So what can conservatives look forward to once RBG is replaced?

1. Roe v Wade is going down in flames, definitely can't be legally having abortions.
2. Healthcare won't be allowed to become universal or single payer for the next several decades leaving the middle class to shrink even further, who knows, maybe it will become a thing of the past entirely.
3. There will likely be more damage done to minority rights.
4. I assume the rich ruling class will inevitably be far more favored with the court over everyone else, more than they already are.

Anyone else want to add to this list? I figure we should start talking about it immediately.

take a breather bud, its gonna be alright, I'm almost postive Trump will appoint a woman , probably gonna be Amy Barrett

But I would laugh my ass off if he picked the zodiac killer

To summarise, the rich will get richer and the poor will die more.

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, but why would it matter? Furthermore, it doesn't matter to this topic. I'm asking what people expect to see happen after Trump/Republicans completely take over the supreme court. From a perspective of current laws that is.

Yeah man, the whole sky is falling, blacks will be back into chains, women won't be allowed to leave the home unless grocery shopping, and poor people will starve to death. Good grief.

@jeezers: What does her being a woman have to do with anything? His take is spot on.

@thegreatchomp: well Amy Barret said roe vs wade cant be over turned and thats his top pick

@jeezers: Source for both.

@thegreatchomp: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/08/amy-coney-barrett-what-possible-supreme-court-nominee-has-said-roe-v-wade-and-other-issues/759076002/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-19/amy-coney-barrett-emerges-as-frontrunner-for-trump-court-pick

Even washington post was saying she was the better pick over kavanaugh, back durring him being nominated

www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/07/02/one-possible-trump-supreme-court-pick-who-makes-too-much-sense/%3foutputType=amp

@eoten: I set up a topic for conservatives to talk about what they hope to see happen, and what democrats expect to see. Why aren't you interested to talk about your hopes?

@jeezers: Her stance is abortion should be privately funded. She is a mostly partisan religious zealot that will be a massive disaster.

@thegreatchomp: yeah she doesnt believe that its the states responsibility to pay for them, as in, peoples tax dollars shouldn't go to other people getting free abortions.

I agree *shrug*

@jeezers: I disagree. No state funding puts women’s lives in danger.

Imagine that, someone paying for their own elective surgeries. Gasp! What a horrible person to expect people be personally responsible for themselves.

Fundamentalist Christian Dystopia.

@eoten: So you are against insurance?

No, it doesn't. Prenatal care for women would be much better use of state funds

Paid for by the taxpayer? Absolutely. We have exceptions for people who are unable to work because of injury, and that is fine, and work requirements to those who are unemployed, but able to work, which is also fine. But expecting someone else to pay for your healthcare, especially when we're talking about optional, elective operations, then damn right I am against it.

@eoten: Thank an increasing number don’t agree with you. Skyrocketing healthcare costs are terrible.

@vl4d_l3nin: Yes it does. Prenatal care does nothing for unwanted births like via rape. If the state doesn’t pay for it women will get unsafe cheap abortions.

Why even have this debate? I though that the claim by GOP was that the president can't appoint a new supreme court justices in the last year, or does this only apply to dem president, just like anything else the fucking right wingers claim?

Your point? No healthcare plan proposed in the past, certainly not Obamacare did anything to address healthcare costs, only obfuscate it through taxes which would only reward the practices that make it expensive in the first place. If you want to address high costs, then do it, but writing blank checks signed by the taxpayer isn't doing that.

I thought the claim by the DNC was that they could? But since the DNC in the same situation wouldn't hesitate to ram someone through, I see no reason why the GOP should.

@eoten: My point is you are in an increasing minority. Thank god! And Republicans do nothing to address costs or the uninsured, if anything they make both worse.

You didn't answer. Are you against insurance?

https://www.motherjones.com/2020-elections/2020/09/a-long-list-of-gop-senators-who-promised-not-to-confirm-a-supreme-court-nominee-during-an-election-year/

A Long List of GOP Senators Who Promised Not to Confirm a Supreme Court Nominee During an Election Year

Sen. Cory Gardner

Sen. John Cornyn

Sen. Ted Cruz

Sen. Lindsey Graham

Sen. Marco Rubio

Sen. Chuck Grassley

Sen. Joni Ernst

Sen. Thom Tillis

Sen. David Perdue

Sen. Tim Scott

Sen. Ron Johnson

Sen. Pat Toomey

Sen. Richard Burr

Sen. Roy Blunt

Sen. John Hoeven

Sen. Rob Portman

Just something to keep an eye on in the coming couple of months.

I did answer your irrelevant question. It depends on the individual and the situation. Trying to make it a blanket all encompassing thing is exactly why the cost for health insurance has skyrocketed.

@netracing: Lindsey Graham even says to use his own words against him the situation arrives.. That was back in 2016 I think.

Private works the same way. You need it, it is paid for by others.

He's already backpeddled and stated that appointing a new judge will be priority now.

Believe nothing republicans say, nothing.

Oh I know. I still hope some do play a videoclip of him saying it against him.

Private insurance is paid to by the individual for a plan of their choosing that best fit their needs and budget.

But it's not THEIR woman so the woke politics won't apply here.

Paid into a larger pool of money so a few when needed can be covered. Only difference being is you opt for it or not.

Yeah, and paying for services actually tailored to the individual, from a provider that offers the plan they want, and has to compete with other providers, driving down costs and improving quality. One-size-fits-all policies that don't even take into considerations the basics of gender, forcing the entire population to pay for it, and eliminating all competition within the system to essentially monopolize the market is the kind of damage Obamacare caused that has skyrocketed insurance costs.

With private healthcare, you actually have a choice who to buy from, or whether or not to buy into it at all. It's entirely the choice of the consumer, and nobody is going to put a gun to their head, demand they empty their pockets "or else" and expect you to thank them if they toss you a mediocre at best plan in exchange.

i dont see insurance cost being driving down at all. it went up and up even before romney care. which you failed to mention is re bade obamacare.

Remember when Turtle McConnell said the next supreme court justice should be confirmed after the election?

Pepperridge farm remembers.

Do you remember when the entire Democrat party said it shouldn't be?

Yay more backwards right wing decisions that reduce USA's HDI. Hopefully some of these conservatives he appoints have brains.

Irrelevant, it's not the Democrats in power who are blatantly going against their word and once again proudly standing by their lies.

This isn't about whether it's right or wrong to appoint someone new in an election year, it's about the hypocrisy and lies of the republican party. If you can't trust the people you voted into power to stand by their word then you have nothing.

You have a choice? How many insurance providers do you got, or can choose between? How often do you have to fight with insurance to get covered? How about increased premiums after actually needing what an insurance provides? And say you actually need to ride an ambulance, a choice which might not be in your hands when the need arises, any chance it might not be in network and not covered by your insurance? Same for the doctor in the hospital?

Given what insurance is supposed to cover, does it really matter who or what provides it? It's only there to make sure you don't have to pay the whole cost upfront.

@Serraph105: I feel like points 3 and 4 are the only sure things, depending on the nominee. The 5 existing conservative judges have been most consistent on these two fronts, and another conservative justice will solidify that trend.

Yes, it will be the end of the world as liberals know it.

And who do they have to thank?

Well, at the risk of speaking ill of the recently passed, they have RBG to thank. She should have retired during Obama's second term, but Noooo. She had to hang on so Hillary, the nation's first woman POTUS, could appoint her replacement. RBG's selfish desire to fashion her legacy in a certain way has led to all of you liberals/lefties/democrats/socialists/marxists/whiners now facing certain doom and destruction.

Another shining example of someone you all want to believe has YOUR best interests at heart, screwing you over in pursuit of their own agenda of personal fulfillment.

Prior to Obamacare which put most of them out of business, in the state I am in, about a half dozen or more. Why? But that ended about a decade ago. Insurers were forced to abide by ridiculous rules and regulations, and could not. For example, forcing men to pay for healthcare plans that include maternity services.

And yeah, it matters who provides it. When one entity controls an entire industry, be it government or corporation, prices go up, quality goes down, waste and fraud runs rampant. There is no longer competition to drive prices down. To use a metaphor that people on these boards could understand better. What if you didn't have a choice between Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft for your gaming console, but only one of them? Do you think you'd be getting anything at $499? Of course not.

So yeah, it absolutely does matter. When providers compete in any industry, consumers win.

Oh, but they absolutely would if they had the power to do so. But, the people didn't grant them that power in 2018, did they? In fact, the Republicans picked up MORE seats in the senate in 2018.

The republicans should replace here, politically it is the right thing to do, morally its questionable but democrats would do the same.

Besides, the democratic protest voters who gave the presidency to trump should reap what they have sown. I am just thankful that I don't live in the US

Worker protection rights, voter rights, etc. Those are what I generally see as prime targets for a conservative court. Roe v Wade is a bit different. There's hardly any precedence to strike it down, but rather, states will continue to chip and whittle away on it with restrictions which the court would probably uphold as legal (at the state level). They goal isn't to overturn but to neuter it at a lower level. Force clinics to close with undue burdens and regulations i.e. requiring hospital admitting privileges'.

@eoten: And you are just stating how insurance works which you apparently have a problem with. You don't decide what your premiums covers for other people.

Administrative costs increases when there are many providers.

It doesn't matter in the long run. Society is becoming more and more socially liberal over time. It is the course of history and the current American Taliban forces cannot stop it, only slow it slightly,

In the mean time, I look forward to America ripping itself apart in the short term. Should be amusing. Especially if Democrats win the Presidency and then use every single tactic that Trump has used in terms of executive power to push their own agenda. Bonfire of the Vanities, indeed.

Not American but i hope Trudeau dies painfully

@Skarwolf: lol is he really that bad?