Cont: The Trump Presidency: Part 25

[Babbylonian]

Trump and McConnell certainly want to replace Ginsburg, and if it were just up to them, then they'd do it. Fortunately, they have to contend with political reality. The hypocrisy of doing this even four months ago is different than six weeks before the election. Murkowski has already said she won't support it ("fair is fair"). Such naked hypocrisy is not a good look -- though, admittedly, with Trump anything is possible (except decency).

I'd guess President Trump will meet with people, claiming he wants to be prepared. At rallies, he'll go off message to say things that the crowd wants to hear, but it's not clear to me that Orange Man & Turtle Face can get the necessary number of Republican Senators to go along with a confirmation.

They'll be very likely to get them the day after the election once reelected senators have 6 more years in their jobs and ousted senators want to express their bitterness. It's doubtful any of the remainder will actually stand up and tell McConnell no and then vote that way, regardless of what empty words they're spewing today.

 

[Lurch]

Trump at the rally
Trump praises the top general who fought on behalf on slavery

"Lincoln was getting beaten a lot by Robert E Lee. They want to rip down his statue all over the place, he would have won except for Gettysburg, these were incredible things",


"We will stop the radical indoctrination of our students, and restore patriotic education to our schools. We will teach our children to love our country"

How do you "teach" someone to love something? Maybe I'm naive, but it seems to me that love is different than math and geography. Love is not instructively instilled from without; it is inductively arrived at from within.

 

[TragicMonkey]

How do you "teach" someone to love something? Maybe I'm naive, but it seems to me that love is different than math and geography. Love is not instructively instilled from without; it is inductively arrived at from within.

You think that because you are a rational person. Most people are not rational, and believe whatever they are told to believe by authority figures. And they find that not only valid, but the only valid means of coming to belief in anything. Any other means of arriving at a belief is suspicious, and probably evil.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Trump and McConnell certainly want to replace Ginsburg, and if it were just up to them, then they'd do it. Fortunately, they have to contend with political reality. The hypocrisy of doing this even four months ago is different than six weeks before the election. Murkowski has already said she won't support it ("fair is fair"). Such naked hypocrisy is not a good look -- though, admittedly, with Trump anything is possible (except decency).

I'd guess President Trump will meet with people, claiming he wants to be prepared. At rallies, he'll go off message to say things that the crowd wants to hear, but it's not clear to me that Orange Man & Turtle Face can get the necessary number of Republican Senators to go along with a confirmation.

Let's see: on what occasions in the past has Trump failed to seize a personal advantage due to concerns it might make his enemies think bad things about him?

 

[newyorkguy]

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski has said she will not support an attempt to nominate a justice to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But Murkowski has also indicated she won't support trump in November. trump knows that and said in 2022 he will go to Alaska to campaign against her reelection.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, in an extraordinary back-and-forth with reporters at the U.S. Capitol [in early June], backed the public condemnation of the president offered by his former Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, who said Trump was a threat to American democracy and aimed only to divide the country. Link to USA Today

But before we start fitting Murkowski for a halo:

She was one of a number of senators who were thought to be potential swing votes during the president's impeachment trial earlier this year. But she ended up voting against hearing from additional witnesses in the trial and ultimately voted to acquit the president on both counts of obstruction of Congress and abuse of power.

Senator Susan Collins of Maine -- who has also indicated she might not vote for a replacement for Ginsburg prior to the November election -- also voted to acquit trump during the impeachment vote. So even if (if) Collins and Murkowski follow though and vote no, in order to defeat a nominee, there will need to be two more Republican Senators who won't support a replacement. With trump and mcconnell undoubtedly working behind-the-scenes to exert as much pressure as humanly possible on GOP senators to insure they 'toe the line,' those two additional GOP senators may be hard to find.

 

[Segnosaur]

Think about it.

Let's say that through some miracle we get the Republican Senate to agree to hold on appointing the new Justice until after the election. They won't, but let's say.

I think there's a good chance they might, simply because cramming through a supreme court nominee before the election would risk a political backlash.

Better to wait until after the election, then cram it through in the lame duck session.

 

[Ladewig]

"Throughout the world, I get called by prime minsters and presidents saying, 'Sir, the job you've done is amazing.'"

One would think a professional liar would have a better vocabulary or understanding of English

Trump would have us believe that these fictious world leaders meant “[what you have done)] is amazingly good.

It could just as easily be that they called Trump and said “we look at what you have done and are amazed and dumbfounded - even flabbergasted and shocked.”

ETA
I kind of cannot tear my eyes away. I looking at a burning train wreck next to a fireworks warehouse while a 10-passenger commuter flight is about crash on top of it all and an earthquake has formed an ever-widening chasm right in front of some tornadoes. (D’oh what am I thinking? Sharknadoes)

 

[Stacyhs]

If four GOP senators with enough backbone can be found to stand up to McConnell, I'll eat my hat.

 

[The Don]

If four GOP senators with enough backbone can be found to stand up to McConnell, I'll eat my hat.

I think your hat is safe.

 

[Craig4]

If four GOP senators with enough backbone can be found to stand up to McConnell, I'll eat my hat.

My whip count right now is that Collins and Murkowski will oppose. Graham has said he doesn't think it's possible to do hearings and a vote in a lame duck session. Graham though has shown the backbone of jellyfish, so his assessment could change.

I'm curious to see what Grassley will do. He's a Senate institutionalist and may balk at rushing a nominee. Romney is his own man and we'll have to see who the nominee is. If it's a TV judge from Fox, Romney will oppose. Ben Sasse could be a spoiler as well. I could see a coalition of Sasse and Romney (never Trumpers) and Collins and Murkowski if the nominee is a true Trump loyalist.

Trump will likely want a true Trump loyalist, eyeing court fights for when he goes totally off the rails in an unlikely second term.

 

[Firestone]

For the GOP, the smart thing to do would be to NOT nominate someone before the election.

Then, if Trump loses and/or the Democrats retake the Senate, nominate and confirm a judge in the lame duck session. And yes, they'll have the votes in the lame duck (just to reassure Stacyhs' hat).

 

[Blue Mountain]

I think there's a good chance they might, simply because cramming through a supreme court nominee before the election would risk a political backlash.

Better to wait until after the election, then cram it through in the lame duck session.

Even more than the electoral college, this is the one thing about US government that I found absolutely jaw-dropping. In parliamentary systems, when the election is called the House (of Commons) is dissolved and doesn't sit. No new legislation can be passed until after the election is decided and a new Parliament sworn in.

It should be the same in the US: on the day after the election the old House of Representatives should be considered dismissed in toto and cannot sit until the entire slate of 438 new members is sworn in, which should happen concurrently with the President.

I believe the process for the electoral college votes and certification are laid out in the constitution, but I don't know if the time lines are. If they are, then the ten weeks where there isn't a sitting House would be problematic. If they aren't, they should be tightened up, especially if the election results are clear. Of course time needs to be set aside for the transition teams to do their work, but they don't need a sitting House for that. The new House, Senate, and President could be sworn in on December 15.

 

[Andy_Ross]

wrong thread

 

[The Great Zaganza]

For the GOP, the smart thing to do would be to NOT nominate someone before the election.

Then, if Trump loses and/or the Democrats retake the Senate, nominate and confirm a judge in the lame duck session. And yes, they'll have the votes in the lame duck (just to reassure Stacyhs' hat).

I don't think Trump will be able to be that patient.

There is a good argument to be made that, should Trump lose, he has no incentive to pander to the "losers" who didn't vote in sufficient numbers for him.

 

[Firestone]

I don't think Trump will be able to be that patient.

There is a good argument to be made that, should Trump lose, he has no incentive to pander to the "losers" who didn't vote in sufficient numbers for him.

IF Trump loses, Trump could be bribed by a full pardon from Pence.
But I agree that Trump will probably like to tout his new magnificent judge during the campaign.

Conservatives who claimed that "yes, Trump is disgusting and unfit, but SCOTUS" will have a big problem, though.


No, joking of course: they'll find a new rationale why they have to vote for Trump (something like "why did the Dems nominate AOC's puppet?").

 

[newyorkguy]

Even before I wrote my previous message last evening, mitch mcconnell had already announced that yes, they WILL vote on a trump nominee (not named yet) to fill Justice Ginsburg's seat on the Supreme Court prior to the November election. From an NPR news report:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the Senate will vote on President Trump's nominee to replace Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died Friday of complications from cancer. McConnell released a statement expressing condolences for Ginsburg and followed with a pledge to continue consideration of Trump's judicial nominees. NPR link

This is raw partisan politics. The reason for pushing the nomination through before the election is simple: to get the kind of judge on the court that Republican voters want. That's essentially the same reason mcconnell WOULDN'T hold a vote in 2016. But that time it was to prevent the nomination of the kind of judge on the court that Republican voters didn't want. mcconnell made that clear last evening, explaining:

"Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary. Once again, we will keep our promise," McConnell said. "President Trump's nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate."

 

[Ladewig]

Even before I wrote my previous message last evening, mitch mcconnell had already announced that yes, they WILL vote on a trump nominee (not named yet) to fill Justice Ginsburg's seat on the Supreme Court prior to the November election. From an NPR news report:


This is raw partisan politics. The reason for pushing the nomination through before the election is simple: to get the kind of judge on the court that Republican voters want. That's essentially the same reason mcconnell WOULDN'T hold a vote in 2016. But that time it was to prevent the nomination of the kind of judge on the court that Republican voters didn't want. mcconnell made that clear last evening, explaining:

There is a second reason. The presidential election may again be decided by SCOTUS.

 

[Ladewig]

I don't think Trump will be able to be that patient.

There is a good argument to be made that, should Trump lose, he has no incentive to pander to the "losers" who didn't vote in sufficient numbers for him.

Trump will be torn. Announcing the name gives him the look-at-me moment that he lives for. But the showman (huckster) that he is willl lead him to say “I’ve narrowed it down to 3, tune in tomorrow for a nominee revelation that will shock you.”

Trump lives his life as if he were click bait.
Perhaps Trump himself is click bait.

 

[Ryokan]

The American version of seperation of power has shown itself to be a huge failure.

 

[Aridas]

How do you "teach" someone to love something? Maybe I'm naive, but it seems to me that love is different than math and geography. Love is not instructively instilled from without; it is inductively arrived at from within.

Propaganda and indoctrination.

More specifically, that's fairly certainly what the actual intent is. Of some note, a number of right-wingers have been accusing schools of doing exactly that - mostly falsely, but frequently with a small grain of truth mixed in - albeit largely because schools are teaching things that they don't want to be taught. So, in the usual result of their projection, they're trying to do exactly what they're projecting onto others. I'm also reminded of a particular right-wing father that I watched, though, who specifically stated that he thinks that the only thing that he thinks that his kid needs to have as a takeaway from school is that the US is the best country in the world.