-
Supreme Court Vacancy 2020 after death of RBG
New thread.
Susan Collins statement here:
[link=https://twitter.com/SenatorCollins/status/1307412600397987842]https://twitter.com/Senat…us/1307412600397987842[/link]
Wants to let whoever wins pick.
…
So now at least four GOP Senators have said they would oppose a vote for a new Supreme Court Justice before the November election (prior to Justice Ginsbergs death): 1- Susan Collins 2- Murkowski 3- Lindsey Graham 4- Chuck Grassley -
316 Replies
-
In Collins case, I would note that she did say in the same statement that she is cool with moving ahead with judiciary committee vetting, nominating and so on, everything right up to the Senate actually voting.
This is a no that means yes. When during the process of nominating, enthusiasm for the nominee grows while Collins is told by her supporters that her only chance for being re-elected is contingent upon her voting, her tune will likely change prior to this.
Essentially, when her polls on this stance show that her chances are sinking because of it, shell change her stance.
Commencing phone calls and Twitter barrage.-
They’ll come around after Mitch talks to them.
-
Maybe.
The polling for Collins in Maine shows that her *least* popular actions are voting for Kavanaugh and support for Trump. So I’m pretty skeptical she’ll come around … at least not before the election.
Romney probably a finger-in-the-eye no. If he wasn’t recalled for voting to impeach, he’s not going to afraid of bucking on this.
Murkowski maybe … She made a pretty definitive No (coincidentally just hours before RBG’s death).
Grassley I could see coming around.-
Graham sounds like a full steam ahead yes. Also in a tight race, but in a much different situation. He has a red state where Trump is running strong and he wants juiced turnout.
For Susan Collins ME is bluer and Trump is running *very* poorly. She probably needs crossover Biden-Collins voters to win.-
Exactly, dergon. Exactly.
This isnt a Trump issue. Its a SCOTUS issue.
Meaning Republican voters in Maine would have an issue to vote for Collins that distinguishes her from her Democratic competitor that has nothing to do with Trump.
So long as what she plans to do is different from what a Democrat would do in her shoes. If she follows the Democrats, why would Republicans vote for her? And why would Democrats when they could simply vote for a Democrat?
The path for Collins will become obvious soon enough.
-
The problem with that is that the way Collins has always won her seat is with lots of Democratic and Independent votes.
Maine is a blue state… only PVI +3, but Trump has made it more hostile to Republicans.
Collins has been up to now able to keep the Republicans on board and hold enough Ds and Is to keep getting elected. But she is already trailing and her every move is watched.
I don’t have her internal polling, but I’d wager her strategists think that voting now loses her more votes than it gains.-
This is a senate issue
Trump
Has a right to make a pickBut the senate especially Republicans need to
Decide if they will do what is right or play politics for the momentThis a much bigger decision than just 1 court seat.
McConnell Is going to play politics for a short term win
But putting it nicely karma is a beatch
This is case of be careful what you wish for
-
For sure if you’re McConnell you push for the 3rd seat with everything you’ve got.
The question is whether or not he can strong-arm 50 votes out o the GOP senate. It will be close …. like Pence tie-breaking close.-
And Pence may end up being the plan to allow as many cowardly senators as possible political cover.
It wont save Collins though. Such a move is nakedly fence-straddling.
-
-
-
-
-
All 4 made that declaration in 2018, a very long time ago in Trump-time; they will fold with no trouble at all. And even if Collins votes against in a gamble to save her seat, she’s 1 vote.
Grassley will never vote to wait nor will Graham & Murkowski will go along, no use standing alone against the wind & getting wet.
-
-
-
-
-
[link=https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/517243-gardner-on-court-vacancy-country-needs-to-mourn-ginsburg-before-the-politics]Gardner on court vacancy: Country needs to mourn Ginsburg ‘before the politics begin'[/link]
-
In written statement before her death, Justice Ginsburg said it was her wish that her replacement is not named until there is a new President.
-
Quote from dergon
In written statement before her death, Justice Ginsburg said it was her wish that her replacement is not named until there is a new President.
Given how political partisan and openly hostile she was towards the man who will appoint her successor, that is not a great suprise.-
That’s true about Biden and definitely a card the Republicans can play. I just think an open seat motivates voters for them more than a filled one if they want both.
I’m concerned about the complete media destruction of the Republican party a la kavanaugh x 100
-
-
-
Thanks for the new thread. I mentioned the other path through Garland in the other thread because I’m thinking long term. Its hard to see a path here where Republicans get a win in the current media environment.
I dont think they can get 50 votes or even a vote before the election. Best case is to nominate someone and hope they win the election. Even a Presidential loss but holding the senate may allow them to go forward but would be even worse from a PR standpoint.
Only thing I will say is that Dems and media will say crap things but they would do the same exact things if shoe was on other foot.
-
Only difference is dems can keep their votes in lockstep better. Too many Republicans that care about the rules and constitution, ha.
-
Too many republicans care about rules snd constitution
Name 5
-
CF,
Would you like to make a gentlemans wager?
The wager is whether or not there will be a senate vote on confirmation prior to Nov 3.
-
Full steam ahead. Elections have consequences and Democrats BS over Kavanaugh have consequences. Conservative court is more important than election.
-
“Conservative court is more important than election.”
Says every conservative, but not the moderates seeking re-election.-
I cant really make bets but I’ll say that I think theres only about a 10% chance of a vote happening before the election and 20% chance of Republicans getting any of the 3 of a justice, senate control (not tie), or president.
When Republicans want to do something that have to be extra right, extra careful, etc. due to the nature of the media. Dems get leniency.
I just truly think the best chance to get all 3 would be to name someone but say they wont vote until after the election. I think Republicans and trump have more to gain vote-wise than dems do right now.
-
Biden already said that its ok for the senate to push through a nomination only a few months before the election. So its all good.
-
Quote from fw
Biden already said that its ok for the senate to push through a nomination only a few months before the election. So its all good.
Wait, you mean the Biden Rule that was broadcast by Republicans so loudly 4 years ago, that no judge should be nominated in an election year?
This is such rank hypocrisy & politics in search of a rationale. But the rationale always has an extremely short shelf live as its precedence will disappear 5 minutes later, the opposite of stare decisis. Like Scalias rationale for the Court handing the election to Bush, the worlds shortest lifespan.
Repubs will confirm their nominee regardless of prior excuses, its only timing that might change whether before or after the election, absolute certainty before inauguration. No way they will hand this to Biden in January, not when abortion could be repealed. And LGBT rights and the host of other Republican concerns like whittling down minority voting rights.
-
Quote from Frumious
Quote from fw
Biden already said that its ok for the senate to push through a nomination only a few months before the election. So its all good.
Wait, you mean the Biden Rule that was broadcast by Republicans so loudly 4 years ago, that no judge should be nominated in an election year?
This is such rank hypocrisy & politics in search of a rationale. But the rationale always has an extremely short shelf live as its precedence will disappear 5 minutes later, the opposite of stare decisis. Like Scalias rationale for the Court handing the election to Bush, the worlds shortest lifespan.
You are so right to point out Mr Bidens hypocrisy who when faced with a republican potentially appointing a justice in his last year objected yet deemed it a-ok to do so when the shoe was on the other foot.
Its pure politics. You have the votes, you confirm a justice. You dont have the votes, you make whatever drug-deal required to get them. Merrick Garlands problem was that the democrats didn’t have the votes or the leverage to get him confirmed, not any ‘precedent’ or rule.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I think we all ought to drop the accusations of hypocrisy … of what anyone on either side of the aisle said in 1998 or 2016 or even 2018
All that matters is the raw politics of now.
If McConnell can get to 50 votes he will do it. If that is before the election hes happy… if its in the lame duck hes still pretty damned happy
If comes down to whether 4 GOP senators think their individual political futures are better served with yes versus no
Thats it.
-
Remember that if D-Kelly of Arizona replaces R-McSally then because it was a special election, Kelly can replace McSally as early as Nov 30.
Short lame duck session.
-
Dergon is right and I actually respect that he admits both parties have hypocrisy on this and would act the same way.
Let the game begin. Ha.
-
Also good point RG about kelly. Especially since hes likely to win although mcsally will likely point out the possibility to help her in the race. AZ is still a light red state but has some anti trump moderates and Republicans. They could be swayed to mcsally just for the justice.
-
Yes, if McSally wants to win she will play this gift to the hilt. She is an otherwise mediocre at best politician, currently in the process of losing two Senate races in a couple of years.
The rest is pure power politics. Accusing someone of hypocrisy in politics is like accusing a cat of having whiskers.
I imagine Collins and Murkowskis top ten donors are on the phone with the senators and their staff this evening asking WTH is going on.
The world doesnt end in Nov, 2020. McConnell will still hold significant sway after all this is done. Do squishy senators wish to get their bills through committee or to a floor vote in 2021 or 2022? Their home state supporters do.
There is no point in backing a candidate who will likely be exiled to the wilderness even if they get back to the Senate. And those cushy gigs after they retire or lose a seat? Probably still there in some capacity, but theyd be a lot better offers and more secure if one were a good soldier while in office.
Power politics. Hate it all you like, the game is what it is and there will be life after this election. Remember that aspect as you try and predict what the political animals will do in 2020.
-
I just get annoyed with the media garbage.
Gorsuch and kavanaugh get run through the ringer and trump is criticized for conservative justices when both of those two have sided with the liberals on important rulings. All the while, Obama nominated two extremely liberal justices, got them in easy with Republican help, and the media has nothing but praise.
-
You should be inoculated against that by now. As we speak, every news outlet is preparing anti-Barrett hit pieces.
Her poor kids are going to have their medical records torn through and theyll question if shes a bad mom because one had enuresis.
The rules, decorum and so on only apply to one set of people. Thats their rule. The GOPs job is to plow right through without expectation of fairness or quarter.
-
-
Republicans would be incredibly stupid if they don’t proceed with nomination. Democrats have been nothing but despicable for years.
-
Ok here is my prediction. Trump, being the narcissist that he is, wants nothing more than the win the next election. Having 3 supreme court justices passed by him in his first term is a huge feather in his cap. He doesnt want a supreme court opening hanging over the election. So he will nominate someone who can pass without a big st show, someone centrist or maybe even slightly left of center to grease the skids. He believes he will win, and he knows if he wins he will have additional opportunities to nominate justices. There is no need to whip the left into hysterics, give them somebody to calm them down.
-
OC,
I disagree. I think its highly likely it will be Barrett. Lagoa, a Cuban-American judge from Florida is picking up headlines.
Whoever Trump nominates, that person becomes a sort of quasi-running mate alongside Pence. Vote for me and the GOP senators and look who else you get.
What I predict will NOT happen is some sort of compromise pick. The left has had nothing but hatred for Trump for years. They hate him so much that they cant get a doggone second COVID relief bill through and Trump has had to put through a bunch of executive orders to get things done.
It doesnt matter if King Solomon magically appeared on the steps of the White House with a valid US citizenship card and 15 years experience in American jurisprudence. Trump could nominate the wisest judge of all time or a glass of warm pink lemonade, and the vote will still end up 52-48.
The various Melian dialogues strewn about the Internet are fun to read, but ultimately this is still about power politics.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from dergon
All that matters is the raw politics of now.
Thats it.
The present and future of the American experiment for the next couple of generations.
-
Looking through Collins feed, the comments to her statement are more than 90% negative. Most stuff on the Internet is negative of course.
The Republican base is of course furious. The Democratic comments mention her final decision on Kavanaugh and give her no credit; they simply dont believe her and dont think it will matter regardless.
This is a classic case of trying to walk down the middle of the road and getting hit from both sides. Her chances for re-election are currently nil.
I predict the following: after Trump nominates someone, Collins will release a statement about how wonderful the nominee is.
This statement will say something to the effect of I said we should wait before, but Im so pleasantly surprised by the excellence of this nominee that I see no reason we should deprive America of having this nominee on the court ASAP.
Thats my prediction.
-
-
-
I am hoping for Barrett myself. And yes I agree after what the Dems have done to Trump for the past 4 years they deserve and should expect nothing less than the big middle-finger from Trump and Mcconnell and I would be completely behind that. But… maybe a more moderate approach wins the day. We shall see.
-
Given the GOP/rural/small-state lean to the entire Senate structure, the Dems can’t win the long term battle over SCOTUS with the political alignment as is.
They’ll have the occasional chance to push through some judges when they hold the WH and the Senate (which should be less statistically frequently than when the GOP has the same)
So I think the logical response for Dems is to try to re-balance for the future. That means if they take the Senate and the Presidency this time they should push hard for DC and PR statehood to re-balance a bit.
And, while I was opposed to expanding the federal judiciary, if this third Trump SCOTUS pick does get rammed through, I’ll be fine with a court packing response too.
-
Yep
-
Smart Republican politics for this fight:
[ol][*]Nominate a solid, conservative woman for the seat, but no one too controversial to dominate media coverage.[*]Challenge Joe Biden to make public a list of his prospective Supreme Court nominees, as Trump did two weeks ago.[*]Try to turn the election into a referendum on the Supreme Court, instead of Trump and the pandemic.[*]Delay the confirmation hearings until after the election.[*]Confirm the nominee in the lame duck session. [/ol]-
It’s not ‘court packing’ if Trump succeeds on a third nominee.
His success at slowing the liberal infiltration of the judiciary is the one thing that keeps motivating a substantial part of the conservative slice of the electorate.
-
Oh yeah… if Trump wins in November the seat is inarguably his to appoint. And if he wins in November that very likely means the GOP held the Senate.If they were to wait until after an election that Trump won with a GOP Senate then it’s all fair game.
– That doesn’t change the underlying political alignment dynamic that incents Dems to expand the courts and push for statehood. It just puts the Dems in the position of being blamed for it. It’s less damage to them is Trumo and McConnell “stole” another seat.
-
Quote from dergon
Oh yeah… if Trump wins in November the seat is inarguably his to appoint.
Win or lose, it’s his seat to fill.
Had RBG done the right thing and resigned in the last year of Obama’s magnificous reign, it would have been up to him to fill her seat. She had apparently been assured that Hillary would be appointed to replace Obama. So she decided to stick around for another year for the first female president to appoint a worthy successor.
-
Quote from fw
Quote from dergon
Oh yeah… if Trump wins in November the seat is inarguably his to appoint.
Win or lose, it’s his seat to fill.
Had RBG done the right thing and resigned in the last year of Obama’s magnificous reign, it would have been up to him to fill her seat. She had apparently been assured that Hillary would be appointed to replace Obama. So she decided to stick around for another year for the first female president to appoint a worthy successor.
[font=”arial,helvetica,sans-serif”]Thought about this after Trump bragged the day Ginsburg died. [size=”0″]This scenario is total fiction. It would have been believable before Scalia died but in hindsight, McConnell would never have allowed it no matter what. [/size][size=”0″]As the opening presented by Scalia’s death in February of Obama’s last year proves. [/size] [/font]
[font=”arial,helvetica,sans-serif”][size=”0″] McConnell would have simply held up 2 positions instead of 1 using identical rationale he used for Merrick. Obama already appointed 2 judges, 2 too many for McConnell & he was not about to allow a 3rd appointment much less a 4th. [/size][/font]
[font=”arial,helvetica,sans-serif”][size=”0″] No way in hell. [/size][/font]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Cruz saying they have the votes.
-
I mean ultimately the Dems would be doing the exact same thing and they know it. Whatever.
-
I think Cruz is correct, the deck has been set for a contested election. Bidens team is lawyering up for this very reason. The supreme court need the 9 justice seats filled to deal with it.
-
Yes. Game on.
Ha, Pelosi said they wouldnt rule out impeaching Trump again if he nominated someone.
Im rooting for this now. Yes, please please please give the GOP some silly impeachment to point at, laugh, and smack down without taking up.
-
For her to even say that just gave Trump’s campaign a bit boost. That’s an irrational thought. Impeaching a President just because of politics you don’t like is a very bad thing to even think, let alone try to do.
-
I think Biden was supposed to submit his list in June. Never did.
-
Quote from Cubsfan10
For her to even say that just gave Trump’s campaign a bit boost. That’s an irrational thought. Impeaching a President just because of politics you don’t like is a very bad thing to even think, let alone try to do.
As someone embedded in Trump country, I can report that there is ONE thing that still gets people fired up for the man in orange: The supreme court.
Another impeachment effort before the election would be epic. The first one was pretty good, but people have forgotten by now just how hard it fell on its face.-
Quote from fw
Quote from Cubsfan10
For her to even say that just gave Trump’s campaign a bit boost. That’s an irrational thought. Impeaching a President just because of politics you don’t like is a very bad thing to even think, let alone try to do.
As someone embedded in Trump country, I can report that there is ONE thing that still gets people fired up for the man in orange: The supreme court.
Another impeachment effort before the election would be epic. The first one was pretty good, but people have forgotten by now just how hard it fell on its face.
Which is why Right wing media is claiming Pelosi is calling for Impeachment II.
Can someone provide a link where Pelosi says Impeachment II would be used? I can’t seem to find any such quote even in Right wing-nut media.
Rile up the core over invented and alternate facts, just the sort of thing to lead Trump supporters around by their noses.
The facts are that regardless of anything and everything, Republicans will appoint and confirm even in lame duck session.
-
Nothing youre saying matters, Frumi.
-
[link=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-doesnt-rule-out-using-impeachment-as-option-to-stop-trump-supreme-court-pick]https://www.foxnews.com/p…ump-supreme-court-pick[/link]
Its literally on the top part of Fox News, you goofnut.
-
Quote from radgrinder
[link=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-doesnt-rule-out-using-impeachment-as-option-to-stop-trump-supreme-court-pick]https://www.foxnews.com/p…ump-supreme-court-pick[/link]
Its literally on the top part of Fox News, you goofnut.
Such an unforced error. Of course, this was a stupid and leading question, but any politician who isn’t fogged in already would have had the correct answer available:[i] ‘No George, of course we wouldn’t impeach the president over this. You can only impeach the president if he commits a ‘high crime or misdemeanor’, and nominating an associate justice would not fall under that definition.'[/i]
Unless of course you have convinced yourself that impeachment is just another parliamentary procedure that you can use anytime you disagree with the president.-
She also did not say a voodoo effigy doll would be ruled out. One would guess that’s in the works then.
The idea is idiotic and it’s only purpose is to inflame for no reason other than to increase the paranoia.
Someone please explain under what rationale Pelosi is suggesting Impeachment II? The Biden Rule?
Stupid beyond stupid. Anyone who believes this is an idiot or just paranoid simple in the head. -
Quote from Frumious
She also did not say a voodoo effigy doll would be ruled out. One would guess that’s in the works then.
Did Stefanopulos ask her about a vodoo effigy doll ? He didn’t, he asked a yes/no question on impeachment and he received a ‘yes’.
The idea is idiotic and it’s only purpose is to inflame for no reason other than to increase the paranoia.
That’s why it is so dumb that Pelosi in her red-wine induced brain fog stepped into that trap.
Someone please explain under what rationale Pelosi is suggesting Impeachment II? The Biden Rule?
You are right. The limited scope of actions that call for impeachment are criminal in nature. You could never impeach someone for just doing his job, whoever strenuously you disagree with him politically.
-
Quote from fw
Such an unforced error. Of course, this was a stupid and leading question, but any politician who isn’t fogged in already would have had the correct answer available:[i] ‘No George, of course we wouldn’t impeach the president over this. You can only impeach the president if he commits a ‘high crime or misdemeanor’, and nominating an associate justice would not fall under that definition.'[/i]
Yup, I have to agree with you here then, both for Stephanopoulos’s question and Pelosi not answering him, “WTF George???”
Stephanopoulos throwing chum & making Pelosi part of the chum he’s thrown.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from radgrinder
Cruz saying they have the votes.
That’s a bit premature given that we dont even know the nominee.
Given the right nominee, they have the vote.
There’s got to be a black conservative female appeals court judge out there that Trump can put on the court.
I think we’ll see a repeat of the last time when the democrats are going to abscond rather than doing their job in congress (the last time, their antics killed a guy who got flattened and burned to death in an accident caused by their motorcade).-
Could be premature. But, the nominees identity will end up being either neutral or beneficial to the final tally.
So I tend to believe him. However, I dont mind a few weeks of drama involving Trump and the GOP doing their job regarding the court knocking every other election issue down a few pegs in the public attention span.
-
Quote from radgrinder
So I tend to believe him. However, I dont mind a few weeks of drama involving Trump and the GOP doing their job regarding the court knocking every other election issue down a few pegs in the public attention span.
Which benefits the president. The further his godawful incompetent mismanagement of the corona crisis moves down the list of issues, the better it is for him.
-
-
-
-
Maybe you could explain this “rule” when it happened & context?
It was in June 1992 & there was no nominee and most importantly, no vacancy to fill. There was no vote or action.
As a matter of fact, to put the whole thing in actual context, this is what he said, again, in June of 1992, not Sept of 1992, not Feb of 1992.
“Given the unusual rancor that prevailed in the (Clarence) Thomas nomination, the need for some serious reevaluation of the nomination and confirmation process, and the overall level of bitterness that sadly infects our political system and this presidential campaign already, it is my view that the prospects for anything but conflagration with respect to a Supreme Court nomination this year are remote at best.
In my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date.
Some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it. But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course we were to choose in the Senate to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.”
Scalia died in Feb 13, 2016 & McConnell announced that same day of Scalia’s death that Obama’s choice would never be considered to replace Scalia, a full 9 months before the election. That year’s Court session did open with only 8 Justices with Republicans claiming, no big deal only 8.
Suddenly now again, there is no such thing as a Biden Rule but we need 9 Justices now.
Who is guilty of hypocrisy? It was not Biden in 1992 or 2016. That label belongs to Republicans in 2016 and 2020 on this issue.
-
Quote from Frumious
Maybe you could explain this “rule” when it happened & context?
It was in June 1992 & there was no nominee and most importantly, no vacancy to fill. There was no vote or action.
As a matter of fact, to put the whole thing in actual context, this is what he said, again, in June of 1992, not Sept of 1992, not Feb of 1992.
As I said, there is no ‘rule’ or procedure. The president submits a candidate and the senate confirms it if there are enough votes to do so. Garland didn’t get sandbagged because of a rule. He got sandbagged because Obama didn’t have the votes to get him confirmed. Its politics, nothing personal.-
Its a wonderful gift from Pelosi, is it not? It further fires up Republicans and further improves Trumps chances.
It also helps GOP senators: vote for us too or else theyll impeach Trump over nothing – here, Nancy just said it.
Finally, when the Houss inevitably does impeachments 2 through 16, the GOP has room to roll their eyes and decline to even take up articles.
Keep talking Democrats!
-
-
-
Biden needs to loan Pelosi some of his handlers to jump in and say this interview is over when she start running off the rails with her mouth. She really does need to STFU she does nothing but make the Dems look crazy.
p.s. i loved that interview good morning, its sunday morning 2/3 through the interview. Somebody hit Pelosis reset button, shes glitching again!-
The party that verifiably, falsely slandered and labeled Kavanaugh a gang rapist in front of his family and the whole world no longer gets to lecture on decorum.
This justice will be crammed down the Democrats throats, right up to McConnells elbow.
-
Quote from over-caffeinated
Biden needs to loan Pelosi some of his handlers to jump in and say this interview is over when she start running off the rails with her mouth. She really does need to STFU she does nothing but make the Dems look crazy.
One of my most rabid democrat family members remarked about Biden during the South Carolina primary that he reminded her of a boxer in the corner who gets juiced up by his trainer with ‘something’ and gets back into the fight. Whatever that memory aid is they are giving to Biden prior to public demonstrations, they need to tell Nancies court physician so she can be premedicated as well.-
I enjoy how everyone has accepted the idea that the Democratic leaders are all near death and propped up by drugs in some sort of pharmaceutical Weekend at Bernies.
-
Biden to Republican Senators:
Please follow your conscience. Dont vote to confirm anyone nominated under the circumstances President Trump and Senator McConnell have created. Dont go there. Uphold your constitutional duty, your conscience, let the people speak. Cool the flames that have been engulfing our country. We cant ignore the cherished system of checks and balances.-
Remarks like that just show Biden living in the past believing he can compromise. He’s not senile he just believes in something that hasn’t existed for a couple of decades now.
Of course Republicans will confirm the next Justice. This is their 40 year dream that will confirm Trump’s hero status to Republicans regardless of everything else including COVID’s mismanagement.
Reagan who? -
Quote from dergon
Biden to Republican Senators:
Please follow your conscience. Dont vote to confirm anyone nominated under the circumstances President Trump and Senator McConnell have created. Dont go there. Uphold your constitutional duty, your conscience, let the people speak. Cool the flames that have been engulfing our country. We cant ignore the cherished system of checks and balances.
With ‘circumstances’ he is referring to what ? That he wants to appoint the justice ?-
Its adorable. The point of the system of checks and balances is that one cannot ignore it. But back in 2013, the Democrat-run Senate removed a check by triggering the nuclear option to remove the filibuster on judicial nominees.
Their call. Now the Republicans are simply playing by the rules the Democrats established, and they are crying so hard. Its delightful.-
Lagoa nominated on Tuesday is the new word on the street. Hmm. Not sure shes conservative enough.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from radgrinder
Lagoa nominated on Tuesday is the new word on the street. Hmm. Not sure shes conservative enough.
Watch them squirm when they try to explain how they confirmed her 80/15 a year ago and how she is now utterly unqualified for the job.
She is from south FL. They are going to trot out some pool boy she made uncomfortable. And of course, the ABA will suddenly find her ‘unqualified’ based on 9 months worth of decisions since their positive assessment.-
Personally I hope the republicans push ax hard as possible on this issue
American Apartheid
60% of the population oppressed by 40%
Be careful what you wish for
-
Personally I hope the republicans push ax hard as possible on this issue
American Apartheid
60% of the population oppressed by 40%
Be careful what you wish for
-
Quote from Chirorad84
Personally I hope the republicans push ax hard as possible on this issue
American Apartheid
60% of the population oppressed by 40%
Be careful what you wish for
Oppressed ? By the elected president nominating a justice that gets confirmed by the elected senate ?-
Please push it through
I look forward to laughing at you in a year
-
No cheese for your whine when the shoe is on the other foot
-
Quote from Chirorad84
No cheese for your whine when the shoe is on the other foot
Sure, if democrats control the senate and the WH, they can push through some hardcore social justice warrior a week after justice Thomas kicks the bucket. They can do that, no whining from me.
That is if they win.
-
Considering the world we have, a little social justice would be a big improvement.
It was, after all, a primary focus of Justice Ginsburg.
-
Almost forgot, the ACA is also on the chopping block & looks to lose its head freeing millions from having healthcare insurance burdens.
Oh, brave new world.-
Smart politics for Democrats:
1) Focus on the future of healthcare and the ACA
2) Attack the GOP for being anti-democratic (Don’t attack the nominee ad hominem)
3) Pile massive money into a political pressure campaign warning vulnerable GOP senators that they will lose their seats if they vote before the 2020 election is settled.
4) Appeal to the few “gettable” Republicans who might be looking to legacy, comity, etc …. Romney, Grassley. Pump them up as heroes of the Republic is they just wait until January.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6 or 1/2 dozen, same thing. Barbara Lagoa is a Latina while Barrett is “white” making Barrett more attractive. Barrett is a mother of 7 and an “originalist” therefore knowing what Madison, Hamilton & Jay would decide in today’s world, another plus.
Who is most likely to repeal of Roe v Wade is the question.
Frankly I will not lose sleep over either, it’s November 3 that’s important.-
Ditto frumi
I think this backfired on republicans
Classic case of be careful what you wish for
-
Too early to say anything about a backfire especially considering that no matter what, one of those women is the next judge on the Court. The question is who is strongest to repeal Roe v Wade which will push abortion to the states forcing the Court how to rule against all the pro-choice states – but that’s much later.
I think Barrett is the easier choice for checking all the boxes important to Republicans but Trump could nominate Lagoa to attract Hispanics, at least Cubans in Florida.
We’ll see.
-
-
Ditto frumi
I think this backfired on republicans
Classic case of be careful what you wish for
-
-
-
-
Whats the phrase? If this is torture, chain me to the wall?
-
[link=https://morningconsult.com/2020/09/21/supreme-court-polling-ginsburg-trump-biden-2020/]https://morningconsult.co…burg-trump-biden-2020/[/link]
Morning Consult Poll just out:
[h1]Supreme Courts Potency as 2020 Voter Issue Surges Among Democrats After Ginsburgs Death[/h1] [h2]60% of Democrats say the court is very important to their vote, up 12 points in a week[/h2] ___Nate Silver responding:
“If voters prefer waiting until after the election by a 13-point margin *and* D’s are more fired up about the Supreme Court, this starts to look like a challenging issue for Republicans. Which is not to say they won’t confirm someone, just that it could come at an electoral price.”
“If moving to confirm someone was merely *somewhat* unpopular, one imagines the GOP would do it (since getting a Supreme Court seat is hugely impactful). If it was *extremely* unpopular, McConnell might not be able to hold together support anyway. But what if it’s in between?”
“If it’s in betweenmore than merely *somewhat* unpopular, but not quite to the point of being *extremely* unpopularthen there’s probably a ton of in-fighting within the GOP, which is not what you want on the eve of an election.”
-
I enjoy how Silver went weeks without any polls after the conventions, traditionally a poll heavy time, and within 24 hours of RBGs death there are polls galore, all of which magically reflect what Democrats want to see happen.
Miraculous.
-
Schumer and AOC just in a press conference promised to impeach Trump if he tried to nominate someone.
Go ahead. Do it. Begging you.
-
Quote from radgrinder
Schumer and AOC just in a press conference promised to impeach Trump if he tried to nominate someone.
Go ahead. Do it. Begging you.
Please, please, and start the hearings next week to run for the next 40 days.-
You forget
Pelosi is much smarter than trump
-
[link=https://twitter.com/jennaellisesq/status/1307827830403690498?s=21]https://twitter.com/jenna…07827830403690498?s=21[/link]
You sure? Shes glitching pretty badly.
What just happened.https://t.co/mG66sDluPO
— Jenna Ellis 🐊 (@realJennaEllis) September 20, 2020
-
-
-
-
-
-
I believe that another impeachment would be a tactic
House sends articles, forces Senate to take up ahead of any other business
Repeat as necessary until Jan
-
The fact that the Dems are even speaking this out loud speaks for itself.
-
The Senate is not required to take up articles. It has the sole power to try articles. It could simply say nope, or just vote them down without trial.
Given that this is a naked partisan gambit and that Trump is perfectly within his rights to nominate a candidate, this is a situation where McConnell would be thrilled to be thrown into this briar patch.
Again, do it. Make impeachment a complete joke. Neuter the Democratic House entirely. Do it.
-
[b]A Way to Defuse a Fight Over Raw Power[/b][/h1]
[link=https://time.com/5891217/ginsburg-scotus-raw-power-principles/]David French[/link]: Court-packing is dangerous. Yet if the GOP violates its principles to jam through a nominee in Trumps last days in office, the pressure from congressional Democrats to pack the court may well be overwhelming. So Biden should make a deal with the lame-duck Senate. Keep the seat open, and hell pledge not to sign any legislation packing the Supreme Court while hes in office.
This isnt the unilateral disarmament so despised by partisans. Its a compromise. Both sides would shed Machiavellianism (for a moment, at least) and do something concrete to actually de-escalate Americas toxic political conflicts. Americas polarization is growing dangerous. Political violence stalks our streets. Now is the time for true statesmen to step forward, to put prudence before power, and reach a compromise that doesnt just preserve the legitimacy of the court, it helps preserve the integrity of our republic.-
A bird in the hand…
Republicans will move forward with confirmation without such “compromise” & worry later about Democratic response as they do not believe Democrats would be so daring.
-
No one on the right cares what French or Goldberg says. French got canned from National Review for being a wimp. Theyre Democratic lapdogs.
-
That deal sounds soo much better than “cancel the nomination and we won’t try impeaching the president”. Wow the left is truly broken if they think this is a good idea.
-
Im totally For court packing in this case
Gloves off
-
“Im totally For court packing in this case
Gloves off”
Internet tough guy. You are such a joke. -
As a country we are dysfunctional. Everyone has to identify as a Democrat or republican. Its basically fighting each other all the time. Nothing useful ever gets done for average Joe. All the while plutocrats live large.
-
Republicans are going to put in a justice in an election year. They can because they have President and Senate. That was different than in 2016. The norm of needing 60+ votes for judicial appointees was eliminated by Dems in 2013 and followed up on by Republicans.
If Dems choose to break more norms then who knows what else could happen.
DC was designed not to be a state and if they want to be then they can join Maryland/Virginia.
PR should be allowed to decide on its own as it normally has and a serious discussion could take place once they get their government in order down there.
Court packing and removing the filibuster for everything will be disastrous and lead to too many justices and too many laws that flip flop back and forth. What if Republicans go back and make DC a district again? What’s stopping a party from putting in 7 justices at once? It’s all bad. -
The Democrats have already pledged to pack the courts, and suggested impeachment, rioting, civil war, etc., etc. if they dont get their way.
Why dont the Democrats de-escalate?
-
Cory Gardner is in. Lets do it.
-
The crazy thing is that all of their anger is just so they can continue to kill babies, of which are disproportionately minorities.
-
Its time for DC and Puerto Rico statehood and 11 justices
If a Republican senate can deny Obama a nomination because of election year politics then this payback
Ag as in gloves are off
-
Why not have DC move into Maryland and/or VA as it was originally? Personally, I think a federal district is important and people don’t have to live there if they don’t want to but I understand the frustration.
Why 11? Why not 13? 15? 21? 37? 55? 99? -
Why claim you cant fill a seat for a democratic president in an 10 months before an elect in an election year and rush to fill a seat for a Republican president 40 days before an election
Why?
Cmon man you want to play be BS rules that you change as it fits you then claim outrage when the other side changes the rules
Like Ive been saying be careful what you wish for because the tables will turn
-
Quote from Chirorad84
Why claim you cant fill a seat for a democratic president in an 10 months before an elect in an election year and rush to fill a seat for a Republican president 40 days before an election
Why?
Because you have the votes to do it, that’s why.
Had the dems controlled the senate in 2017, they would have confirmed a new justice on the last day of Obamas magnificous reign. -
Karma is a beatch
-
Since weve put packing the Court on the table….
Lets put the most fire breathing conservative judge we can find up there.
Then when Trump is re-elected and the GOP holds the Senate, lets put a dozen more fire breathing conservatives on there and go to town.
This is what the Democrats said theyd do. Sounds like a good idea.
-
If Trump is re-elected and the GOP holds the Senate they wont have to do anything … they will have won already
-
As RG and McConnell have both said, had the Dems had the Senate with Garland, they would have gone ahead in an election year. The key is having both President and Senate. Both parties would do the same to each other if the shoe(s) were on the other foot/feet. Do I like it? No. But, politics is full of hypocrisy.
-
I just want the Democrats to keep talking.
-
[link=https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/22/romney-supports-holding-a-vote-on-next-supreme-court-nominee-419898]https://www.politico.com/…e-court-nominee-419898[/link]
Yup Sens. Romney and Gardner on board for approving President Trumps pick. 51 Senators now on board (Sen. Manchin was in the wings).
OHHHHH NOOOOOOO !!!! Armageddon for liberals!!!
The environmentalists/socialists are the biggest losers (thats why they are the loudest protestors over the vacancy). With one decision (like citizens united, taking away political power from state worker unions, Bush v. Gore, allowing fracking, preserving private gun ownership, ending Obamacare mandates) SCOTUS can freeze out elites who want us to get off carbon and redistribute wealth.
A lot less rioting next time, and little more reason, snowflakes.
BAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH -
Its fun to talk about and pretend to be tough and all that writing trash articles for publications that cannot even be given away, but reality is less fun.
The dems are not going to do anything that crazy cause they know once they pack the court the Supreme Court loses all legitimacy in the eyes of the public and states and becomes nothing more than political tool of whatever party won the most recent election. States will simply ignore the court as being the final arbiter and just wait for the next election cycle to repack the court with more agreeable justices. Big states like NY, Cali and Texas will simply say F-you we are following state laws and ignoring the federal rulings if they dont agree with what the states want. Heck once you do this you might as well just make the justices elected positions. -
Agree, likely true.
-
Quote from Cubsfan10
Why not have DC move into Maryland and/or VA as it was originally? Personally, I think a federal district is important and people don’t have to live there if they don’t want to but I understand the frustration.
Why 11? Why not 13? 15? 21? 37? 55? 99?
I think there is a good chance that such a continuous escalation is where we are heading until we get past this period of hyper-partisanship.Quote from fw
Because you have the votes to do it, that’s why.
Had the dems controlled the senate in 2017, they would have confirmed a new justice on the last day of Obamas magnificous reign.
Yep. Like I said… raw political power. Which I why I believe that the Democrats will retaliate. They simply will be unable to move a progressive agenda forward with a Supreme court that is 6-3.
I think that *if* they can win big they will take some kind of extreme action before 2022.
Quote from over-caffeinated
The dems are not going to do anything that crazy cause they know once they pack the court the Supreme Court loses all legitimacy in the eyes of the public and states and becomes nothing more than political tool of whatever party won the most recent election.
The left already has the sense that the system is illegitimate … that a GOP “majority” doesn’t actually represent the true majority of Americans.
In the past, dems were less attuned to the courts as a lever of political power. The Trump term has brought that into focus much more clearly …
Now if this current seat is filled I believe it has a good chance at galvanizing the mainstream Democrats to solidify around doing something “crazy” and risk the fallout the next time they have total control.
-
Minority government.
-
Do it. Do it do it do it do it do it do it.
-
Quit teasing us and do it. Show us just how crazy you really are. Do it,
-
Republicans control this process
They will win this one
But be careful what you wish for
Not a long term winner for the republican party
-
McConnell will move when he has the votes. Not earlier… and not a minute later.
Whether or not that turns in to a short term win for the GOP by drivind base turn out … TBD
Whether or not it turns into a long term win for the GOP … also TBD
What it does to the Democratic party … also TBD, but I do think it will galvanize the Left in the same way the Tea Party became the mainstream of the GOP. -
The Democrats spent the Kavanaugh nomination straight up lying and calling the poor guy a gang rapist in front of his family and kids. They tried to keep him from coaching his girls basketball team because they called him a sex offender.
The Democrats problem is, we believe you when you start threatening crazy.
Do it. Stop teasing us and get nuts. Right now. Do it.
-
Evidence and testimony suggested he was of questionable character and lets not forget the magically disappeared debt.
We really need reform to get us to term limits on SCOTUS. Can’t over turn a law unless it’s unanimous.
We’re in for more of the pendulum. The Dems will pack the court. Then in 4 years if the republicans win they’ll pack it more. -
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Evidence and testimony suggested he was of questionable character and lets not forget the magically disappeared debt.
We really need reform to get us to term limits on SCOTUS. Can’t over turn a law unless it’s unanimous.
We’re in for more of the pendulum. The Dems will pack the court. Then in 4 years if the republicans win they’ll pack it more.
Do you support term limits on Congress? I’ll compromise with term limits for both. -
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Evidence and testimony suggested he was of questionable character and lets not forget the magically disappeared debt.
We really need reform to get us to term limits on SCOTUS. Can’t over turn a law unless it’s unanimous.
Regarding term limits, can you imagine a scenario where during Obama’s administration (or future Democratic president) McConnell’s Senate refused to consider any Democratic nominee waiting until a Republican was president & then approving 4 Justices?
Under present circumstances, that is a very possible outcome. -
Go nuts. Impeach Trump a month before the election, pack the court, riot, threaten, all the stuff the Democrats are talking about. Do it. Do it all.
Lets play that game of chicken. Just so you know, the Republican base is in the car, securely belted in on the passenger side, a brick on the accelerator and the steering wheel locked straight ahead and driving right at you. Stop teasing us and lets do it.
-
Honestly
50-60 people who actually read these forums arent going to do much of anything
Republicans hold all the cards as far as the Supreme Court vacancy and they are going to play them
But that wont last much longer
Not really much to do until then
-
-
“Why dont the Democrats de-escalate?”
Well they have to. This whole show is the Dem party infighting, far left (progressives) vs more moderate left. The geriatric leaders of the Dem party no longer have control of anything. They really needed a strong candidate, instead they got Biden.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
If the nomination does get pushed through that represents another escalation of the partisan war.
(Id say its 75/25 it does)
In that case all Dems can do is a) try to Republicans pay a political price and b) respond in kind either with expanding the courts and/or rebalancing the Senate by allowing PR and DC statehood.
That will in turn lead to some as of yet unknown GOP escalation of course…. but thats kind of where we are as a country now.
-
The rules were written in the Constitution.
Writing a new Terminator script…
The year is 2048…there are 5763 Supreme Court justices. Radgrinder picks up the phone to find the voice of an automated message saying I am the next Republican SCOTUS nominee.
There is a knock at the door. A disheveled dergon is offering to read mammograms for food, or the DemoCommunistas will impeach Barron Trump.
Radgrinder closes the door and releases the hounds.
-
The best part of the Democratic threats about packing the court and so on is the underlying assumption that there would never be a Republican senate that wouldnt simply do the same thing.
Its delightful and childish. They keep on expanding the playing field, forgetting that the GOP no longer gives an eff and will aggressively take advantage of whatever territory is opened up.
-
