SCOTUS will increase to 11 or 13 Justices

[BLADEMDA]

RBG is dead. She was 87 and with her medical history should have retired during the Obama administration. Instead, she waited too long to retire and didn't survive until Joe Biden took the oath of office in January 2021.

So, now the GOP recognizes it will likely lose control of the Presidency and Senate in 2021. The GOP sees the direction the country is moving, heavily to the left, and is scared they won't get another shot at a conservative SCOTUS in our lifetimes. The strategy is to push through Amy Barrett's confirmation to SCOTUS before the election.

The Dems will respond with a promise to "pack the court" in 2021 with at least 11, if not 13, Justices. This will de-stabilize our government even further and make the divisions greater.

I think Mitch should meet with the Dems including a few moderate Senators to hash out a deal. All sides will agree to not abolish the 60 vote rule, not push for new statehoods and in return the winner of the U.S. election gets to pick the replacement for RBG.

Sadly, I don't think this deal will happen. Instead, we will get a more unstable government in 2021 and SCOTUS will be viewed as "illegitimate" by both parties in 2021. This should be of concern to all of us as the nation begins to once again crack in half due to fundamental ideological differences on the role of government in our lives.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Barrett Has Supreme Court Edge as List Widens to Lagoa, Thapar

Amy Coney Barrett Emerges as Frontrunner for Trump Court Pick

www.bloombergquint.com

The three have something in common: They’re young, with the prospect of serving on the top U.S. court for decades.

 

[vector2]

The level of hypocrisy isn't the impressive thing....it's the fact that they could not possibly care any less about being obvious, glaring hypocrites.

 

[Twiggidy]

They’re hypocrites and only care about their base and unlike most people who take interest in politics, I’m fairly reasonable, so I have no problem saying that if the roles were reverse, Chuck Schumer would probably do they same. If they really want to fix it they should amend the Constitution to address “election year appointments” so there will be less of a gray area. I think no matter what happens, the country will continue to divide because the ”Age of Reason” has long gone and I don’t see it coming back anytime soon. People are selfish and the next month or so will prove that.

 

[vector2]

They’re hypocrites and only care about their base and unlike most people who take interest in politics, I’m fairly reasonable, so I have no problem saying that if the roles were reverse, Chuck Schumer would probably do they same

That's a cool hypothesis and all, but it doesn't really gel with the fact that Obama wanted to nominate some milquetoast centrist to the court because he thought a moderate, balanced nominee was the right thing to do in the interest of fairness and in the interest of appeasing both parties in an election year. He was just totally oblivious to the fact that he was dealing with utter political sociopaths. Now, if the situation were reversed in 2024 then I think you're right that Schumer would go with a scorched earth approach, but that's mostly because the other side has already charred 90% of the landscape.

 

[BLADEMDA]

That's a cool hypothesis and all, but it doesn't really gel with the fact that Obama wanted to nominate some milquetoast centrist to the court because he thought a moderate, balanced nominee was the right thing to do in the interest of fairness and in the interest of appeasing both parties in an election year. He was just totally oblivious to the fact that he was dealing with utter political sociopaths. Now, if the situation were reversed in 2024 then I think you're right that Schumer would go with a scorched earth approach, but that's mostly because the other side has already charred 90% of the landscape.

Do you agree the Dems' response will be a "scorched earth policy" by changing SCOTUS to 11 Justices? Don't forget the filibuster rule of 60 votes will also be burned by Schumer et al. Trump doesn't care what Mitch or Lindsay said in 2016 because he wants another SCOTUS pick.

Trump to pick nominee to fill Ginsburg Supreme Court seat this week and the candidate will be a woman

Though any confirmation fight in the midst of a presidential election will be hard fought, the battle is expected to be amplified if Barrett is picked, because of her track record.

www.cnbc.com

 

[Twiggidy]

That's a cool hypothesis and all, but it doesn't really gel with the fact that Obama wanted to nominate some milquetoast centrist to the court because he thought a moderate, balanced nominee was the right thing to do in the interest of fairness and in the interest of appeasing both parties in an election year. He was just totally oblivious to the fact that he was dealing with utter political sociopaths. Now, if the situation were reversed in 2024 then I think you're right that Schumer would go with a scorched earth approach, but that's mostly because the other side has already charred 90% of the landscape.

I tend to agree. We’re dealing with a senate majority leader who posed smiling in front of a confederate flag so I may not be so sure he would‘ve even treated Al Gore the same. That’s another topic for another thread. That’s why I say amend the Constitution and take it out of the hands of biased Senators. I know, easier said than done.

 

[BLADEMDA]

“Senator McConnell made his position clear in 2016 when he held Justice Scalia’s seat vacant for 10 months so he could deny President Obama an appointment – a goal he himself admitted,” Feinstein said in a statement. “To jam through a lifetime appointment to the country’s highest court – particularly to replace an icon like Justice Ginsburg – would be the height of hypocrisy.”

Schumer laid out the stakes to Senate Democrats on a conference call Saturday, suggesting they could take controversial moves to end the filibuster and pack the court if Trump’s nominee is seated and they sweep the election.

“Everything Americans value is at stake. Health care, protections for pre-existing conditions, women’s rights, gay rights, workers’ rights, labor rights, voting rights, civil rights, climate change and so much else is at risk,” Schumer said, according to a source on the call.

“Let me be clear: if Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans move forward with this, then nothing is off the table for next year,” Schumer said. “Nothing is off the table.”

Trump wants to move 'without delay' to replace Ginsburg, setting up epic Supreme Court fight before election

President Donald Trump on Saturday said he wants to move "without delay" to replace Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with a conservative nominee. The president's statement follows Ginsburg's death on Friday evening.

www.cnbc.com

 

[Twiggidy]

Do you agree the Dems' response will be a "scorched earth policy" by changing SCOTUS to 11 Justices? Don't forget the filibuster rule of 60 votes will also be burned by Schumer et al. Trump doesn't care what Mitch or Lindsay said in 2016 because he wants another SCOTUS pick.

Trump to pick nominee to fill Ginsburg Supreme Court seat this week and the candidate will be a woman

Though any confirmation fight in the midst of a presidential election will be hard fought, the battle is expected to be amplified if Barrett is picked, because of her track record.

www.cnbc.com

It’s all political. If RBG dies in December and Trump happened to be re-elected, Amy Barrett isn’t the nominee. She’s the front runner now because you make all the suburban centrist white women who you may be losing to Biden think twice in the voting both and now you’ve increased your chances of getting re-elected. If she doesn’t get confirmed in October, then you can play the ”the Senate has women, not me” card and probably get re-elected that way. This could be a win-win situation for Trump right now. RBG dying may have gotten him re-elected.

 

[vector2]

Do you agree the Dems' response will be a "scorched earth policy" by changing SCOTUS to 11 Justices? Don't forget the filibuster rule of 60 votes will also be burned by Schumer et al. Trump doesn't care what Mitch or Lindsay said in 2016 because he wants another SCOTUS pick.

Trump to pick nominee to fill Ginsburg Supreme Court seat this week and the candidate will be a woman

Though any confirmation fight in the midst of a presidential election will be hard fought, the battle is expected to be amplified if Barrett is picked, because of her track record.

www.cnbc.com

I think it's possible they will attempt a SCOTUS expansion if Trump goes ahead with Barrett. I would bet against it if Trump goes with a Merrick Garland type nominee.

Regardless, we shouldn't forget that Dems are being forced into a corner with some of their actions because Republicans keep acting as the first movers by habitually breaking things.....with no regard at all for the consequences as long as they get their way. Dems are unfortunately in a retaliate or die position.

Admit it. Republicans have broken politics.

Neither party is perfect, but the GOP has moved to the extreme.

www.vox.com

 

[Twiggidy]

Sadly, the other important voting block, ie, voters who look like me, don’t really understand the importance of a Supreme Court nominee or else they would’ve come out in DROVES in 2016.

 

[Direct Laryngoscopy]

Everyone here should read “the 4th turning” The volatility we’re experiencing in all aspects of American life is profound. We’re closer to civil war in this country than peace and harmony. And with RBG death along with the presidential election with further divide us and splinter society more.

 

[Direct Laryngoscopy]

Sadly, the other important voting block, ie, voters who look like me, don’t really understand the importance of a Supreme Court nominee or else they would’ve come out in DROVES in 2016.

Unfortunately many of those that look like us have given up on this country and the system that was built and designed to keep us excluded.

 

[deleted126335]

That's a cool hypothesis and all, but it doesn't really gel with the fact that Obama wanted to nominate some milquetoast centrist to the court because he thought a moderate, balanced nominee was the right thing to do in the interest of fairness and in the interest of appeasing both parties in an election year. He was just totally oblivious to the fact that he was dealing with utter political sociopaths. Now, if the situation were reversed in 2024 then I think you're right that Schumer would go with a scorched earth approach, but that's mostly because the other side has already charred 90% of the landscape.

With all respect, I think that Obama’s choice of Garland was not “because it was the right thing to do in the interest of fairness” it was because he knew that the Republicans held all the aces and that maybe they would relent and let a centrist through. If the Dems controlled the Senate, I suspect he would have gone further left. Obama was a pragmatist who thought he might manage to get half a loaf.

 

[Twiggidy]

Everyone here should read “the 4th turning” The volatility we’re experiencing in all aspects of American life is profound. We’re closer to civil war in this country than peace and harmony. And with RBG death along with the presidential election with further divide us and splinter society more.

I try not to fear monger but I agree with you. I really don’t care what some Twitter egg is thinking right now, but I really want to be in the heads of our military when they hear the President even jokingly wanting a 3rd term.

 

[Twiggidy]

Unfortunately many of those that look like us have given up on this country and the system that was built and designed to keep us excluded.

It’s honestly why I wish Obama would’ve lost the ‘08 primary. I know “Blame Obama” is a fun joke here and there, but it can be argued that his nomination, election, and re-election are why we’re at this point in history.

I’m not joking. I’d trade for a McCain presidency if it avoids the current state of affairs. The first black president wasn’t worth it, but that’s just me speaking emotionally.

Edit: And I can what if this game all day. “But you’d stomach Sarah Palin as VP?” If Obama isn‘t the nominee, then McCain doesn’t feel the pressure to pick a female VP. He probably beats Hilary in the general election, because, well, we’ve seen how well she does with Presidential campaigns. Trump doesn’t get insulted at the future correspondents dinner. Bither-ism doesn’t exist. We live in a totally different country. I’d make that trade.

 

[vector2]

With all respect, I think that Obama’s choice of Garland was not “because it was the right thing to do in the interest of fairness” it was because he knew that the Republicans held all the aces and that maybe they would relent and let a centrist through. If the Dems controlled the Senate, I suspect he would have gone further left. Obama was a pragmatist who thought he might manage to get half a loaf.

Yea man, hence why the very next line was "and in the interest of appeasing both parties in an election year."

 

[deleted126335]

Yea man, hence why the very next line was "and in the interest of appeasing both parties in an election year."

I noted the line, I just don't think that he would have tried to appease anybody if the Democrats held the Senate. He would have gone for another Kagan or Sotamayor.

 

[radsisrad]

Unfortunately many of those that look like us have given up on this country and the system that was built and designed to keep us excluded.

I feel terrible for "many of those that look like us." It's not as though there are explicit set-asides in higher education and every single profession for "many of those that look like us." It's the 1850s all over again.

 

[Twiggidy]

I noted the line, I just don't think that he would have tried to appease anybody if the Democrats held the Senate. He would have gone for another Kagan or Sotamayor.

It’s bad form to not confirm a SCOTUS nominee unless there’s a striking reason not to (the Kavanaugh situation can be debated). For Merrick Garland, Mitch was playing the “lame duck President” card, which if I’m being pragmatic I can understand. He’s arguing now that technically Trump isn’t a lame duck and the reason Americans elected him and a Republican Senate, is to push the GOP agenda through. He‘s splitting hairs. If he had any honor or dignity, he’d play the same “Let the American people decide” card and we’d see what happens in November, but Mitch McConnell doesn’t have any honor or dignity.

 

[radsisrad]

Trump and the Senate should nominate someone for SCOTUS tomorrow. It's what the Democrats, who have lied about everything from Kavanaugh to Smollett to Russia to Sandmann to every other bull**** hoax, would do. And anybody who cares about the 1st and 2nd Amendments no longer has a real decision to make for the 2020 Presidential election.

 

[pgg]

With all respect, I think that Obama’s choice of Garland was not “because it was the right thing to do in the interest of fairness” it was because he knew that the Republicans held all the aces and that maybe they would relent and let a centrist through. If the Dems controlled the Senate, I suspect he would have gone further left. Obama was a pragmatist who thought he might manage to get half a loaf.

I couldn't agree more. Obama was a smart guy and a very shrewd politician who (over two entire terms) consistently made a habit of only reaching for things that were reasonably within his grasp, given the legislature he had at various points along the way. Much to the chagrin of the progressive left who wanted him to push harder.

Remember his open mic "I'll have more freedom after the election" comment? (Funny to think of what passed for "scandal" such a short time ago.) Classic Obama - carefully reaching for things at the right times, never too greedy. The only time I think he slipped up badly was after Sandy Hook, when he thought a gun control push might slip through the country's mood.

He nominated Garland because he knew nominating another Sotomayor or Kagan would DEFINITELY be met with no consent from the Senate, given the circumstances. He hoped Garland, being less of a polarizing figure, would slip through. He was wrong.



I think Trump's re-election prospects just went way up. The Democratic base was already about as fired up as they could possibly be. There aren't any fence-sitters on the left who'll be motivated to vote now, who weren't a week ago. I don't believe their turnout has any more notches up to go. On the other hand, there were signs that Trump's base and his casual supporters were flagging behind with motivation, beyond the hardcore rally-goers. Their turnout was on track to be worse than 2016. Even so 538 had Trump's odds at winning around 1 in 4 as of last week.

I'm convinced he won in 2016 on the basis of conservatives turning out to keep Scalia's seat conservative. Now those same voters have RBG's seat suddenly open and they're excited again. They're being reminded of why they voted for him despite all the other baggage.

For the next 6 weeks we're going to be talking a lot less about coronavirus, west coast fires and climate change, BLM, Russian and Chinese interference, and the economy. They'll be subjects at the debates but forgotten the next day. There'll definitely be even more protests, and a small fraction of them will be violent, which plays to law-&-order Trump's advantage. RBG's seat, and Trump's nomination, and the Senate moving forward with it, will be front and center. Every day. There's the narrative for the rest of the campaign, and it favors Trump.

What a time to be alive. 2021 has a tough act to follow.

 

[deleted480308]

It’s honestly why I wish Obama would’ve lost the ‘08 primary. I know “Blame Obama” is a fun joke here and there, but it can be argued that his nomination, election, and re-election are why we’re at this point in history.

I’m not joking. I’d trade for a McCain presidency if it avoids the current state of affairs. The first black president wasn’t worth it, but that’s just me speaking emotionally.

Edit: And I can what if this game all day. “But you’d stomach Sarah Palin as VP?” If Obama isn‘t the nominee, then McCain doesn’t feel the pressure to pick a female VP. He probably beats Hilary in the general election, because, well, we’ve seen how well she does with Presidential campaigns. Trump doesn’t get insulted at the future correspondents dinner. Bither-ism doesn’t exist. We live in a totally different country. I’d make that trade.

The problem wasn’t obama being black, that wasn’t a divide. The problem was the policy arguments and stuff like “"They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

 

[radsisrad]

It’s honestly why I wish Obama would’ve lost the ‘08 primary. I know “Blame Obama” is a fun joke here and there, but it can be argued that his nomination, election, and re-election are why we’re at this point in history.

I’m not joking. I’d trade for a McCain presidency if it avoids the current state of affairs. The first black president wasn’t worth it, but that’s just me speaking emotionally.

Edit: And I can what if this game all day. “But you’d stomach Sarah Palin as VP?” If Obama isn‘t the nominee, then McCain doesn’t feel the pressure to pick a female VP. He probably beats Hilary in the general election, because, well, we’ve seen how well she does with Presidential campaigns. Trump doesn’t get insulted at the future correspondents dinner. Bither-ism doesn’t exist. We live in a totally different country. I’d make that trade.

It would probably have been healthier if the first black president had been someone conservative, like Ben Carson or (being charitable) Herman Cain. I used to be a Republican, and among the ranks, the statistically-significant antipathy toward Obama was due to a perceived strident liberalism on his part.

 

[Twiggidy]

I couldn't agree more. Obama was a smart guy and a very shrewd politician who (over two entire terms) consistently made a habit of only reaching for things that were reasonably within his grasp, given the legislature he had at various points along the way. Much to the chagrin of the progressive left who wanted him to push harder.

Remember his open mic "I'll have more freedom after the election" comment? (Funny to think of what passed for "scandal" such a short time ago.) Classic Obama - carefully reaching for things at the right times, never too greedy. The only time I think he slipped up badly was after Sandy Hook, when he thought a gun control push might slip through the country's mood.

He nominated Garland because he knew nominating another Sotomayor or Kagan would DEFINITELY be met with no consent from the Senate, given the circumstances. He hoped Garland, being less of a polarizing figure, would slip through. He was wrong.



I think Trump's re-election prospects just went way up. The Democratic base was already about as fired up as they could possibly be. There aren't any fence-sitters on the left who'll be motivated to vote now, who weren't a week ago. I don't believe their turnout has any more notches up to go. On the other hand, there were signs that Trump's base and his casual supporters were flagging behind with motivation, beyond the hardcore rally-goers. Their turnout was on track to be worse than 2016. Even so 538 had Trump's odds at winning around 1 in 4 as of last week.

I'm convinced he won in 2016 on the basis of conservatives turning out to keep Scalia's seat conservative. Now those same voters have RBG's seat suddenly open and they're excited again. They're being reminded of why they voted for him despite all the other baggage.

For the next 6 weeks we're going to be talking a lot less about coronavirus, west coast fires and climate change, BLM, Russian and Chinese interference, and the economy. They'll be subjects at the debates but forgotten the next day. There'll definitely be even more protests, and a small fraction of them will be violent, which plays to law-&-order Trump's advantage. RBG's seat, and Trump's nomination, and the Senate moving forward with it, will be front and center. Every day. There's the narrative for the rest of the campaign, and it favors Trump.

What a time to be alive. 2021 has a tough act to follow.

I think you’re correct and much to Blade’s point, I think if they push a nominee through, it could encourage some voters to come out to get him out of office and maybe swing Congress. As Blade was saying this is where the expansion of the court discussions start to happen and leads the country to turmoil.

If I could make a huge announcement to the country, I’d probably just say screw it. The court will be conservative for generations. Take the loss and get out and vote. A conservative court with no changes and a Democrat in office and Congress causes a lot less turmoil than broad stroke sweeps to the system. Like I said, if they should change any law, change it to where you can’t make a nominee 365 days before election or inauguration, whichever, no matter which Party controls the country. That seems fair, but this country isn’t about fair nowadays.

 

[Twiggidy]

The problem wasn’t obama being black, that wasn’t a divide. The problem was the policy arguments and stuff like “"They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep better.

 

[Twiggidy]

It would probably have been healthier if the first black president had been someone conservative, like Ben Carson or (being charitable) Herman Cain. I used to be a Republican, and among the ranks, the statistically-significant antipathy toward Obama was due to a perceived strident liberalism on his part.

You can also keep telling yourself that, as well. Ben Carson was literally a Republican Presidential candidate and couldn’t beat Trump.

 

[chessknt]

I couldn't agree more. Obama was a smart guy and a very shrewd politician who (over two entire terms) consistently made a habit of only reaching for things that were reasonably within his grasp, given the legislature he had at various points along the way. Much to the chagrin of the progressive left who wanted him to push harder.

Remember his open mic "I'll have more freedom after the election" comment? (Funny to think of what passed for "scandal" such a short time ago.) Classic Obama - carefully reaching for things at the right times, never too greedy. The only time I think he slipped up badly was after Sandy Hook, when he thought a gun control push might slip through the country's mood.

He nominated Garland because he knew nominating another Sotomayor or Kagan would DEFINITELY be met with no consent from the Senate, given the circumstances. He hoped Garland, being less of a polarizing figure, would slip through. He was wrong.



I think Trump's re-election prospects just went way up. The Democratic base was already about as fired up as they could possibly be. There aren't any fence-sitters on the left who'll be motivated to vote now, who weren't a week ago. I don't believe their turnout has any more notches up to go. On the other hand, there were signs that Trump's base and his casual supporters were flagging behind with motivation, beyond the hardcore rally-goers. Their turnout was on track to be worse than 2016. Even so 538 had Trump's odds at winning around 1 in 4 as of last week.

I'm convinced he won in 2016 on the basis of conservatives turning out to keep Scalia's seat conservative. Now those same voters have RBG's seat suddenly open and they're excited again. They're being reminded of why they voted for him despite all the other baggage.

For the next 6 weeks we're going to be talking a lot less about coronavirus, west coast fires and climate change, BLM, Russian and Chinese interference, and the economy. They'll be subjects at the debates but forgotten the next day. There'll definitely be even more protests, and a small fraction of them will be violent, which plays to law-&-order Trump's advantage. RBG's seat, and Trump's nomination, and the Senate moving forward with it, will be front and center. Every day. There's the narrative for the rest of the campaign, and it favors Trump.

What a time to be alive. 2021 has a tough act to follow.

But what is the point of voting for him for the next term if the appointment is already made before then?

Agree with the above, violence will absolutely occur after this election especially if Trump doesn't lose by an extremely clear margin since he'll definitely fight if he doesn't. The only question is if the violence causes our society to completely break down this year or at some unclear point in the future.

 

[radsisrad]

You can also keep telling yourself that, as well. Ben Carson was literally a Republican Presidential candidate and couldn’t beat Trump.

I didn't vote for Trump, and I didn't say that Carson should have been the nominee. I'm simply saying that it would have been better for the country if the first black president had been a conservative.

 

[pgg]

It’s bad form to not confirm a SCOTUS nominee unless there’s a striking reason not to (the Kavanaugh situation can be debated). For Merrick Garland, Mitch was playing the “lame duck President” card, which if I’m being pragmatic I can understand. He’s arguing now that technically Trump isn’t a lame duck and the reason Americans elected him and a Republican Senate, is to push the GOP agenda through. He‘s splitting hairs. If he had any honor or dignity, he’d play the same “Let the American people decide” card and we’d see what happens in November, but Mitch McConnell doesn’t have any honor or dignity.

Well, I too long for days when R and D were at least superficially polite and courteous to each other, but I sometimes wonder if that veneer was about as thin and real as the (for example) press discretion and politeness that helped guys like JFK conceal their affairs back in the Golden Age of Politeness pre-Nixon. Was any of that ever real, or were the smiles just sharks and wolves grinning at each other?


Anyway, "advise and consent" from the Senate is a pretty straightforward thing. The president only has 1/2 the power to appoint judges. The Constitution isn't vague on these points.

Whatever sound bites get played on TV, a Republican Senate withholding consent for a Democratic nominee just before an election ought to be expected in a century marked by a lack of legislative progress (in either direction) and a judicial branch that seems to be rising in practical day-to-day power. Rs and Ds want different things. I don't know why anyone who hasn't been in a coma since the 90s would expect a Republican Senate to withhold consent for a Republican nominee, or a Democrat Senate to withhold consent for a Democratic nominee.

If Obama and his party wanted their nominee confirmed in mid or late 2016, they should've won more Senate seats in 2012 and 2014.

If Schumer and his party wanted a Trump nominee NOT confirmed in late 2020, they should've won more Senate seats in 2016 and 2018.

Whoever wants to replace Breyer and Thomas in the next few years ought to get cracking on winning the Presidency and a Senate majority right about 6 weeks from now.

Beyond that, the sound bites on TV and handwringing over honor and dignity and hypocrisy, are just noise.

 

[Twiggidy]

I didn't vote for Trump, and I didn't say that Carson should have been the nominee. I'm simply saying that it would have been better for the country if the first black president had been a conservative.

While there could be truth in that reasoning, I’m saying it wouldn’t happen because the conservative party wouldn’t have nominated a black conservative in the first place.

 

[BLADEMDA]

McConnell isn't splitting hairs, he's just being the generally loathsome swamp creature that he is. It's the reason he has been so effective in politics for many decades. A "lame duck" occurs after a successor has already been elected. Obama nominated Garland with over 100 days before the election.

But that is history. What will really be interesting is the timeline for this nomination. It will take at least a month to vet and put forth a nominee, followed by a couple weeks of hearings. The final vote could very well take place after the election -- an election where Republicans can lose both the Presidency and Senate. Then you really have a SCOTUS appointment during a lame duck session. What happens then?

See my first 2 posts. McConnell needs to make a deal with Schumer to keep this nation together. Pretend to allow Trump his SCOTUS pick but then make a deal with Schumer after the election to keep things reasonable for both sides. Biden gets the SCOTUS pick and Schumer agrees to leave the filibuster rule in place.

 

[BLADEMDA]

While there could be truth in that reasoning, I’m saying it wouldn’t happen because the conservative party wouldn’t have nominated a black conservative in the first place.

I totally disagree with that position and support Tim Scott for President in 2024. He would be my first choice for the GOP to help bring this nation back together.

 

[Twiggidy]

McConnell isn't splitting hairs, he's just being the generally loathsome swamp creature that he is. It's the reason he has been so effective in politics for many decades. A "lame duck" occurs after a successor has already been elected. Obama nominated Garland with over 100 days before the election.

But that is history. What will really be interesting is the timeline for this nomination. It will take at least a month to vet and put forth a nominee, followed by a couple weeks of hearings. The final vote could very well take place after the election -- an election where Republicans can lose both the Presidency and Senate. Then you really have a SCOTUS appointment during a lame duck session. What happens then?

They already have their short list ready and I can guarantee you they’ve been vetted. We all know they’ve been waiting for RBG to die pretty much since the Kavanaugh nomination. They could literally have this ball rolling next week and a new judge before the election. Although it does depend on about 4 senators who have said they don’t support confirming a new nominee, but that makes no difference because Pence is the tie-breaker. Thanks Harry Reid.

 

[pgg]

But what is the point of voting for him for the next term if the appointment is already made before then?

They need to play it for maximum benefit and voter turnout, and I expect they will.

1 - Nominate someone now. Make it an immediate-seeming issue. Keep it in the news.

2 - Don't schedule a confirmation vote or even hearings before the election. Let conservatives think the seat might slip away, Garland-style, if Trump loses.

If Trump wins, there's no rush to confirm. If Trump loses, they can confirm in December. Who cares if it makes the left angry? Who cares if it makes moderates angry (they'll forget about it by the 2022 midterms).

Agree with the above, violence will absolutely occur after this election especially if Trump doesn't lose by an extremely clear margin since he'll definitely fight if he doesn't. The only question is if the violence causes our society to completely break down this year or at some unclear point in the future.

I think society will be Just Fine no matter who wins. But there are some smart people here who think I'm whistling past the graveyard and maybe they're right.

 

[pgg]

You can also keep telling yourself that, as well. Ben Carson was literally a Republican Presidential candidate and couldn’t beat Trump.

Ben Carson was also bonkers, completely crazy, but crazy in a way that confused voters, as opposed to crazy in a way that motivated them to vote.

 

[BLADEMDA]

ABC7NY
August 24 at 8:45 PM ·
South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott says he is living the American dream and cites "the evolution of the Southern heart" as the reason he, as a Black man, was able to win a primary election against a son of Strom Thurmond.

 

[deleted480308]

Keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep better.

that just isn't as big of a thing as you think

 

[deleted480308]

Ben Carson was also bonkers, completely crazy, but crazy in a way that confused voters, as opposed to crazy in a way that motivated them to vote.

for real, that smoking commercial?!?!?!?!

 

[epidural man]

It’s honestly why I wish Obama would’ve lost the ‘08 primary. I know “Blame Obama” is a fun joke here and there, but it can be argued that his nomination, election, and re-election are why we’re at this point in history.

I’m not joking. I’d trade for a McCain presidency if it avoids the current state of affairs. The first black president wasn’t worth it, but that’s just me speaking emotionally.

Edit: And I can what if this game all day. “But you’d stomach Sarah Palin as VP?” If Obama isn‘t the nominee, then McCain doesn’t feel the pressure to pick a female VP. He probably beats Hilary in the general election, because, well, we’ve seen how well she does with Presidential campaigns. Trump doesn’t get insulted at the future correspondents dinner. Bither-ism doesn’t exist. We live in a totally different country. I’d make that trade.

How about 2008 goes to Obama, 2012 to Romney?

I know both sides now dislike the guy, but I just love him. What a guy.

 

[chessknt]

They need to play it for maximum benefit and voter turnout, and I expect they will.

1 - Nominate someone now. Make it an immediate-seeming issue. Keep it in the news.

2 - Don't schedule a confirmation vote or even hearings before the election. Let conservatives think the seat might slip away, Garland-style, if Trump loses.

If Trump wins, there's no rush to confirm. If Trump loses, they can confirm in December. Who cares if it makes the left angry? Who cares if it makes moderates angry (they'll forget about it by the 2022 midterms).



I think society will be Just Fine no matter who wins. But there are some smart people here who think I'm whistling past the graveyard and maybe they're right.

That does seem like a reasonable strategy since there's no way they could get it confirmed before people actually vote.

I think the degree of destruction and rioting we've seen over racial inequality is going to look like child's play compared to what is coming if people think that democracy in this country has been stolen.

Of course if we have some kind of major economic recovery that actually puts people back at work so they can stop caring about s*** like this or worrying about getting evicted or feeding their families then I don't think it'll happen. I also think that if you don't happen to fall into that group there's absolutely no way you could understand what people would do and I am very afraid of how many people are starting to fall into that group. This election is just going to be impetus but the underlying problem is people are out of work.

 

[pgg]

But that is history. What will really be interesting is the timeline for this nomination. It will take at least a month to vet and put forth a nominee, followed by a couple weeks of hearings. The final vote could very well take place after the election -- an election where Republicans can lose both the Presidency and Senate. Then you really have a SCOTUS appointment during a lame duck session. What happens then?

They'll vote to confirm and get one more Justice on their way out the door. What have they got to lose? Why not claim one final big win? They will. Of course they will. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth, and lots of words will be spoken and written about swamp creatures and honor and dignity, but it'll happen. And why not? Enacting policies and appointing people is what they were elected to do, and their term isn't over.

Then they'll endure a D presidency and legislature for 2 years and ride a red wave to some midterm wins in 2022, because that's what always happens 2 years after one party sweeps a presidential year election.

 

[Twiggidy]

that just isn't as big of a thing as you think

I’m not taking the thread down that road. My response stands.

 

[Twiggidy]

I totally disagree with that position and support Tim Scott for President in 2024. He would be my first choice for the GOP to help bring this nation back together.

Its a possibility

 

[pgg]

See my first 2 posts. McConnell needs to make a deal with Schumer to keep this nation together. Pretend to allow Trump his SCOTUS pick but then make a deal with Schumer after the election to keep things reasonable for both sides. Biden gets the SCOTUS pick and Schumer agrees to leave the filibuster rule in place.

This might be the most fantastical idea, completely detached from reality, that you've ever posted here! I say that in a friendly way.

McConnell doesn't need to do anything except confirm Trump's nominee in December, regardless of who wins. There is no planet Earth in any multiverse where McConnell arranges to hand over a SCOTUS pick to a Democratic president. Just ... no.

 

[Twiggidy]

How about 2008 goes to Obama, 2012 to Romney?

I know both sides now dislike the guy, but I just love him. What a guy.

That‘s a possibility as well. If we wanted a business man to run the country then that’s who should’ve been elected in 2016, and quite honestly probably would’ve won. But, yes, different trajectory if Romney 2012-2016, no matter how much above posters want to believe we live in a “harmonious” country

 

[pgg]

Also keep in mind that McConnell cares deeply about keeping the Senate majority. Is he willing to risk pulling away his vulnerable senators from valuable campaining time just before an election in order to ram through a contoversial SCOTUS pick, one that would unquestionably harm them?

This is exactly why there won't be hearings or a vote before the election. McConnell has already circulated a letter to Republican Senators advising them not to publicly commit to any action they may regret later. He absolutely is sensitive to their re-election campaigns.

The entire issue is going to be managed for maximal Republican voter turnout - not just for Trump, but for the Senate races too.

 

[BLADEMDA]

This might be the most fantastical idea, completely detached from reality, that you've ever posted here! I say that in a friendly way.

McConnell doesn't need to do anything except confirm Trump's nominee in December, regardless of who wins. There is no planet Earth in any multiverse where McConnell arranges to hand over a SCOTUS pick to a Democratic president. Just ... no.

PGG, think about the optics of losing the Senate majority in November, the Dems gain control 51-49, but then voting to confirm a SCOTUS pick in December for a lame duck President and a lame Duck Senate. The party in power, the GOP, has just been voted out of power by the people of the USA and you expect the lame duck U.S. Senate to confirm a conservative justice nominated by the most hated man ever to win the Presidency?

Schumer would be able to use that against the GOP in his bid to expand the court and do away with the filibuster. I don't think that the lame duck Senate will go along with that plan.

 

[Twiggidy]

Errrrrrbody trying to keep their jobs.....

 

[vector2]

Well, I too long for days when R and D were at least superficially polite and courteous to each other, but I sometimes wonder if that veneer was about as thin and real as the (for example) press discretion and politeness that helped guys like JFK conceal their affairs back in the Golden Age of Politeness pre-Nixon. Was any of that ever real, or were the smiles just sharks and wolves grinning at each other?


Anyway, "advise and consent" from the Senate is a pretty straightforward thing. The president only has 1/2 the power to appoint judges. The Constitution isn't vague on these points.

Whatever sound bites get played on TV, a Republican Senate withholding consent for a Democratic nominee just before an election ought to be expected in a century marked by a lack of legislative progress (in either direction) and a judicial branch that seems to be rising in practical day-to-day power. Rs and Ds want different things. I don't know why anyone who hasn't been in a coma since the 90s would expect a Republican Senate to withhold consent for a Republican nominee, or a Democrat Senate to withhold .

If Obama and his party wanted their nominee confirmed in mid or late 2016, they should've won more Senate seats in 2012 and 2014.

If Schumer and his party wanted a Trump nominee NOT confirmed in late 2020, they should've won more Senate seats in 2016 and 2018.

Whoever wants to replace Breyer and Thomas in the next few years ought to get cracking on winning the Presidency and a Senate majority right about 6 weeks from now.

Beyond that, the sound bites on TV and handwringing over honor and dignity and hypocrisy, is just noise.

Since honor and dignity and hypocrisy are just noise, and Trump, at least to some, apparently is just a business as usual president whose clear violations of norms, decorum, and laws aren't anything too serious (or at least not serious enough for a protest vote supporting his likely challenger), I guess we also shouldn't be too worried about dems breaking more norms by expanding SCOTUS to 11 justices and then packing it. After all, Article III Section I isn't vague on Congress's discretion to do so and indeed there are numerous historical precedents for Congress altering the number of justices.