RBG leaves the stage.

Bob001 said:
No, the point is that the current roster remains in the Senate until Jan. 3. That means that even senators whom the voters booted out on Nov. 3 will still be able to vote for Trump's nominee on their way out their door, even if the election turns the Senate Democratic. Do we want the next justice selected by a lame-duck Senate?
Click to expand...

I think Delvo just said that.

Bob001 said:
... Do we want the next justice selected by a lame-duck Senate?
Click to expand...

No, but I'm not sure there's anything anybody can do about it.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
A Senator's privilege and power derive directly from the voters in the state they represent. I doubt there's anything the Democrats can do for Romney that trumps the support of his state's lobbyists and party organizers.
Click to expand...

Moreover, while I agree that the Republicans are doing nothing more than partisan politics here and pressing their advantage, I can't forget that people like Romney actually might have certain beliefs of his own (no laughing at the back!).

If he is faced with the opportunity to vote in a Justice whose views stack up more or less with his, someone like a Gorsuch or a Kavannagh, he is most likely going to vote to appoint that person. Collins and Murkowski might well do so as well. They may offer some platitude about how they may have preferred a sense of bipartisan camaradarie and how there is too much fractiousness (on both sides!!), but now is the time to vote on Trump's choice and move on, etc.... etc....

Either that, or any Republican is going to have nightmares that Biden might just put up a transgender-atheist-Muslim-North-Korean-Mexican as his nominee for the vacant post and have all of the GOP screaming at him, "You see what happens, Romney? You see what happens when you **** your own Party in the ass, Romney? You see what happens, Romney?"
 
Bob001 said:
No, the point is that the current roster remains in the Senate until Jan. 3. That means that even senators whom the voters booted out on Nov. 3 will still be able to vote for Trump's nominee on their way out their door, even if the election turns the Senate Democratic. Do we want the next justice selected by a lame-duck Senate?
Click to expand...

I kinda do. I prefer it when people in a role do that role until it is complete.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I kinda do. I prefer it when people in a role do that role until it is complete.
Click to expand...

I feel the same, but think the role should be ended sooner. Give them a week between election and taking office, and that week the legislature is in recess and not voting on anything. It's not the 1700s and it doesn't take a month to let people know they won an election, and another month for them to ride their donkey across two thousand miles of prairie to show up for work.

My job is much less important than governing anything, and my employer sure as hell wouldn't tell me they were laying me off a couple months down the road, while letting me spend that time at work with all the access and powers I have.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Says

"We need 9 justices. You need that. With the unsolicited millions of ballots that they're sending you're gonna need 9 justices."
Click to expand...

This guy can see he's losing. That's a good thing.

He's fantasizing how he's been cheated before the election has even been held. And he's magically thinking that his pals on the SCOTUS are going to say, "Sir, we see you've been cheated and we're going to fix that for you."
 
I'm wondering whether whoever wrote this headline wants Trump to nominate Amy Coney Barrett.

Trump Supreme Court favorite Amy Coney Barrett would be the ultimate insult to RBG (Op-Ed by someone named Jill Filipovic, author of "OK Boomer, Let's Talk: How My Generation Got Left Behind" on NBC website)

The Op-Ed itself didn't really shed any light for me. It says very little of substance about Barrett herself or her legal opinions, besides that she is apparently an opponent of abortion. What is does mention is mostly just basic biographical information. She would be the first Supreme Court Justice in my lifetime who is younger than me. Which means that she might well be on the Court for the rest of my life.
 
Lennart Hyland said:
I dont know how it works but they have some sort of majority already?
Click to expand...

I think a 6-3 majority for conservatives will be much more conservative than 5-4. Sometimes Roberts or one of the others would occasionally side with the liberal justices. Even if that happens, it would take 2 of them every time with a 6-3 majority. It will be rare.
 
Bob001 said:
No, the point is that the current roster remains in the Senate until Jan. 3. That means that even senators whom the voters booted out on Nov. 3 will still be able to vote for Trump's nominee on their way out their door, even if the election turns the Senate Democratic. Do we want the next justice selected by a lame-duck Senate?
Click to expand...
I wonder, though. With a few Republicans on their side Dems would probably be able to play some delaying games. Are the lame ducks going to double down after their constituents tell them to take a hike? Maybe; I've no idea.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
McConnell can just let Senators get reelected first before having them all show their colors to the masses.
Click to expand...
Unless of course Moscow Mitch assumes they will lose the senate regardless of whether they fill the vacant seat or not (republican incumbents are running behind in several key seats), so re-election is irrelevant.
 
Bob001 said:
No, the point is that the current roster remains in the Senate until Jan. 3. That means that even senators whom the voters booted out on Nov. 3 will still be able to vote for Trump's nominee on their way out their door, even if the election turns the Senate Democratic.
Click to expand...
Actually, not 100% correct...

Supposedly in Arizona, the incoming senator can take over just as soon as the ballots are counted and the results are made official. Since Arizona has a good chance of flipping to the Democrats, it would make the balance in the senate 52-48 instead of 53-47. Not a big difference, but it would mean they would have to convince one fewer republican senator not to go through with the confirmation.
 
Segnosaur said:
Unless of course Moscow Mitch assumes they will lose the senate regardless of whether they fill the vacant seat or not (republican incumbents are running behind in several key seats), so re-election is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Then why rush the vote when you still have the lame duck to confirm?
 
BobTheCoward said:
First of all, lets assume that a supreme court justice will always make rulings with at least some connection to the constitution, past rulings, etc.

Stubby McBonespurs did not win the popular vote. The Republicans in the senate do not represent the voting intentions of a majority of the population. Yet in the past 4 years they will have placed 2 (and likely 3) of the judges on the supreme court. So the majority of people in the country are going to be subject to the interpretation of the constitution by people that only a minority of the voters supported.
...
Secondly, not all interpretations of the constitutions, precedents, laws, etc. have equal weight. One judge might make their ruling based on actual constitutional text and multiple precedents, and another might make their ruling based on "what the founding fathers intended"... both of them are following their own legal interpretation (and are in a sense 'valid'), but one of those clearly has a stronger claim than the other.
Click to expand...
How do you know the nominated judge will not use the method with the stronger claim? Further, if it is established they are using the stronger method, what does it matter who nominated them?
Click to expand...
Your argument is irrelevant. We have not seen any evidence that the current crop of republican justices are actually using any stronger reasoning in making their decisions than their democratic counterparts.

In fact, just the opposite... There have been a few recent supreme court decisions where several of the justices have been way way off base.
 
Segnosaur said:
Actually, not 100% correct...

Supposedly in Arizona, the incoming senator can take over just as soon as the ballots are counted and the results are made official. Since Arizona has a good chance of flipping to the Democrats, it would make the balance in the senate 52-48 instead of 53-47. Not a big difference, but it would mean they would have to convince one fewer republican senator not to go through with the confirmation.
Click to expand...
McConnell can afford to lose one Senator.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Unless of course Moscow Mitch assumes they will lose the senate regardless of whether they fill the vacant seat or not (republican incumbents are running behind in several key seats), so re-election is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Then why rush the vote when you still have the lame duck to confirm?
Click to expand...
I have no idea what's going through the head of Moscow Mitch. I agree it does seem like a questionable tactic.

Maybe he thinks it will help Stubby Mcbonespurs in his re-election, even if it doesn't help the senators.

Maybe he's an anti-social malcontent who just wants to hurt people.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Confirmed bigot by your own words. Out of curiosity what's your opinion on Blacks and Jews?

Chris B.
Click to expand...

He's addressing the *minds* of a group, how they think and act thereupon. NOT something superficial and arbitrary, like skin color or ethnicity.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Actually, not 100% correct...

Supposedly in Arizona, the incoming senator can take over just as soon as the ballots are counted and the results are made official. Since Arizona has a good chance of flipping to the Democrats, it would make the balance in the senate 52-48 instead of 53-47. Not a big difference, but it would mean they would have to convince one fewer republican senator not to go through with the confirmation.
Click to expand...
McConnell can afford to lose one Senator.
Click to expand...
Probably. I agree, its a hail mary.

I'm just thinking... flipped Senate seat in Arizona, Murkowski deciding to vote against it, and maybe Romney having second thoughts (perhaps Trump loses big, and Romney wants to distance himself with the long-term goal of another presidental run.)

Hey, a guy can dream, can't he?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom