RBG leaves the stage.

OK, I feel for her family of course, but...

For myself, I feel almost as devastated as when Trump was surprisingly elected, knowing it's going to be a ******-up ride for the next several years.

I'm going to have to turn off the news because hearing nothing but this and its implications over the next several days would be personally... detrimental, at the least.
 
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...


Nothing prevents the court from considering cases with eight justices, as they did for a year after Scalia died. The vote in an election case would likely be 5-3 for Trump instead of 5-4.
 
varwoche said:
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?
Click to expand...

There's been on and off talk of expanding the Supreme Court beyond 9 members, but that would be pretty politically transparent.
 
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.
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court does not need to have 9 members in order to hear cases and make decisions on those cases. Even when there are 9 living members of the court, decisions are sometimes made by a smaller number of justices if one is unable for health reasons to take part in hearing / deciding a case or if one feels a need to recuse themself. There have been many cases over the years where the full court did not take part in hearing and deciding the case.


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...


The case would initially be heard in a lower court, which would reach a decision. The case could then be appealed to the Supreme Court if either side were unsatisfied with the decision and wanted the Supreme Court to rule on it.

The Supreme Court would vote to decide whether to hear the case or to let the lower court decision stand. If they voted to hear the case, then the 8 member court would hear it, discuss it, and reach a decision. If a majority voted to overturn the lower court decision and agreed on what the actual ruling should be, that would become the decision on the case. If a majority were not able to agree on that, the lower court ruling would stand.

That's my understanding, at least. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure what I wrote is basically correct.
 
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...

Biden will win convincingly and overwhelming or Trump wins again by a narrow margin. That's all I got.
 
Nova Land said:
....
The case would initially be heard in a lower court, which would reach a decision. The case could then be appealed to the Supreme Court if either side were unsatisfied with the decision and wanted the Supreme Court to rule on it.
....
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. As I remember it, the 2000 election went straight from the Florida Supreme Court to the U.S. Supreme Court. Lower federal courts weren't involved. I could imagine results being challenged across the country, and all of those cases landing at the Supreme Court.
 
"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," McConnell added.
Click to expand...

McConnell, just now (on CNN, I'll post a link as soon as I can) We can stop theorizing. They are going to run through a nominee.
 
Bob001 said:
Nothing prevents the court from considering cases with eight justices, as they did for a year after Scalia died.
Click to expand...


Ah! I see Bob001 had already posted essentially the same thing I just posted, that the court does not need 9 members in order to hear and decide cases.

One important matter I disagree with Bob on, however:

Bob001 said:
The vote in an election case would likely be 5-3 for Trump instead of 5-4.
Click to expand...


That's possible, but I think a 4-4 tie or a 5-3 vote against Trump is more likely.

John Roberts is a conservative and so is generally likely to side with what people on the right would prefer as the outcome in a lot of cases. But he's also (a) a reasonably honest person as far as supreme court judges go as well as (b) someone who is concerned about his reputation and how people in the future will view him.

I think most honest people, including honest conservatives, would see what Trump was doing as a dishonorable attempt to seize power and would oppose it. And I think most people who were concerned about their reputation would realize that letting Trump get away with such a power grab would be looked at very poorly by future generations. That gives Roberts two strong reasons to render a decision based on principles and law rather than on political preferences, and to argue as strongly as he is able to get other conservatives on the court to join him in doing that.
 
Elagabalus said:
Biden will win convincingly and overwhelming or Trump wins again by a narrow margin. That's all I got.
Click to expand...

The real issue is that even if Trump loses and the Repubs lose the Senate, they will still control the Senate for two months. Nothing, even fear of electoral consequences, would prevent a lame-duck Senate from confirming somebody.
 
“In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia’s death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president’s second term. We kept our promise,” McConnell continued. “Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year.”

McConnell added that “by contrast, 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,” he said. “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”
Click to expand...

Foxnews: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcconnell-supreme-court-nominee-vote-floor
 
Bob001 said:
Nova Land said:
The case would initially be heard in a lower court, which would reach a decision. The case could then be appealed to the Supreme Court if either side were unsatisfied with the decision and wanted the Supreme Court to rule on it.
Click to expand...


Not necessarily. As I remember it, the 2000 election went straight from the Florida Supreme Court to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Click to expand...


Actually the Florida Supreme Court is a lower court in the judicial hierarchy to the US Supreme Court, so I believe what I said is correct.

My point was simply that cases work their way up to the Supreme Court and what the Supreme Court is deciding is whether a previous ruling is correct. In the event of a tie on the Supreme Court, whatever the ruling was on the matter before the matter reached the Supreme Court would stand. So a tie in the Supreme Court does not create the kind of impossibly irreconcilable situation JoeMorgue appeared to fear it would.
 
Bob001 said:
Susie's concern will be about her prospects for re-election. She's already behind. She won't give the Dems more ammunition.
Click to expand...
And why should she risk her only chance of being reelected at this point? If she votes to confirm another Federalist nominee, she'll lose her seat for certain.

If she pretends she's concerned for the integrity of the court, what's the worst that could happen?
 
Bob001 said:
The real issue is that even if Trump loses and the Repubs lose the Senate, they will still control the Senate for two months. Nothing, even fear of electoral consequences, would prevent a lame-duck Senate from confirming somebody.
Click to expand...

Exactly right. further, I think the election calculus is that the Republican Senate believes their best chance at holding the Senate is to hold off a vote until after the election. Then confirm.
 
marting said:
Exactly right. further, I think the election calculus is that the Republican Senate believes their best chance at holding the Senate is to hold off a vote until after the election. Then confirm.
Click to expand...
Probably, but probably not more than a week after. They'll want to either flaunt their continued power or take revenge on the constituencies that voted out some of their stooges.
 
pgwenthold said:
If there were any integrity in the world, any attempt by Mitch to push this through should cause him to lose in landslide.

Of course, the morons will still vote for him.
Click to expand...

I think that is a possibility, or at least one that will cross McConnell's mind. If he goes all in believing Trump will win reelection, he has no reason to push a nominee through.

The only reason to push a nominee through is if he reads the writing on the wall, the Trump ship is sinking fast.
 
Nominating a replacement for Liberal Saint RBG, while being hypocrites about for refusing to vote on Obama's nominee, will troll the libs.

That's all the motivation to do it they need.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I think that is a possibility, or at least one that will cross McConnell's mind. If he goes all in believing Trump will win reelection, he has no reason to push a nominee through.

The only reason to push a nominee through is if he reads the writing on the wall, the Trump ship is sinking fast.
Click to expand...

If Trump loses he'll have even more reason to push through a vote. No way will he pass up that chance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom