RBG leaves the stage.

Puppycow said:
Well, yes. So either they can admit that all of that was merely a cynical argument of convenience, or they can abide by the precedent they set when Scalia croaked.

I'm guessing it will be the former, but there's at least a chance that McConnell will be shamed into following his own rule.
Click to expand...

Incumbent versus no incumbent seems like a pretty big difference.
 
korenyx said:
Dear 2020,

DROP DEAD!
Click to expand...

It's been the worst year of my life, both personally and politically.

And we thought 2016 was bad :( .

It's not long for this world, fortunately. Only a couple more months to go. And before it's gone, we're gonna take out the trash. Only downside is it might take Biden&Co years to get the orange smears and smell of hamberder out of the White House.
 
shemp said:
Shirley you jest. There's not a single Republican who will stand up to Moscow Mitch. Not even Romney this time. It's a straight up and down party vote.
Click to expand...

The difference is that some of the Repubs are in tough battles for re-election. I can imagine them not handing ammunition to their opponents.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Surely this close to an election the office should be left for the next president's choice of candidate, right? Isn't that what the Republicans said about a year long vacancy?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is-

The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let's give them a voice. Let's let the American people decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be.
Click to expand...

Later, after Trump's election, he was asked if the same principle would apply if there was a vacancy during Trump's last year before needing to stand for re-election; his answer then was to the effect that the situation would be different, since the Senate and the Presidency would be controlled by the same party, i.e., Republicans. So he went from championing a "principle" which was at least arguably valid to depending on a condition which allows him to ignore the principle. Hypocrite.

One thing from that article which comes under the heading of "I guess we'll see"-

The only sticking point is whether McConnell's fellow Republicans, notably Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., would oppose moving forward in an election year.

Graham, whose committee holds Supreme Court confirmation hearings, said last year he would hold off on a confirmation if a vacancy occurred in 2020.

"If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait until the next election," Graham said last year at an event hosted by The Atlantic.
Click to expand...
 
Bob001 said:
The difference is that some of the Repubs are in tough battles for re-election. I can imagine them not handing ammunition to their opponents.
Click to expand...


It's a SCOTUS Nomination to take them to a 6-3 Majority. They'll throw the entire Senate under the bus to get that.
 
shemp said:
This poor woman had so much pressure to hang on. She could have retired years ago and enjoyed her remaining time. She has done so much for this country, she should be remembered as a hero.

Of course, the Trumpistas are already pissing on her grave.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, she could have retired at age 80 in the middle of the Obama administration. Another argument for term limits for federal judges.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
My comments on the situation:

Our only hope is a few GOP Senators with a conscience. I think that is the case, especially with their own reelection looming.

Back up option, we take the Senate and POTUS back and follow through with the threat of expanding the number of seats on the court by ... oh let's say two or four more seats.

McConnell might take option #3): try to use it as campaign leverage.

If McConnell doesn't move for an approval vote, you can bet that means he doesn't have the votes.

If they try to push a SCOTUS nominee through you can bet that will piss off more voters than it will please.
Click to expand...
They won't hold the confirmation vote before election day.
 
I think people didn't hear me.

We get McConnell/Trump/the Senate to delay the confirmation of a new Justice.

That means we don't have a full, functioning Supreme Court to make legal decisions during the election.

So what happens when Trump declares himself the winner before the absentee ballots are counted? Or throws out a state because their election was "rigged?"

What happens then?
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
It's a SCOTUS Nomination to take them to a 6-3 Majority. They'll throw the entire Senate under the bus to get that.
Click to expand...

The Senate won't be necessary once His Majesty's Supreme Court confirms his power to abolish the other branches of government. All they need to do is agree to his declaration of emergency monarchy powers, and that's it. Perhaps he'll keep a few on as a House of Lords, but I doubt it--the titled aristocracy will be limited to the immediate family of His Majesty, at least during his lifetime. (Not Tiffany, of course.) I expect Queen Ivanka will be more open to expanding it, to soothe any hurt feelings leftover from the failed rebellion.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I think people didn't hear me.

We get McConnell/Trump/the Senate to delay the confirmation of a new Justice.

That means we don't have a full, functioning Supreme Court to make legal decisions during the election.

So what happens when Trump declares himself the winner before the absentee ballots are counted? Or throws at a state because their election was "rigged?"

What happens then?
Click to expand...
Then, having milked "your vote gets a new Supreme Court Justice" for all it's worth, they ram through Ted ******* Cruz on Nov 4th, who hands Trump the election on a platter no matter what the votes actually were, that's what happens then.

turingtest said:
One thing from that article which comes under the heading of "I guess we'll see"-
Click to expand...
You realize that's Lindsey Graham saying that, right? You can put his meek objection right next to Susan Collins's deep concern for all the good it'll do you.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
I think people didn't hear me.

We get McConnell/Trump/the Senate to delay the confirmation of a new Justice.

That means we don't have a full, functioning Supreme Court to make legal decisions during the election.

So what happens when Trump declares himself the winner before the absentee ballots are counted? Or throws out a state because their election was "rigged?"

What happens then?
Click to expand...
I heard you. We're ******.
 
varwoche said:
They won't hold the confirmation vote before election day.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that concerns me too. They have time to wait until after the election and then push the nomination through in December. Lame duck senators will have nothing to lose, and those who were reelected will figure it won't matter by the next time they are up for election.
 
Well, the evangelicals are creaming . . . all over Becki Falwell's back.

Ok, I'm a little ashamed of that one, but only a little.
 
Packing the court isnt a popular concept. But there's a revolutionary way that Biden could do it, assuming he wins and the Dems take the senate. Appoint everyone to the court. Why not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom