would be hard pressed to participate in an election fraud case with her own nomination on the line. Another plus for Lagoa?

        Like

        • thedoc00 says:

          There will be more than a single challenge, which sets up different findings from multiple Federal Circuit Court panels. That is the point of my comment. That is the rationale for completing the Supreme Court because the issue will NOT be decisively decided at the Circuit Court level.

          If the DNC is counting on a single challenge, they are setting themselves up for failure and their 4-4 rationale falls apart.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Alex1689 says:

            Bush v Gore was up on cert from the FL Supreme Court, so you also have to anticipate one or more direct cases from State Supreme Courts, going up to the S Ct. A lot of the arguments would be state – centric.
            Kind of like Obama care. Win 20 out of 21 points, lose on the 21st, you still lose.

            Liked by 1 person

            • thedoc00 says:

              Agreed and further supports need to “complete” the Supreme Court before election night.

              Bush vs Gore was over a single stat’s vote, this will cover multiple states and multiple court findings.

              Liked by 1 person

        • Contrarymary says:

          Forget the women. I’d like to see Strickman, who so beautifully, smacked down the Pennsylvania Governor with the constitution, over his lockdown. From what I understand, Amy backs the government lockdowns

          Liked by 1 person

  4. Bogeyfree says:

    Amazing that possibly Collins, Murkowski, Romney, Sasse, Graham and a few other RINO’s can’t see that without a PT replacement on the SC Court BEFORE Nov, there is no SC backstop and thus there won’t be a Republic left, let alone your right to freedom of speech, assembly, religion, along with the right to bear arms.

    All of these freedoms will be gone because these people didn’t allow PT SC nominee and a full SC and thus it allows for massive voter fraud to disenfranchise 80-120M Americans who voted honestly in person.

    They in essence are allowing the left to steal the election and IMO within 90-120 days after Jan 20, 2021 these freedoms will be “modified”, changing this country forever which truly could trigger total anarchy.

    All of this IMO could be avoided if they simply followed the Constitution and allow the President to do his job and they do theirs as so called members of the Republican Party.

    History MUST forever remember the RINOS who vote no as IMO everything that follows is on them likewise those who fail to uphold the rule of law and administer one system of justice while hiding behind the word political.

    Liked by 13 people

  5. OffCourseNation says:

    Thank you, Justice Ginsberg, for refusing to let Barack Obama and a Democrat Senate pick your replacement even when you were 80 plus years old and very unhealthy. Thank you so much for making it so Donald Trump and a Republican Senate would get to do it. It was your greatest positive contribution to our nation. Again good job !

    Liked by 23 people

    • Fubu says:

      And a special shout out to Harry Reid for doing away with the filibuster where we would need 60 votes and not 51 votes to select the Supreme Court Justice.

      Liked by 12 people

      • Kroesus says:

        Scum bag Reid did away with filibuster for junior judicial nominees, McConnell “McTurtle” did away with the filibuster for SCOTUS Justices as a result of Reid’s weakening of the Senate filibuster rule.

        Like

    • All Too Much says:

      Maybe that was her last wish.
      Action speaks louder than anonymous sourced last words.

      Like

      • Judith says:

        I’m sure her last wish was that Hellary would be president right now. I guess you *can’t* always get what you *want*..

        Liked by 1 person

      • KBR says:

        Let the “Ginsburg Rule” be her legacy regarding the confirmation of the new appointee.

        Biden (who was in charge during RBG’s confirmation hearing) said an appointee should not answer questions that might come up in the SC. (RBG was Clinton’s appointee.)

        https://www.heritage.org/commentary/the-ginsburg-rule

        Let the Dems screech and howl when the new appointee follows the Democrat’s and RBG’s own “Ginsburg Rule” in RBG’s “honor.”

        Like

  6. Cowboy79 says:

    Even Chuck Schumer agrees. Oh, Wait. That was Feb 22, 2016. Oh Well……….

    Liked by 2 people

  7. PaulCohen says:

    Liked by 4 people

  8. pouncer says:

    ACB is fine but Margaret Ryan or Don Willett are fun to think about, too.

    Like

  9. jello333 says:

    “The SCOTUS pick will be important not just for long-term legal direction, but also for anticipated legal challenges likely to surround ballots, dates, votes and the 2020 election.”

    And something else I think is important, VERY important: Making it perfectly clear to the Dems that the nominee WILL be confirmed, and that it will happen BEFORE the election. Why is that so important?

    Well, right now if the Dems think they can stop the nomination and stall things till after the election, till after the inauguration in January, till “Biden takes office”, they have a huge incentive to VOTE. On the other hand, if they see that their vote isn’t important in that regard, that Trump’s gonna get his person no matter what… well, I can imagine that would seriously DEMORALIZE a good chunk of the Dem base. “Oh my God, stopping Orange Man from getting any more SC picks was paramount. But now? It’s done… so what’s the point now?”

    In other words, getting this nominee confirmed QUICKLY is not just important for shaping the Court… it could also almost guarantee Trump’s re-election.

    Liked by 21 people

    • Peoria Jones says:

      This is a VERY important point, Jello. Great comment. 😉

      Liked by 2 people

    • The Gipper Lives says:

      They have a huge incentive to VOTE–and an even bigger one to CHEAT.

      Courts are how they impose laws corruptly–and without their fingerprints on them!

      Liked by 2 people

      • Daniel says:

        The internal polling say Trump wins bigger than ever. That’s why this whole destruction of the integrity of the vote is happening.

        People in the states where this mail-in voting is happening need to rise up big-time. This is the worst disenfranchisement of the vote in US history and that includes all of the things the Democrats did to black voters in the past.

        Like

    • True, Jello, BUT… now they’re saying that if a SCOTUS pick is rammed through, they will turn around and PACK the court if Biden wins. So…

      If the President and Mitch McConnell can get on the same page, why not lull the Dems into a false sense of security by keeping this all on the DL until AFTER the election (which might prevent mobilization of Dem voters) AND THEN ram it through BETWEEN Nov 3rd and Jan 19th. (A Lame Duck session CAN confirm a SCOTUS pick)

      Like

      • BitterC BitterC says:

        It’ll take more than Biden to pack the court. They will need both houses of Congress and also have to do away with the filibuster, as I doubt they will win 60 senate seats. I doubt they will win any house….Representatives, Senate, or White

        Liked by 2 people

      • mimbler says:

        Because that vacant seat -would- motivate the dems to vote to insure Biden fills it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Daniel says:

        They are planning to do that anyway. They were talking about doing that long before the talk of mail-in ballots and all the rest. They are in this to destroy this country. People need to wake up to this reality.

        Liked by 1 person

        • I’m encouraging carpooling to the polls with neighbors.

          Every Vote Counts

          I am also taking training from TrueTheVote.org to be qualified as a pollwatcher

          Joseph Stalin — ‘Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.’

          Like

    • True, Jello, BUT… now they’re saying that if a SCOTUS pick is rammed through, they will turn around and PACK the court if Biden wins. So…

      If the President and Mitch McConnell can get on the same page, why not lull the Dems into a false sense of security by keeping this all on the DL until AFTER the election (which might prevent mobilization of Dem voters) AND THEN ram it through BETWEEN Nov 3rd and Jan 19th. (A Lame Duck session CAN confirm a SCOTUS pick)

      Like

      • Rileytrips says:

        ONLY if the President’s nominee is confirmed before December 14 – isn’t that the date the Electoral votes are counted? We need a full Supreme Court before that date at the very latest. And if there are federal circuit court judges still in the Senate confirmation process, they need to be confirmed ASAP. We will need them to stop the legal takedown of our country by the Marxist lawyers around the country before it gets to SCOTUS.
        Push em through Mitch!!

        Like

        • Even if not re-elected, the President serves until Jan 20th 2021, when his successor is inaugurated. All US Congresmen serve until Jan 3rd, when the new Session of Congress convenes. Senators who faced re-election also serve until Jan 3rd.

          The QUESTION IS:

          CAN/WILL Senate leadership hold an emergency, prolonged Lame Duck Session in order to compkete the confirmation process?

          How LONG can Dems drag this out?

          Like

          • Kroesus says:

            If the Dimms massive mail-in fraud is as large as it looks to be, how can you tell who is the down-ballot winner? In other words, many congressional and Senate elections will be contested in 2020 meaning there is no clear winner on 3 Jan for many to be seated for Congress as well. A challenged ballot is in limbo for all choices on it until its status is finally deteremined.

            Liked by 1 person

  10. PaulCohen says:

    “nothing is off the table” sounds like a really extreme threat for domestic politics… it’s normally only said between countries facing potential military conflict….. are the ‘Rats threatening to do much worse than they have done to date???

    Liked by 17 people

    • The Gipper Lives says:

      All this hysteria is an admission that Democrats cannot get their unpopular agenda passed by normal democratic means, so they use corrupt judges to force their will on you. Otherwise, this nomination would not assume the status of a silver stake in broad daylight to a Party of Vampires.

      “If you do this, everything is on the table,” they snarl.

      The threats aren’t really threats at all. They plan to eliminate the filibuster, pack the Court, dissolve the Electoral College, create new Democrat states and senators and control every election in America from the Swamp EVEN IF PRESIDENT TRUMP NOMINATES HILLARY CLINTON TO THE COURT.

      So they’re not really threats at all. They’re simply telling us what they will do if they are ever given power again. They will never relinquish it again.

      They are already bailing out arsonists, rioters and murderers to attack citizens. Defunding and kneecapping police departments. They’re using COVID to seize dictatorial powers and hurt the economy. They’re teaming with Big Tech to end Free Speech–except for themselves. Hell, they’re burning down their own cities. Who does that? Nero? They impeached Donald Trump because Joe Biden took bribes. They have already committed nuclear treason with Iran. And used a CIA/FBI/DOJ Police State to wiretap, frame and then attempt the overthrow of President Trump. And each new vile accusation only tells us what they themselves are doing.

      “Everything is on the table”?

      Yeah–we’ve noticed. It has been for some time. Lunatics.

      Liked by 19 people

      • Guyski says:

        Also, all this hysteria says a lot about John Roberts. If President Trump gets one more judge on the court, Roberts is insignificant.🤔

        Liked by 1 person

        • The Gipper Lives says:

          Roberts was born insignificant. One more Trump Judge would only confirm it.

          Liked by 2 people

          • jello333 says:

            One of the dumbest things ever is when a CHIEF justice dies or retires, the new incoming justice takes his place. Huh? Does that make ANY sense? The most senior member of the remaining justices should move up… or maybe let them vote amongst themselves on who it should be. Who it should clearly NOT be is the brand new guy. Ridiculous… and it would be ridiculous even if Roberts was brilliant.

            Like

            • PaulCohen says:

              It is a presidential nomination. Chief Justice can come from within or from beyond the ranks of the current court, however the president decides (with senate confirmation).

              From SCOTUS website:
              “Like the Associate Justices, the Chief Justice is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. There is no requirement that the Chief Justice serve as an Associate Justice, but 5 of the 17 Chief Justices have served on the Court as Associate Justices prior to becoming Chief Justice.”

              Liked by 1 person

              • steph_gray says:

                I know he wants to retire, but I would love to see Chief Justice Clarence Thomas. If only for a couple of years while PDJT gets everything in order in the next term.

                Like

            • Cowboy79 says:

              Um. No. The most Senior member might be a nightmare. What if that member was Ginsburg or Sottomayor? Would you like to make them Chief Justice just because they sat in a chair longer than others?

              It is the President who nominates a Chief Justice.
              Not the Court, not the Senate, not the House.

              If it was taken as you suggest, it would be the sitting Court who decides “who is my best friend and ideologically sympathetic Justice who needs to buy or earn my vote to move up”

              That would destroy the Court.

              What you suggest is the old “It’s My Turn” justification or “What does it cost to buy that seat”. Might work in Unions, but not the Supreme Court.

              Like

      • theblobofglerp says:

        Couldn’t agree more.

        Liked by 1 person

    • PaulCohen says:

      Liked by 15 people

    • What the insane “left” (fascists) never think about that in a society they desire so badly where anything goes,eventually those who are not insane fascists (us) will reach a point where they are forced to go along with anything goes as strictly self-defense measures.

      We’ve never been so close in our lifetimes to having the globalist scum foment another civil war as we are right now and I for one can feel it brewing in the atmosphere. Probably due to the fact that these insane lefties are already attacking us on a regular basis.

      Jim Jordan was exactly right about one thing, we don’t like being THREATENED, especially by those that are supposed to answer to us, not RULE over us.

      Liked by 7 people

    • JMC says:

      That hideous lizard-face pee-ant Blumenthal and his acolyte Chrissie Creases Murphy are, I am sad to confess, my CT senators. I wish them both a similar experience. What’s falsus-in-omnibus Blumenthal going to do, take out the Republican House baseball team again?

      Like

    • Alex1689 says:

      I honestly do think that if President Trump wins a clear victory, there is at least a fifty percent chance China launches an attack on us. Thank God President Trump built our military capabilities back up. If you remember the Veterans Day event at the Lincoln Memorial, most of that was a very loud and very clear message to Xi: Don’t mess with us.

      Liked by 1 person

    • steph_gray says:

      All very likely “or whats,” Tammy.

      But you forgot rolling around on the floor screeching a tantrum, and holding their breath until they turn bluer than they already are.

      Welcome to the D party of 2020!

      Liked by 1 person

  11. Blue Moon says:

    The dems intend on a repeat of Valenzuela. That’s what Ms Cankles meant when she told Biden under no circumstance is he to concede. She has so much pent up anger and she has stewed for over 3 years about how PT took her down with the help of all of us. She is eat-up with it so bad. (jmo)

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Kimi says:

    The left has proven, once again, that they are desperate for power. No one that wants it that badly should ever be allowed to get it…EVER.

    Liked by 12 people

  13. PaulCohen says:

    This guy is a leftist but makes some good points (one of the rare honest leftists)….. in this case, pointing out that the hysteria around RBG is a marker for the extent to which the left has made the Supreme Court the control panel for much of their agenda:

    Liked by 5 people

  14. Perot Conservative says:

    Link above didn’t work.

    Here’s Jim Jordan w Maria B., about 7 minutes.

    Like

  15. Bill says:

    The Donald ( I hear he misses being called that) should Grenell this appointment.
    Invite Turtle to the White House and ask him to immediately go into recess If he is unable to confirm his appointment. Then Recess appoint Kayleigh McEnany as the new temporary justice and have her hire the (I think 3) potential picks as her Clerks. Since the pick is clerking for her, the transition should go smoothly when the confirmation is completed.
    Repeat as needed for the next 4 years.

    Like

    • WRB says:

      Congress can not go into recess with concurrence of both houses.

      Liked by 1 person

      • WRB says:

        Congress can not go into recess without the concurrence of both houses.

        Like

      • Bill says:

        You are saying that Nasty Nancy can keep the Senate from going into recess?

        Like

        • WRB says:

          Yes, first it was Paul Ryan and now it is Nan.

          The Constitution forbids either house from meeting any place outside the Capitol, or from adjourning for more than three days, without the consent of the other house. The provision was intended to prevent one house from thwarting legislative business simply by refusing to meet. To avoid obtaining consent during long recesses, the House or Senate may sometimes hold pro forma meetings, sometimes only minutes long, every three days. The consent of both bodies is required for Congress’s final adjournment, or adjournment sine die, at the end of each congressional session. If the two houses cannot agree on a date, the Constitution permits the President to settle the dispute.

          Like

      • PaulCohen says:

        It has nothing to do with the House. Nominations to the Supreme Court are confirmed only in the Senate. If the Senate were to go into recess then POTUS could make recess appointments. One of the vile power plays of McConnell vs. POTUS has been denying any possibility of recess appointments while also making it so damned difficult and slow to get many executive appointments through. At least Mitch has been good on judges…..

        Like

    • furtive says:

      Grenell should be the recess appointment.

      Of the 12 justices who have received recess appointments (two as chief justice and ten as associate justice) only Chief Justice John Rutledge was not subsequently confirmed for a regular appointment. No president since Dwight Eisenhower has made a recess appointment to the Supreme Court and the practice has become highly controversial.

      In 1960 the Senate passed a resolution stating that it was the sense of the Senate that recess appointments to the Supreme Court should not be made except under unusual circumstances.

      Being a resolution, it has no legally binding effect, but was intended as an expression of the position of the Senate and as a guide to executive actions. The resolution passed by a vote of 48 to 37, mainly along party lines.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Recess_appointments

      Like

  16. mntmama says:

    So the left is gearing up to fight like hell, threatening to make things worse than the Kavanaugh spectacle. What can Republicans do to prevent that?
    Maybe they are ready this time?
    At least it sounds like Miss Lindsey is all in. Time is of the essence!

    Like

  17. Nessie509 says:

    I’m an optimist and believe that the court is still 5-3 Conservative. Chief Justice Roberts will follow the Constitution and the Law on these possible election issues.
    I don’t think the election will be close. Democrats lowered their masks on socialism and social issues and voters don’t feel safe in the cities Democrats run.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Sorry to say Chief Injustice Roberts goes whichever way his handlers tell him to go. He is compromised.

      I do agree, if the electorate take this election seriously, it will not even be close. Let’s hope PDJT has very long coattails.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Walt says:

      You are an optomist. 🙂

      Chief Justice John Roberts slid right past the constitution when with ADA he ruled that all citizens were required to give assets to a private company for a product they might neither want nor need.
      Illegal seizure.
      The depth of Roberts ethics don’t quite reach the depth of his ego.

      Liked by 1 person

  18. Petrel says:

    The Dems have had much experience creating fake “Color Revolutions” and Victoria Neuland has much exprience in this exercise.
    1. Dispute the election, however fairly won.
    2. Present a photogenic alternative, no matter how badly he / she lost.
    3. Rent crowds to cause mayhem — for the benefit of CNN and NYT.
    4. If need be, rent marksmen to shoot rioters and thereby create a martyr, or two, or three . .
    5. Demand that the winning candidate resign / leave the country for the sake of social peace.
    6. Install the election loser, as the new president.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Sentient says:

    If, God forbid, Biden were to win, president Kamala Harris would probably name Ilhan Omar as the next Supreme Court justice.

    Liked by 3 people

  20. Eric says:

    Mitch will do this because he doesn’t want to see the end of the Republican party. Corrupt UniParty oligarch that he is, the dems have overplayed their hand. Their power base is now the Sanders faction of the party – these are their shock troops. Bricks through windows and starting forest fires is how they do business now. Eventually that will hurt Wall Street’s bottom line, and with Team China trying to horn in on the feed trough what will be left for UniParty Republicans if President Trump isn’t re-elected? Not much, Team China and the commies have already signaled the end of the Republican party, hence the UniParty. Then Mitch, Thune, Grahamnesty and others eventually get put up against the wall.

    China’s communism only works when coupled with a capitalist oligarchy or a capitalist farm system/host for the parasite. The people making the moves in the democratic party want actual real communism right now, and they’re not afraid to kill and commit terrorism to get it. China won’t be able to get that under control quickly enough to stop long term damage to the system they want to exploit.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Odysseus says:

      Agree that the GOP will pay a fearful price if they fail to confirm a Trump nomination, but does McConnell care? Probably, since it reflects directly on his own leadership, but it’s a slim reed to hang on to. As for Wall Street’s bottom line being affected by the riots, I don’t think we can assume that until we know who’s buying up the burned out real estate and who is financing them – a very big item to keep an eye on.

      Liked by 1 person

  21. Zy says:

    “As expected this is shaping up to be a very interesting election year…”

    very interesting or very terrifying ?

    Liked by 1 person

  22. All Too Much says:

    But, but, they’ll burn it all down!
    Not.A.Freaking.Chance.

    Like

  23. AJ. says:

    Elections have consequences, it’s time the other side feels the full impact of those consequences.

    Liked by 5 people

  24. Donzo says:

    RBG’s timely death deprives the Dimms of their strategy to criticize PDT 24/7 using their manufactured Covid 19 narrative as now they will have to run the confirmation process 24/7 instead.
    As for RBG, when she came forward to directly criticize PDT and broke with tradition not to politicize the relationship between the judiciary and the executive, that was a bridge too far. I’m not going to shed any tears for an anti-American SCOTUS justice who despises the Constitution for which she took an oath to uphold. What a disgrace!

    Liked by 10 people

    • A Fortified City says:

      God decides when we leave this world. I consider a blessing she’s been removed, she was of no benefit to God honoring people.
      I say the same to her as I said to John Lewis and John McCain good riddance

      Liked by 2 people

  25. Patricia Dolan says:

    Frankly, they have been trying to take down the President for 4 year. Today, I’m more worried about the fact that they are planning to do the same in the future. They are telling us that they re not going to let him win. Are we going to let this happen again? We need to look to the future now, not the past. We have 4 years to deal with the past but we won’t get there if they take Trump down….. this is all BS…….

    Like

  26. In the Land of Poz says:

    Game theory is to nominate the most extremely right-wing (openly anti-abortion, strict originalist, Scalia-style) option available. It will somewhat raise the Democratic vote turnout, but keep their election-tanking chaos running at 300 percent continuously until at least November. That means a Republican landslide, recapture of House, and Trump ruling as imperial president in his second term. In that case if the nomination fails, he can just do it again in February.

    In order of importance, the priority should be first to actually get Trump re-elected, then to keep the Senate, then to win the House, then to get this particular Supreme Court seat filled. So the decision on Ginsburg’s replacement should be entirely based on total victory in November regardless of the less crucial matter of getting the nominee approved.

    Like

    • jello333 says:

      Yes, some here are saying things like, even if Trump doesn’t win, we can push through the nomination during “lame duck” period. NO!!! As you say, the most important thing, EASILY the most important, is to get Trump re-elected. Everything else is miles down the list of importance. In fact, the ONLY way I can see Trump “losing” is if there’s massive cheating, fraud. And if that happens, the last thing anyone is gonna be worrying about is who might be nominated for the Supreme Court… because we’ll be lucky to even HAVE a Supreme Court (or a lot of other things) after the dust settles months or years later. 😦

      Liked by 1 person

      • Fubu says:

        Having that Justice in place may be the reason Trump goes back in for a second term. Bank on it. The Supreme Court, more likely than not, will be involved in settling this election.

        The Dems have 600 attorneys ready to go and you can bet they will attempt to manipulate the legal system to their advantage.

        Liked by 2 people

      • In the Land of Poz says:

        The effect of election cheating will, in short order, be similar to that of getting Trump elected, but on steroids.

        The US polity can do this the easy way (elect Trump) or the hard way (cheating then revolution). A “Biden” victory, not to mention the shenanigans before and after that, would make it obvious to at least 60-70 percent of taxpaying public, that we live in a banana republic with in-your-face Third World governance, and no good option but revolution.

        Like

      • In the Land of Poz says:

        Even a Trump presidency with both chambers of Congress going to the Democrats would be a win.

        Trump’s successes are primarily the stuff he does without Congressional approval, such as foreign policy, trade, military/peace. There has been so much past idiocy that just reversing a fraction of it is major success. Trump as a lame duck for 2-4 years can do wonders by concentrating on declassification, immigration (the parts under his control, which are many), dismantling destructive sectors of government, deregulation, and issuing EO’s.

        Like

  27. cherokeepeople says:

    donzo exactly,the SC judges are supposed to be impartial and stay out of politics.RBG broke that,she is no better then any of the other swamp rats.

    Liked by 4 people

  28. PaulCohen says:

    Liked by 9 people

  29. thedoc00 says:

    Scott Rasmussen has just thrown his turd into the punch bowl claiming “52% of potential voters want appointment of judge delayed.”

    Liked by 1 person

    • ezpz2 says:

      And I bet he did not disclose the ratio of Ds to Rs that we’re *allegedly* polled.

      I say ‘allegedly’ because I don’t even believe they’re doing actual polling.

      Like

    • Southern Trumpette says:

      Yes, Rasmussen was on the Ingraham Angle the other night, and Laura agreed
      that Trump should wait until after the election to nominate Ginsberg’s replacement. Raymond Arroyo and the other guest looked rather taken aback.

      Other than Tucker’s show, Fox is worthless.

      Like

      • steph_gray says:

        Sigh. Laura must be channeling her friend Ann C again. I wish she would get that feminidiot out of her head!

        Ivory tower nonsense. It’s the “perfect” that is so often the enemy of PDJT’s “very good.”

        Like

  30. ezpz2 says:

    Have the tech overlords disabled the video? As of this posting, it’s not playing.

    Like

  31. Magabear says:

    The more you think about this, the less sense the “wait until the election to pick a new judge” makes. PDJT is President until next January (of 2025, but let’s just play along here 😉) regardless of the outcome, so do we wait 4 months before picking a new judge?

    That’s not gonna happen (nor should it), so may as well do it sooner than later!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Judith says:

      They need to wait until *after* they contest the election result to throw the courts (and this nation) into complete chaos.

      And they think we are stupid enough to listen to this twisted logic. It’s like wrestling a gun away from a murderer and then contemplating whether we should hand it back.. Um.. no.

      Elections DO have consequences. Tough luck you Commie TRAITORS.. our Constitutional Republic *will* live to see another day. Pffft

      Like

  32. gary says:

    sen johnson’s committee is releasing ukraine biden info this week. the next two weeks are action packed. flynn on the 29th, the debate (maybe. joe is deteriorating daily) comey testimony. durham, whatever.

    Liked by 2 people

  33. deplorableintx says:

    I expect Nancy Pelosi & the House Dems to immediately (Monday) begin new Impeachment proceedings to block President Trump’s ability to fill the SCOTUS seat. Mark my word. These people are evil.

    Like

  34. fangdog says:

    Shouldn’t members of the Supreme Court do the right thing regardless Political influence and Political Party affiliation?

    Like

  35. Arrest Soros says:

    I just don’t get why the right go along with confusing a simple issue.
    SCOTUS pick has nothing to do with any potential election litigation. That confuses the issue.
    SCOTUS pick has nothing to do with the (alleged) dying wishes of a Justice.
    These are all designed to confuse the issue and allow the Dems and their mouth pieces in the MSM to confuse and obfuscate.
    Thanks Ted Cruz for bringing up the 4-4 situation. Typical verbose politician confusing the issue so that there is endless debate.

    The President has a constitutional duty to NOMINATE. Every President has done so.
    The Senate has the right to accept or reject. It’s the Constitution.
    Every time the Senate and the WH have been of the same colour, the nomination got through.
    Every time (except one I believe over 100 years ago) the Senate and the WH have been of the opposite colour (that is, a stand off) the people got a say at the coming election. That’s what happened in 2016.

    Keep it simple and keep President Trump out of it. He has a constitutional obligation to nominate. What the Senate does after that is up to the Senate, not the President.

    Liked by 5 people

  36. Arrest Soros says:

    By the way. So much for Chief Justice Roberts saying there are no Obama judges and no Trump judges, just judges.
    If that was even remotely true, we wouldn’t be having this constitutional crisis now.
    Obviously both sides think who picks judges is important enough to have this fight.
    Roberts is either naive and clueless or he is a crook making that misleading statement.

    Liked by 2 people

  37. GB Bari says:

    Well anyone worried that Lamar Alexander would refuse to vote on the SCOTUS nominee can relax.

    https://resistthemainstream.com/well-we-know-where-sen-lamar-alexander-stands-on-a-scotus-nominee/

    Liked by 1 person

  38. PaulCohen says:

    Maybe we have to start calling him Babbling Joe…. why is he still in the public arena:

    Like

  39. Frbrdskmi says:

    Lord, if it is Thy will, please deliver us from the evil that is trying to destroy us, in Jesus ‘ precious name I pray.

    Liked by 1 person

  40. Retiired IG says:

    Was able to watch the entire video after taking the advice to wait for it to load. The good news today is that I read the editorial in yesterday’s WSJ that they agreed the PA Supreme Court rewrote the PA constitution in their decision.
    And I now understand from reading here that Pres Trump (the Donald) is required by the Constitution to put forth another nominee. Pelosi threatening impeachment – ooo Nancy you are so scaring me!
    Like every other person that holds a top security security clearance, you need to get a wake up call in the middle of the night that you have tto show up in 4 hours for a pee/drug test. I don’t know if Nancy ever had it, but she has LOST IT.
    Just like Joe in the video above. This is their nominee? Not to insult any of the Monty Python movie crews, but Biden seems like he has had a lot of practice being in their satire/comedies.
    Perspective and humor, and prayers are the only things that are going to keep me sane until Pres Trump is inaugurated.

    Liked by 1 person

  41. TwoLaine says:

    The Senate better gets their axxes to D.C. and get Presaident TRUIMP’s nominee passed post haste. We did not give them a majority so they could squander it. Anyone who won’t vote YES will and can be replaced.

    As yourself, what would Dirty Harry Reid do? There’s your answer/

    Like

    • TwoLaine says:

      Any R Governor not on board should also be FIRED STAT! They are not R if they disregard our Constitution which the President has sworn an Oath to uphold. It shows how little they know about the Constitution and how little they care about it. They should be ashamed of themselves for walking all over our right to choose.

      Liked by 1 person

      • steph_gray says:

        I only wish we could “fire” Governor Charlie RINO Baker of blueMA, but I fear our only option is to vote him out when his term is up (unfortunately not until 2022 I think).

        You never know. Pigs could fly. The cooked local polls say everyone here loves him but on the ground I’m not seeing it!

        Like

  42. Daniel says:

    I’m kind of annoyed the politicians cite “professional reasons” why or why not. Someone should state things more plainly. Someone should state that the Democrats have placed this entire election into jeopardy and it will most likely come down to a SCOTUS ruling to decide on the election. We need to have a judge in there to prevent a tie. Simple and plain as that.

    We also needs laws regulating federal elections. This aspect of leaving it up to the states is now proven to be dangerous. We need fair standards which work to prevent fraud. They have made the most obvious attempts at destroying any hope of a legitimate election that this cannot go unanswered.

    Let’s say that God played a role in this over the weekend. RGB has been recalled and we need a new justice.

    The left never thought we’d have the ability to push back? God gave us that chance.

    Like

  43. steph_gray says:

    Sorry if it was mentioned, have not read this entire thread, though I did a search for this name and didn’t see it, so hoping I am not duplicating some previous mention.

    Anybody notice what Jim said at 3:14 of the interview?

    He said “Clinesmith pled guilty – that doesn’t just happen!”

    No, it cerrtainly doesn’t. Has anyone told Jim Jordan that he has sundance to thank for this? Or if he knows, could this be a subtle shoutout?

    Like

  44. Rob says:

    Any 4-4 decisions mean that if RBG were still alive, we would have lost anyways. At least now we have the potential to win these, if the appellate court ruled conservative before reaching the SC. So matter if we replace RBG before the election or not, we are still better off than before she passed away.

    Like

    • regitiger says:

      correct.

      and let’s go with this same reasoning and elaborate strategy.

      we know the election will be contested. its a given predictable.

      so when you correctly point out that appellate will have significance… arguably more than SC power (assuming a split scenario at SC)

      the question really is this?

      what can be done NOW to build the best possible appelate strategy?

      we do realize the radical corruptors have already laser focused on this ?
      e
      the corruptors will fight against any RBG replacement… that’s only one part of their resistance

      these are not stupid people… they are morally and CRIMINALLY corrupt… but not lazy about the effort.

      my strong suggestion for OUR TEAM is to

      1. track amd expose every single judge and federal AG that is likely to get involved…find what compromise them that forces recusal from any active role in election decisions. highest priority

      2. begin expert level excercise and gaming scenarios to determine a series of strategic plays that imvolve offensive active measures NOW as well a solid play book for contingency selections.

      i understand the president has an excellent Team.

      i am DIRECTLY putting everyone HERE on notice:

      if you really care about the direction of your future… you need to start putting in some effort to show it.

      no more watching from sidelines.

      no more spectating.

      it’s time to roll.

      Like

  45. CharterOakie says:

    Kudos to both Jim Jordan and Maria B. Excellent interview.

    Like

  46. detad1 says:

    It’s a general hearing. No one is under oath.

    Another Trey Gowdy game on us.

    Like

  47. Chewbarkah says:

    Maria B isn’t shy, but I’ve never seen her so fired up. Unlike most TV puppets, she understands this whole farce and is fed up with corrupt inaction. Not sure is she was feeding off Jordan’s high energy, but I hope lots of voters heard this and got pumped up. We all need to refuse to accept letting the coup go unpunished.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s