SCOTUS will increase to 11 or 13 Justices

[BLADEMDA]

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.

I agree with you on this strategy. We disagree that a lame duck Senate with a lame duck President will vote to confirm a member of SCOTUS. Instead, Mitch will likely make a deal with Schumer to get something out of this mess and save face.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[vector2]

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.

pgg is right. Optics (along with things like hypocrisy) haven't mattered for a long time.

 

[Twiggidy]

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.

This is why I argue it just doesnt matter. I think people who actually and whole heartedly love the country and fine with a conservative SCOTUS at the expense of metaphorical or literal Civil War. The President and Congress may be blue for a while in exchange. I mean if McConnell rams a nominee through he may have to worry about his own seat but in his mind he may just not care if he gets a permanent conservative SCOTUS and the low taxes from Trumps 4 years.

 

[BLADEMDA]

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 such a thing.

I can not support my party's decision to confirm a member of SCOTUS if they lose the election on November 3rd. While I do want a real conservative majority on the court RBG hung on just long enough to make sure the NEXT President gets to choose her replacement. That said, if Trump does win re-election I do support the current Senate voting to confirm a SCOTUS nominee in December.

But, make no mistake I am predicting a Biden win along with the Dems taking control of the Senate in January 2021.

 

[Twiggidy]

But, make no mistake I am predicting a Biden win along with the Dems taking control of the Senate in January 2021.

It’s a guarantee if McConnell rams a nominee through before November. The “Let the people decide” move the Senators are playing is real interesting to get people out to vote and it will be a complete s**t show in November. I do agree with you that if they ram someone through in a lame duck situation, that scenario may be uglier than if you just gave Trump 4 more years, even if the Senate were to flip.

 

[deleted480308]

Pure filth.

The timing is uncouth

 

[ButterButter]

Pure filth.

Holy **** man

 

[ButterButter]

I don't know the answers to this and neither do you, but we can agree that this will surely be an interesting end to what has been a truly remarkable year.

Alright mods, lock this one down. We’re done here.

 

[pgg]

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.

I don't think the GOP would care about optics at that point. They'd claim the prize (another Justice) and count on winning during the midterms, because that's what happens 2 years into a presidency where the president's party controls Congress.

I mean, why wouldn't a GOP Senator who'd just been voted out of office confirm the nominee? One last victory on the way out the door.

 

[DirtDocMD]

Obama nominated Garland when Scalia died. Trump should nominate someone after Ginsburg died.

Whether the nomination is CONSIDERED (brought up for a vote) should then be up to the Senate.

If I was Trump, that’s how I’d play it, and leave success/failure/politics to the SENATE....

 

[pgg]

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'm not sure why we're diverting this conversation into something about the president ...

I called it "noise" because in this instance, that's exactly what it is. It was noise in 2016 too.

I wish in 2016 McConnell and friends had simply honestly said, "Hey, we're hoping for a Republican president and a different nominee pretty soon, so the Senate (where I'm the majority leader) is just going going to withhold consent for President Obama's nominee. Nothing personal, Mr. Garland."

We all knew that was what was happening. We all knew the blathering on TV about "letting the people decide" was just a bunch of crap. The people had already decided in 2010, 2012, and 2014 when they elected the President and Senators who were in office in 2016.

Noise.

I was tired of the left's outrage over McConnell's refusal to hold hearings about Merrick Garland in 2016, and I'm still tired of it 4 years later. It's ridiculous. The Constitution is explicit about how presidents must have the "advice and consent" of the Senate to appoint judges. Obama didn't have the Senate's consent.

Maybe it's been traditional for the Senate to hold hearings for any nominee. And it's been traditional for presidents to not bother seeking advice before making a nomination. And I guess it's been traditional for elected officials to quit doing their jobs and just take a few months off between an election their party lost and the newly elected people getting sworn in.

But I can't muster any criticism when a body of our government does the things the Constitution says they can do.

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.

I would have no Constitutional objection to that.

Nor would I have a Constitutional objection to a Democratic Congress and President making DC and Puerto Rico and American Samoa and Guam new states with 8 new reliably-Democratic Senators. Clearly, they can do that.


Elections have consequences, right? Or is that phrase only chuckle-worthy when it's uttered by a Democrat 48 hours after being sworn in?


Again -

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.

I'm genuinely baffled at the argument that elected officials should stop exercising their power and doing the things they were elected to do 3 months before the (possible) end of their terms. And none of that has anything to do with Trump, things he has or hasn't done, norms he has or hasn't broken.

 

[vector2]

I'm not sure why we're diverting this conversation into something about the president ...

I called it "noise" because in this instance, that's exactly what it is. It was noise in 2016 too.

I wish in 2016 McConnell and friends had simply honestly said, "Hey, we're hoping for a Republican president and a different nominee pretty soon, so the Senate (where I'm the majority leader) is just going going to withhold consent for President Obama's nominee. Nothing personal, Mr. Garland."

We all knew that was what was happening. We all knew the blathering on TV about "letting the people decide" was just a bunch of crap. The people had already decided in 2010, 2012, and 2014 when they elected the President and Senators who were in office in 2016.

Noise.

I was tired of the left's outrage over McConnell's refusal to hold hearings about Merrick Garland in 2016, and I'm still tired of it 4 years later. It's ridiculous. The Constitution is explicit about how presidents must have the "advice and consent" of the Senate to appoint judges. Obama didn't have the Senate's consent.

Maybe it's been traditional for the Senate to hold hearings for any nominee. And it's been traditional for presidents to not bother seeking advice before making a nomination. And I guess it's been traditional for elected officials to quit doing their jobs and just take a few months off between an election their party lost and the newly elected people getting sworn in.

But I can't muster any criticism when a body of our government does the things the Constitution says they can do.




I would have no Constitutional objection to that.

Nor would I have a Constitutional objection to a Democratic Congress and President making DC and Puerto Rico and American Samoa and Guam new states with 8 new reliably-Democratic Senators. Clearly, they can do that.


Elections have consequences, right? Or is that phrase only chuckle-worthy when it's uttered by a Democrat 48 hours after being sworn in?


Again -

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.

I'm genuinely baffled at the argument that elected officials should stop exercising their power and doing the things they were elected to do 3 months before the (possible) end of their terms.

It's strange that you realize that we live in a system of government where not everything done by the three branches is explicitly laid out in statute, and not everything laid out explicitly in statute is done....but you just don't care? I mean, we're not as bad as the UK and Parliament as far as the number of things that are done by tradition, but our way of governance also is not as algorithmic as "X says we can do Y" so end of story. It would be nice if you could acknowledge that there is some value in both restraint and consistency in democratic society, and that just because Mitch can doesn't mean Mitch should.

And none of that has anything to do with Trump, things he has or hasn't done, norms he has or hasn't broken.

We'll just have to agree to disagree that the "nothing matters" president and those who have enabled him to make a mockery of the law and of the Constitution that we're perseverating so much about have nothing to do with the current climate and approach both sides are taking to this vacant SCOTUS seat. Also, I've said before that the polarization didn't start with trump, but it's folly to pretend he hasn't made the scorched earth that much hotter with his extreme divisiveness.

 

[Twiggidy]

I'm not sure why we're diverting this conversation into something about the president ...

I called it "noise" because in this instance, that's exactly what it is. It was noise in 2016 too.

I wish in 2016 McConnell and friends had simply honestly said, "Hey, we're hoping for a Republican president and a different nominee pretty soon, so the Senate (where I'm the majority leader) is just going going to withhold consent for President Obama's nominee. Nothing personal, Mr. Garland."

We all knew that was what was happening. We all knew the blathering on TV about "letting the people decide" was just a bunch of crap. The people had already decided in 2010, 2012, and 2014 when they elected the President and Senators who were in office in 2016.

Noise.

I was tired of the left's outrage over McConnell's refusal to hold hearings about Merrick Garland in 2016, and I'm still tired of it 4 years later. It's ridiculous. The Constitution is explicit about how presidents must have the "advice and consent" of the Senate to appoint judges. Obama didn't have the Senate's consent.

Maybe it's been traditional for the Senate to hold hearings for any nominee. And it's been traditional for presidents to not bother seeking advice before making a nomination. And I guess it's been traditional for elected officials to quit doing their jobs and just take a few months off between an election their party lost and the newly elected people getting sworn in.

But I can't muster any criticism when a body of our government does the things the Constitution says they can do.




I would have no Constitutional objection to that.

Nor would I have a Constitutional objection to a Democratic Congress and President making DC and Puerto Rico and American Samoa and Guam new states with 8 new reliably-Democratic Senators. Clearly, they can do that.


Elections have consequences, right? Or is that phrase only chuckle-worthy when it's uttered by a Democrat 48 hours after being sworn in?


Again -

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.

I'm genuinely baffled at the argument that elected officials should stop exercising their power and doing the things they were elected to do 3 months before the (possible) end of their terms. And none of that has anything to do with Trump, things he has or hasn't done, norms he has or hasn't broken.

I’ll go one further. If Obama wanted that Supreme Court sear they should’ve been doing push-ups in the driveway to get people to get out and vote with the same energy they did in 08 and 12. Dems 100% took ‘16 for granted and lost a SCOTUS seat (likely 3 seats) in the process.

 

[Twiggidy]

It's strange that you realize that we live in a system of government where not everything done by the three branches is explicitly laid out in statute, and not everything laid out explicitly in statute is done....but you just don't care? I mean, we're not as bad as the UK and Parliament as far as the number of things that are done by tradition, but our way of governance also is not as algorithmic as "X says we can do Y" so end of story. It would be nice if you could acknowledge that there is some value in both restraint and consistency in democratic society, and that just because Mitch can doesn't mean Mitch should.




We'll just have to agree to disagree that the "nothing matters" president and those who have enabled him have nothing to do with the current climate and approach both sides are taking to this vacant SCOTUS seat. I've said before the polarization didn't start with trump, but it's folly to pretend he hasn't made the scorched earth that much hotter with his extreme divisiveness.

Much of it is the fundamental difference between the Democrat and Republican parties. In general, the GOP can disagree on many isssue but when it comes game time they stick together, no matter if your right wing or slightly moderate. Democrats have factions and will hold the party hostage because they don’t get their way. Quick examples are 1) When Obamacare was first introduced and 2) 2016 Democratic Primary. The Democrats are only showing somewhat unity this round because of Trump.

 

[vector2]

Much of it is the fundamental difference between the Democrat and Republican parties. In general, the GOP can disagree on many isssue but when it comes game time they stick together, no matter if your right wing or slightly moderate. Democrats have factions and will hold the party hostage because they don’t get their way. Quick examples are 1) When Obamacare was first introduced and 2) 2016 Democratic Primary. The Democrats are only showing somewhat unity this round because of Trump.

' Steve Bannon once famously said that, in politics, “Our side [the Right], we go for the head wound. Your side, you have pillow fights." '

Putting Coney on the court in a lame duck session, if it happens, will mark the beginning of a take-no-prisoners era in American politics that'll make the 2010s look like kindergarten nap time- because perhaps finally dems will realize that apologizing for wearing a tan suit while the opposition shapes the judiciary for the next 30 years isn't what winning looks like. Sadly it seems each passing year we get closer to realizing that compromise is dead and that the only way to get anything done is a parliamentary style system where one party has a mandate and a snap election can boot them out when everyone gets sick of it.

 

[pgg]

It's strange that you realize that we live in a system of government where not everything done by the three branches is explicitly laid out in statute, and not everything laid out explicitly in statute is done....but you just don't care? I mean, we're not as bad as the UK and Parliament as far as the number of things that are done by tradition, but our way of governance also is not as algorithmic as "X says we can do Y" so end of story. It would be nice if you could acknowledge that there is some value in both restraint and consistency in democratic society, and that just because Mitch can doesn't mean Mitch should.

Sure, I'll acknowledge and agree with that.

The remedy for the abuse and deviation from tradition that you perceive is an election, and we've got one coming up in 6 weeks. Complaining about elected officials doing what they were elected to do, within the bounds of the Constitution and the law, just seems weird to me, when the fundamental argument is that it's impolite.

I mean there's been all kinds of sketchy stuff going on with this administration (how many indicted and/or convicted cabinet members and other officials and appointees are we up to?) but outrage over judicial appointments and confirmations? C'mon.

We'll just have to agree to disagree that the "nothing matters" president and those who have enabled him to make a mockery of the law and of the Constitution that we're perseverating so much about have nothing to do with the current climate and approach both sides are taking to this vacant SCOTUS seat. Also, I've said before that the polarization didn't start with trump, but it's folly to pretend he hasn't made the scorched earth that much hotter with his extreme divisiveness.

Well, I believe the GOP response to this call for courtesy and calm and restraint and a return to traditional family val--I mean Senate procedures and Presidential decorum--might be something along the lines of "you first".

And maybe Biden will be the guy to do it. I still think he's going to win. If he does and the Senate stays in GOP hands, maybe it'll be gridlock and maybe it'll be a step back to calm as everybody looks around in a post-Trump world, takes a deep breath, and logs off Twitter. I also think that if he does win AND he gets a legislative majority, the more likely outcome will be a round of scorched earth stiggin'it. Elections have consequences, after all.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Schumer created the judicial mess when he changed the rules for confirming judges. The GOP continued that same line when confirming SCOTUS nominees.

If Schumer abolishes the filibuster rule he may regret it. Major policy decisions are best decided by 60 votes in the senate. A simple majority means that the next Congress can quickly undo the work of the previous one. Obamacare is the law of the land today because of the filibuster.

 

[Mad Jack]

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.

It's been illegitimate since the BS with Garland

 

[Mad Jack]

Sure, I'll acknowledge and agree with that.

The remedy for the abuse and deviation from tradition that you perceive is an election, and we've got one coming up in 6 weeks. Complaining about elected officials doing what they were elected to do, within the bounds of the Constitution and the law, just seems weird to me, when the fundamental argument is that it's impolite.

I mean there's been all kinds of sketchy stuff going on with this administration (how many indicted and/or convicted cabinet members and other officials and appointees are we up to?) but outrage over judicial appointments and confirmations? C'mon.




Well, I believe the GOP response to this call for courtesy and calm and restraint and a return to traditional family val--I mean Senate procedures and Presidential decorum--might be something along the lines of "you first".

And maybe Biden will be the guy to do it. I still think he's going to win. If he does and the Senate stays in GOP hands, maybe it'll be gridlock and maybe it'll be a step back to calm as everybody looks around in a post-Trump world, takes a deep breath, and logs off Twitter. I also think that if he does win AND he gets a legislative majority, the more likely outcome will be a round of scorched earth stiggin'it. Elections have consequences, after all.

The problem is there is a large amount of gray area. There is no rule as to how long the Senate must wait for appointments, and they literally held up Obama court appointments for years and a SCOTUS appointment for the better part of a year. It is their duty to vet appointments, and they refused to do even that. It's a lot of bad faith BS that is transparently not what the Founders intended

 

[vector2]

Sure, I'll acknowledge and agree with that.

The remedy for the abuse and deviation from tradition that you perceive is an election, and we've got one coming up in 6 weeks. Complaining about elected officials doing what they were elected to do, within the bounds of the Constitution and the law, just seems weird to me, when the fundamental argument is that it's impolite.

I mean there's been all kinds of sketchy stuff going on with this administration (how many indicted and/or convicted cabinet members and other officials and appointees are we up to?) but outrage over judicial appointments and confirmations? C'mon.

The fundamental argument isn't that it's impolite. The fundamental argument is that the US code doesn't have the statutory specifics outlining exactly (in *excruciating* detail) the procedure for selecting a new SCOTUS justice, so essentially the methodology has been based on some combination of arcane Senate procedural rules and the vetting/selection tradition of the executive branch. And it seemed like that process was working pretty well, so much so that it has functioned for decades without needing further statutory specificity. Back in late 1987 and then early 1988, the Dem led Senate didn't say Kennedy couldn't be confirmed because it was an election year. But lo and behold, we now have a majority leader who has disabused himself of quaint notions of "honor" or "tradition" or "hypocrisy" and who was willing to break those decades of precedent with no thought toward the future strife or conflicts that would cause. What's weird to me is that someone could see that and go "meh."

Ultimately, you know it and I know it- when you attempt to pass off what Mitch did when he went nuclear in 2016 or what he's doing now as merely "impolite," that is not a fair reading of the situation.

Well, I believe the GOP response to this call for courtesy and calm and restraint and a return to traditional family val--I mean Senate procedures and Presidential decorum--might be something along the lines of "you first".

And maybe Biden will be the guy to do it. I still think he's going to win. If he does and the Senate stays in GOP hands, maybe it'll be gridlock and maybe it'll be a step back to calm as everybody looks around in a post-Trump world, takes a deep breath, and logs off Twitter. I also think that if he does win AND he gets a legislative majority, the more likely outcome will be a round of scorched earth stiggin'it. Elections have consequences, after all.

You saw the graph right showing which party has escalated the number of filibusters first year by year, right? You know which party's majority leader led the unprecedented move of denying a SCOTUS nominee a hearing, right? Surely you must be joking if you think a "you first" from the party leading the destruction is warranted....right?

 

[Mad Jack]

The fundamental argument isn't that it's impolite. The fundamental argument is that the US code doesn't have the statutory specifics outlining exactly (in *excruciating* detail) the procedure for selecting a new SCOTUS justice, so essentially the methodology has been based on some combination of arcane Senate procedural rules and the vetting/selection tradition of the executive branch. And it seemed like that process was working pretty well, so much so that it has functioned for decades without needing further statutory specificity. Back in late 1987 and then early 1988, the Dem led Senate didn't say Kennedy couldn't be confirmed because it was an election year. But lo and behold, we now have a majority leader who has disabused himself of quaint notions of "honor" or "tradition" or "hypocrisy" and who was willing to break those decades of precedent with no thought toward the future strife or conflicts that would cause. What's weird to me is that someone could see that and go "meh."

Ultimately, you know it and I know it- when you attempt to pass off what Mitch did when he went nuclear in 2016 or what he's doing now as merely "impolite," that is not a fair reading of the situation.



You saw the graph right showing which party has escalated the number of filibusters first year by year, right? You know which party's majority leader led the unprecedented move of denying a SCOTUS nominee a hearing, right? Surely you must be joking if you think a "you first" from the party leading the destruction is warranted....right?

Not only that but it was a stated strategy from day 1 of Obama's presidency that obstruction would be the goal from the GOP end.

The Victory of ‘No’

The GOP’s unprecedented anti-Obama obstructionism was a remarkable success. And then it handed the party to Donald Trump.

www.politico.com

 

[vector2]

Schumer created the judicial mess when he changed the rules for confirming judges. The GOP continued that same line when confirming SCOTUS nominees.

If Schumer abolishes the filibuster rule he may regret it. Major policy decisions are best decided by 60 votes in the senate. A simple majority means that the next Congress can quickly undo the work of the previous one. Obamacare is the law of the land today because of the filibuster.

Harry Reid invoked the nuclear option in 2013. Schumer was actually against it when that was first proposed.

And as alluded to in that image, when the minority party uses more executive and judicial nominee filibusters in a few years than in the previous 4 decades combined, you can see why that might've been necessary.

 

[Twiggidy]

Not only that but it was a stated strategy from day 1 of Obama's presidency that obstruction would be the goal from the GOP end.

The Victory of ‘No’

The GOP’s unprecedented anti-Obama obstructionism was a remarkable success. And then it handed the party to Donald Trump.

www.politico.com

Oh the dystopian hell scape we were heading towards as opposed to a pandemic, an entire side of the country burning, and not being allowed in Europe. Everything is fine.

 

[Leon'sMom]

President Donald J Trump is going to be re-elected for a 2nd term on Nov 3, 2020, but the Democrat Party is using every dirty trick in the book to steal the election.

#1 Everyone in the left-leaning media is lying to you about Biden leading in the polls or it being a close race. That's not true. All you have to do is open your eyes to see that Trump has all of the enthusiasm on his side. Literally thousands and thousands of supporters show up for Trump. While a trickle of people and planted/pre-planned question-askers lob the softballs at Biden whenever he leaves his basement. Why are they lying? They need to convince you that it will be a close race, because then they can contest the results or say that Trump cheated. Wake up. It's not even close. Never has been. Never will be. Trump is #Winning.

#2 Why are the Dems pushing so hard for mass mailing of ballots (as opposed the traditional absentee ballots on demand)? Why are Dem states pushing for more time to count the ballots and declare the winner? Chaos. Confusion. Clusterf***. Delaying and obfuscating.

#3 Would a highly, highly, highly contested Presidential election eventually go to the SCOTUS to decide the winner? Highly probable. Having 9 confirmed Supreme Court Justices is essential. Not a luxury. Essential. We cannot go into Nov 3rd, 2020, Election Day, with only 8 Justices, and risk a 4-4 split decision. It would create a Constitutional crisis (and worse).

If you believe in the Constitution, the structure and function of our government as designed by our Founding Fathers, and the peaceful transfer of power via democratic elections, then you should be supporting the nomination and filling of the empty SCOTUS seat.

Unfortunately, we can't always rely on our elected officials to do their jobs.

Fortunately, Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution addresses this in its Recess Appointments clause:

"Thus, when the Senate is in recess, the President may make a temporary appointment to any office requiring Senate approval, including filling vacancies on the Supreme Court, without the Senate's advice and consent. Such a recess appointee to the Supreme Court holds office only until the end of the next Senate session (always less than two years)."

Appointment and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Senate session calendar:

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/resources/pdf/2020_calendar.pdf

Days in Session of the U.S. Congress

Information on how to track Congressional Activity via a days in session calendar.

www.congress.gov

Totally legal. Totally Constitutional.

 

[agammaglobulin]

Repubs push through a new judge for sure. I don't think it will impact November much. The vast majority of Americans aren't voting in 2020 based on what judge they want on the SCOTUS. This election is largely a vote on like/dislike of Trump on a personal (non-policy) level. Trump's only shot for the presidency is to make Biden look senile in the debates. Senile vs a$$hole, maybe the a$$hole can win.

 

[chessknt]

President Donald J Trump is going to be re-elected for a 2nd term on Nov 3, 2020, but the Democrat Party is using every dirty trick in the book to steal the election.

#1 Everyone in the left-leaning media is lying to you about Biden leading in the polls or it being a close race. That's not true. All you have to do is open your eyes to see that Trump has all of the enthusiasm on his side. Literally thousands and thousands of supporters show up for Trump. While a trickle of people and planted/pre-planned question-askers lob the softballs at Biden whenever he leaves his basement. Why are they lying? They need to convince you that it will be a close race, because then they can contest the results or say that Trump cheated. Wake up. It's not even close. Never has been. Never will be. Trump is #Winning.

#2 Why are the Dems pushing so hard for mass mailing of ballots (as opposed the traditional absentee ballots on demand)? Why are Dem states pushing for more time to count the ballots and declare the winner? Chaos. Confusion. Clusterf***. Delaying and obfuscating.

#3 Would a highly, highly, highly contested Presidential election eventually go to the SCOTUS to decide the winner? Highly probable. Having 9 confirmed Supreme Court Justices is essential. Not a luxury. Essential. We cannot go into Nov 3rd, 2020, Election Day, with only 8 Justices, and risk a 4-4 split decision. It would create a Constitutional crisis (and worse).

If you believe in the Constitution, the structure and function of our government as designed by our Founding Fathers, and the peaceful transfer of power via democratic elections, then you should be supporting the nomination and filling of the empty SCOTUS seat.

Unfortunately, we can't always rely on our elected officials to do their jobs.

Fortunately, Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution addresses this in its Recess Appointments clause:

"Thus, when the Senate is in recess, the President may make a temporary appointment to any office requiring Senate approval, including filling vacancies on the Supreme Court, without the Senate's advice and consent. Such a recess appointee to the Supreme Court holds office only until the end of the next Senate session (always less than two years)."

Appointment and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Senate session calendar:

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/resources/pdf/2020_calendar.pdf

Days in Session of the U.S. Congress

Information on how to track Congressional Activity via a days in session calendar.

www.congress.gov

Totally legal. Totally Constitutional.

This reads like a propaganda outline from the Republican party. Are you truly unable to see how ****ed up your points are?

1-Crowds at rallies don't mean anything. Polls, as flawed as they are, actually have some kind of science behind them. The same logic applies to your point--you have to tell yourself he is going to win so that way he can contest the results when he doesnt win. #NotWinning? You could even go low and argue Trump/his supporters dont believe in science or the importance of adhering to pandemic guidelines whereas Biden does which would account for the optics difference.

2-Because it is a pandemic and people are stupid and dont know how to ****ing tie their shoes let alone request a mail-in ballot? Being intelligent enough to navigate a state website to find an application button isnt a constitutional requirement to vote. Why is waiting for more time creating confusion? Would you rather the results be called in to question after the fact because everyone was too impatient to wait? Why would you care if states that always vote democrat want extra time when their outcome is already known?

3-How can a third of the judges picked by the president not trigger a constitutional crisis in that scenario? Can you realistically expect the left to have any faith in the SCOTUS if the decisional vote is made by someone Trump shoes in without any congressional oversight? It is hard but imagine if the tables were turned and bernie was president raising taxes to 110% and everything was free (but not for you of course)--would you accept that if he appointed a far left socialist justice in recess who provided the swing vote to keep the rainbow freedom train going? Really would you?

 

[deleted480308]

' Steve Bannon once famously said that, in politics, “Our side [the Right], we go for the head wound. Your side, you have pillow fights." '

Putting Coney on the court in a lame duck session, if it happens, will mark the beginning of a take-no-prisoners era in American politics that'll make the 2010s look like kindergarten nap time- because perhaps finally dems will realize that apologizing for wearing a tan suit while the opposition shapes the judiciary for the next 30 years isn't what winning looks like. Sadly it seems each passing year we get closer to realizing that compromise is dead and that the only way to get anything done is a parliamentary style system where one party has a mandate and a snap election can boot them out when everyone gets sick of it.

The crap pulled by the democrats to pass the ACA sure didn’t feel like a pillow fight

 

[vector2]

Repubs push through a new judge for sure. I don't think it will impact November much. The vast majority of Americans aren't voting in 2020 based on what judge they want on the SCOTUS. This election is largely a vote on like/dislike of Trump on a personal (non-policy) level. Trump's only shot for the presidency is to make Biden look senile in the debates. Senile vs a$$hole, maybe the a$$hole can win.

SCOTUS is in the top 3 issues for most voters and is usually the number one issue for the evangelical Christians who make up about a quarter of the electorate.

Also anyone who thinks the senile angle is a plausible way for trump to beat Biden isn't paying attention to trump or Biden. Watch Biden's debate against Bernie and then watch his recent townhall. Then watch trump try to speak about anything of substance for more than 30 seconds without wandering off into generalities or anecdotes about how he aced his dementia test.

 

[aneftp]

Blame the Dems on this one. Since they didn’t have the 60 super majority vote to pass the ACA (after Kennedy death) they used trickery simple up/down vote to pass it.

it’s been downhill since than. So anytime the party in power wants to do anything. They can bypass the fillabuster. It wasn’t the Republicans who started this.

 

[Mad Jack]

Oh the dystopian hell scape we were heading towards as opposed to a pandemic, an entire side of the country burning, and not being allowed in Europe. Everything is fine.

Oh I'm perfectly aware of the hellscape we are already in, but it's gonna get a lot worse

 

[AMEHigh]

This reads like a propaganda outline from the Republican party. Are you truly unable to see how ****ed up your points are?

1-Crowds at rallies don't mean anything. Polls, as flawed as they are, actually have some kind of science behind them. The same logic applies to your point--you have to tell yourself he is going to win so that way he can contest the results when he doesnt win. #NotWinning? You could even go low and argue Trump/his supporters dont believe in science or the importance of adhering to pandemic guidelines whereas Biden does which would account for the optics difference.

2-Because it is a pandemic and people are stupid and dont know how to ****ing tie their shoes let alone request a mail-in ballot? Being intelligent enough to navigate a state website to find an application button isnt a constitutional requirement to vote. Why is waiting for more time creating confusion? Would you rather the results be called in to question after the fact because everyone was too impatient to wait? Why would you care if states that always vote democrat want extra time when their outcome is already known?

3-How can a third of the judges picked by the president not trigger a constitutional crisis in that scenario? Can you realistically expect the left to have any faith in the SCOTUS if the decisional vote is made by someone Trump shoes in without any congressional oversight? It is hard but imagine if the tables were turned and bernie was president raising taxes to 110% and everything was free (but not for you of course)--would you accept that if he appointed a far left socialist justice in recess who provided the swing vote to keep the rainbow freedom train going? Really would you?

Just ignore this person. You’ll thank me later.

 

[Neopolymath]

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.

I immediately thought of this when I heard RBG died. It's ****ing bull****.

 

[Neopolymath]

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.

This is my biggest anger with young people/my peers. Even if you identify as republican, do you really want to elect Trump in 2016 knowing the dude has a shot at 1-3 justices FOR LIFE that will just pass rulings benefiting corporations above all costs??? You could have put a wet fart against Trump and I wouldn't have hesitated to vote for it purely based on how SCOTUS could affect my life for far longer than the dumbest possible 4 years we just got with Trump.

 

[deleted480308]

This is my biggest anger with young people/my peers. Even if you identify as republican, do you really want to elect Trump in 2016 knowing the dude has a shot at 1-3 justices FOR LIFE that will just pass rulings benefiting corporations above all costs??? You could have put a wet fart against Trump and I wouldn't have hesitated to vote for it purely based on how SCOTUS could affect my life for far longer than the dumbest possible 4 years we just got with Trump.

I’m confused by the “benefits corporations” at all costs scotus objections.....can you cite that?

 

[BLADEMDA]

SCOTUS is almost as important as the Presidency IMHO. Replacing RBG with Amy Barrett would be HUGE in terms of shifting the court to the right. SCOTUS would be able to keep AOC and the socialists in check as much of their proposals are unconstitutional if the court agrees with the written version of our founders.

Wealth tax? Gone. Restricting free speech which AOC calls "hate speech"? Gone. Restricting the free press? Nope. Second Amendment? Good luck taking away my guns. Runaway "woke" laws forcing companies to use race as a factor in hiring people? Gone. Race based admissions as the main factor? Gone.

SCOTUS can preserve this nation from the very worst the left has to offer. It's a HUGE deal to get RBG's seat on the court. A conservative court will follow the path of less government intervention and more freedom for the citizens. All of us, regardless of color or creed, are equal under the law. That means special treatment of one group is unconstitutional.

As for restricting abortion, at some point the fetus becomes a living human being with rights of its own. I am not going to derail this thread by going down that rabbit hole but a 6 month fetus deserves to have some protection under our laws. I believe SCOTUS would begin to rule in that direction if Amy Barrett gets confirmed.

 

[Arch Guillotti]

That means special treatment of one group is unconstitutional.

Except the religious right-wingers. They will get extra-special treatment!

 

[BLADEMDA]

POINTS

• According to election law experts, this year’s presidential election already posed a uniquely high risk of ending up at the Supreme Court, thanks to a tsunami of litigation over state efforts to adjust voting to the global pandemic.
• With Ginsburg’s death, the liberal minority on the panel has shrunk to just three members. If an emergency case between Trump and Biden splits the court along partisan lines this fall, Trump is almost certain to emerge the victor.
• Even if Chief Justice John Roberts, an occasional swing justice, joins the liberals, that would mean a 4-4 tie, leaving in place whatever ruling was issued by the lower court.

Ginsburg vacancy could tilt Supreme Court to Trump in potential Bush v. Gore repeat

Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death could hurt Democrat Joe Biden if the election between him and Donald Trump goes to the Supreme Court.

www.cnbc.com

 

[BLADEMDA]

P.S. Brian Fallon — executive director of the progressive group Demand Justice and a former top Schumer aide and Justice Department official — distilled the Democratic game plan:

 

[Southpaw]

View attachment 318715

P.S. Brian Fallon — executive director of the progressive group Demand Justice and a former top Schumer aide and Justice Department official — distilled the Democratic game plan:

well, what would you do?

 

[BLADEMDA]

PGG,

Mitch McConnell can't win this one. He must wait for the results of the election. Biden is highly likely to win meaning any nominee isn't going to be the actual SCOTUS nominee in January. If the lame duck Senate goes ahead with the confirmation Schumer will pack the Court early next year. Every Democrat including Joe Manchin will go along with Schumer.

Mitch's best play is to bargain the spot for a retention of the filibuster once Biden wins the election.

 

[BLADEMDA]

well, what would you do?

I would use the opening to drum up support from my base. There would be no hearings until after the election. Then, if Biden wins I would try to bargain with Schumer who may be open to a deal. The Senate is going to turn BLUE in January and the GOP knows it.

 

[agammaglobulin]

Facts: 29 times a SCOTUS seat has become vacant during an election year. 19 of those times the senate majority is the same party as the president. Of those 19 times, 17 times the senate has confirmed the nominee.

2016 with Obama it was repub senate and dem president. The 10 times that has happened in an election year, senate has confirmed only twice.

Dems would try to put someone through in the same situation. Nothing crazy going on here...

 

[Neopolymath]

I’m confused by the “benefits corporations” at all costs scotus objections.....can you cite that?

Here is a fun article from a website I like to read: Empirical SCOTUS: The big business court - SCOTUSblog

But Citizen's United and Hobby Lobby type cases didn't happen in a vacuum. Republican "socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor" is central ideology and placing more of these types of people on the federal courts and SCOTUS will cause more issues. We witness corporatization in medicine and have proof that its bad. I don't want the next 50 years of my life outside of work to also deal with a corporate caste system.

I don't need *****s essentially indirectly voting for SCOTUS judges that could screw up the trajectory of America because they have some single issue voter vision that Roe v Wade or gay marriage could be overturned. Consolidation and corporatization will directly affect these people's lives before either of those two common topics even if they don't realize it. As dems learn that they need to forget decorum and go step on some necks like McConnell, we will see more aggressive lawsuits with potential impact on regular, working people's everyday lives if they make it to SCOTUS.

So, yeah, if you ask me to give you a source of me talking to Scalia's ghost (insert your favorite justice here) in which he admits he literally tried to do the dumbest things possible every single case like I suspect then no I can't prove it's "at all costs" but damnit it sure does feel like it as we inch closer to a panel packed with this ideology.

 

[AMEHigh]

Facts: 29 times a SCOTUS seat has become vacant during an election year. 19 of those times the senate majority is the same party as the president. Of those 19 times, 17 times the senate has confirmed the nominee.

2016 with Obama it was repub senate and dem president. The 10 times that has happened in an election year, senate has confirmed only twice.

Dems would try to put someone through in the same situation. Nothing crazy going on here...

There is a lot crazy going on these days!
I would say the republicans nominating and appointing a new justice would actually be one of the least crazy things going on. It’s hypocritical, but not surprising and don’t blame them. I think the past 4 years have made that pretty clear.

They clearly knew RBG wasn’t doing well which is why they released the list of who they were vetting less than 2 weeks ago.

Out of curiosity has an impeached president appointed a justice? I think Clinton’s justice picks were before he was impeached.

I’ve seen that the Democrats have raised an unprecedented amount of money since Friday night. What about the republicans?

 

[deleted126335]

There is a lot crazy going on these days!
I would say the republicans nominating and appointing a new justice would actually be one of the least crazy things going on. It’s hypocritical, but not surprising and don’t blame them. I think the past 4 years have made that pretty clear.

They clearly knew RBG wasn’t doing well which is why they released the list of who they were vetting less than 2 weeks ago.

Out of curiosity has an impeached president appointed a justice? I think Clinton’s justice picks were before he was impeached.

I’ve seen that the Democrats have raised an unprecedented amount of money since Friday night. What about the republicans?

They don’t need as much. They have the electoral college.

 

[deleted480308]

Here is a fun article from a website I like to read: Empirical SCOTUS: The big business court - SCOTUSblog

But Citizen's United and Hobby Lobby type cases didn't happen in a vacuum. Republican "socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor" is central ideology and placing more of these types of people on the federal courts and SCOTUS will cause more issues. We witness corporatization in medicine and have proof that its bad. I don't want the next 50 years of my life outside of work to also deal with a corporate caste system.

I don't need *****s essentially indirectly voting for SCOTUS judges that could screw up the trajectory of America because they have some single issue voter vision that Roe v Wade or gay marriage could be overturned. Consolidation and corporatization will directly affect these people's lives before either of those two common topics even if they don't realize it. As dems learn that they need to forget decorum and go step on some necks like McConnell, we will see more aggressive lawsuits with potential impact on regular, working people's everyday lives if they make it to SCOTUS.

So, yeah, if you ask me to give you a source of me talking to Scalia's ghost (insert your favorite justice here) in which he admits he literally tried to do the dumbest things possible every single case like I suspect then no I can't prove it's "at all costs" but damnit it sure does feel like it as we inch closer to a panel packed with this ideology.

“At all costs” huh?

I actually agree with the hobby lobby decision, although not because religious people should get a special exemption but because the rule shouldn’t exist. No one should have to buy someone else insurance or any particular coverage within that insurance. Ifyou don’t like hobby lobby’s offer, go elsewhere

 

[NontradCA]

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.

Where's your source for this? Everything I've seen was pointing to record turnout for both sides. If you look at polls on Abortion, you'd see a sizeable majority favor Roe. v. Wade, which is the forefront of this SCOTUS nominee issue. It sounds like you're just trying to be hopeful.

 

[AMEHigh]

They don’t need as much. They have the electoral college.

You mean they don't need as much money?
I agree with that re: the electoral college.
I was just wondering because some people are saying that RBG's death isn't going to motivate 1 side or the other to be more likely to go to the polls. So I was wondering if the flurry of donations that the democrats have seen could be an indication of more people voting. Wondering if the same can be said on the republican side re: motivation. But I absolutely agree with you that they don't need as much help. What a messed up system...all of it.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Here is a fun article from a website I like to read: Empirical SCOTUS: The big business court - SCOTUSblog

But Citizen's United and Hobby Lobby type cases didn't happen in a vacuum. Republican "socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor" is central ideology and placing more of these types of people on the federal courts and SCOTUS will cause more issues. We witness corporatization in medicine and have proof that its bad. I don't want the next 50 years of my life outside of work to also deal with a corporate caste system.

I don't need *****s essentially indirectly voting for SCOTUS judges that could screw up the trajectory of America because they have some single issue voter vision that Roe v Wade or gay marriage could be overturned. Consolidation and corporatization will directly affect these people's lives before either of those two common topics even if they don't realize it. As dems learn that they need to forget decorum and go step on some necks like McConnell, we will see more aggressive lawsuits with potential impact on regular, working people's everyday lives if they make it to SCOTUS.

So, yeah, if you ask me to give you a source of me talking to Scalia's ghost (insert your favorite justice here) in which he admits he literally tried to do the dumbest things possible every single case like I suspect then no I can't prove it's "at all costs" but damnit it sure does feel like it as we inch closer to a panel packed with this ideology.

I would counter Citizens United with Keto v. New London

 

[Ronin786]

I do find it funny that Democrats yell hypocrisy at Republicans but then forget that they wanted Obama to be able to choose his nominee during his last year and no longer want Trump to be able to.

Both parties are two sides of the same dirty coin.