Here's what Republicans should do about Ginsburg's seat

[bomberfox]

You don't know what the Democrats would do. Because it hasn't happened.

The Republicans are total hypocrites for doing this, after stonewalling Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland for 9 months in 2016. They simply have no shame, **** them all.

This is going to blow up in the face of McConnell and Trump. If they do push through this Supreme Court nomination (no guarantee) and Trump and the Repugs get hammered in the election, the Democrats are going to add 2 more Supreme Court seats next year. And the Democrats have every right to, since the Repugs will have stolen 2 Supreme Court seats in 2016 and 2020.

Those guys still to this day cannot tell me what was so extreme about Garland.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Those guys still to this day cannot tell me what was so extreme about Garland.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with Garland. This is all about McConnell having a deep seated hatred of Obama and McConnell's obsession with appointing right-wing whack job federal judges. McConnell was extremely disrespectful to Obama the entire time that he was president, never calling him Mr. President when talking to him in private, according to reports that I've read.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I hope they do it actually.

basically guarantees they’ll lose the election and be out of power on a national level for a significant amount of time. By then...the Dems would have already expanded the SC, thus rendering Trump’s pick irrelevant.

By what means would the number of SC members be increased?

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

By what means would the number of SC members be increased?

The Democrats can add 2 more Supreme Court justices next year if they control the Senate, following the established confirmation process.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The Democrats can add 2 more Supreme Court justices next year if they control the Senate, following the established confirmation process.

That seems to imply that no SCOTUS vacancy needs to exist for adding (appointing) a (new) SC justice. That is certainly not following the established confirmation process.

 

[Rucker61]

Can you point out the “few?”

Hugo Black, for one. Horace Lurton. Joseph Lamar, Willis Van Devanter, and Edward White were 3, 3 and zero days.

 

[Rucker61]

I would be tired too if I had to spend this much time defending the indefensible.

Its not a question of whether or not we realize that the Republicans are going to do the exact opposite of what they said was the right thing not 4 years ago. Its a question of whether or not they are they accept that that makes them giant hypocrites. If they do, then fine, let the chips fall where they may. It appears, though, that they are trying to play both sides of the matter.

Unsuprisingly.

In 2016 the Democrats and liberals felt it was fine to appoint a nominee for a SCOTUS vacancy in an election year. If they don't now, how is that not hypocrisy?

 

[2distracted]

I would be tired too if I had to spend this much time defending the indefensible.

Its not a question of whether or not we realize that the Republicans are going to do the exact opposite of what they said was the right thing not 4 years ago. Its a question of whether or not they are they accept that that makes them giant hypocrites. If they do, then fine, let the chips fall where they may. It appears, though, that they are trying to play both sides of the matter.

Unsuprisingly.

So in a situation like this it's always good when u can fall back on...u know, that old fashioned notion of

OMG

Core, absolute, unchanging values based on core, absolute, unchanging

OMG again!!

Truth...as in objective truth

Objective truth

Abortion is murder

Should it then be illegal?

Objective truth

Yes

How best to do that?

Get new Supreme Court Justice asap

 

[Yakshi]

I would be tired too if I had to spend this much time defending the indefensible.

Its not a question of whether or not we realize that the Republicans are going to do the exact opposite of what they said was the right thing not 4 years ago. Its a question of whether or not they are they accept that that makes them giant hypocrites. If they do, then fine, let the chips fall where they may. It appears, though, that they are trying to play both sides of the matter.

Unsuprisingly.

But I do love the excuse though. "We'll be gigantic shitheads because imagine what Democrats would do in the same situation." They get to imagine Democratic boogeyman, who--let's face it--have not done what they are imagining, and based on their fearful reaction to this imaginary fever dream, they wake up in a cold sweat and feel justified in acting like gigantic shitheads.

They are able to support something that they would find morally disgusting in Democrats, with two results: they continue to blame Democrats, who did nothing, for what Republicans are doing, and at the same time they do not feel any moral disgust with themselves.

Of course, the rest of us understand the reality. Republicans are supporting morally disgusting things, and so Republicans will get the blame for supporting those morally disgusting things.

Unless they live in a sanctuary city from hypocrisy.

Naturally, you'd have to be a true moron to buy their logic--their thinking is rarely deeper than a bumper sticker--but these are the same people who like to ask what Trump could possibly have done to decrease the pandemic death count, so these weren't exactly a collection of Einsteins in the first place.

I wouldn't trust them to pump my gas.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

That seems to imply that no SCOTUS vacancy needs to exist for adding (appointing) a (new) SC justice. That is certainly not following the established confirmation process.

OK, your point is?

We've had more than 9 Supreme Court Justices in this country before. Since McConnell and the Republicans wouldn't even TAKE A VOTE on Merrick Garland in 2016, and since they are being total, shameless hypocrites NOW, this is what they get. If the Republicans are going to violate institutional and democratic norms, turnabout is fair play. Nothing is off the table, as Chuck Schumer said.

If I were the Democrats, I would appoint at least one new Supreme Court justice regardless of what happens with Ginsburg's replacement, since a seat was stolen from them in 2016.

 

[Bullseye]

I hope they do it actually.

basically guarantees they’ll lose the election and be out of power on a national level for a significant amount of time. By then...the Dems would have already expanded the SC, thus rendering Trump’s pick irrelevant.

Rapid confirmation has commanding leads in most polls, even among Dems. So you seem to have it bassackwards.

 

[2distracted]

Typical lefties

Repeating the same old same old talking points expecting a different response...

If that sounds like the proverbial definition of insanity....Otay

We've established that the D's would do the exact same thing as Trump and Co. If they were in the same spot

Both the WH and Senate are R. I pray the House is soon... St Jude...hear our prayer

Most people are not going to be persuaded by the endless repetition libs engage in. For one, they don't have truth on their side.
Thinking ppl notice that

The unthinking don't care

But hey, it's a free country...waste your precious, cant get it back time if you want
T

 

[bullseyelqcs]

Rapid confirmation has commanding leads in most polls, even among Dems. So you seem to have it bassackwards.

That, or you don't get that it has a lead amongst Dems for exactly the reason you were given.

Could go either way, I suppose.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Trump's base is solid but just not large enough for reelection.

Basically what this appointment will mean is overturning roe vs wade and ACA

75% of Americans support roe vs wade

Repealing ACA will bring back the preexisting condition exclusion for health insurance.

Should ensure that the senate, house and Whitehouse will go democrat

Democrats will be forced to increase the Supreme Court to 13 with their appointees

Not necessarily, although the anti-Trump view always sees the worst possible scenario.

Roe v. Wade is pretty solid. What IS in dispute is...how far into a pregnancy should it be allowed.

I support Roe v. Wade...up to the point where a doctor can determine that the "fetus" is a "Human Being."

If it has developed to THAT point, then I consider it murder to abort it.

Women should have the right to choose...right up until the fetus becomes a "baby child."

Once an actual Human Being? Then IMO they should be given the same protections as you or I, unless you think that for the good of society...adults can be "aborted" at-will too?

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

They should do exactly what the Democrats would do if the roles were reversed.
And that is confirm a judge before the they leave office.

Anybody who thinks otherwise is being dishonest.

Especially considering what the democrats attempted to pull against Kavanaugh.

 

[Bullseye]

That, or you don't get that it has a lead amongst Dems for exactly the reason you were given.

Could go either way, I suppose.

I have no idea what you're trying to say. Seems like a simple concept.

 

[2distracted]

Especially considering what the democrats attempted to pull against Kavanaugh.

Yeh, as some would say

Payback is a mudda

Or as others say

What goes around comes around

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Typical lefties

Repeating the same old same old talking points expecting a different response...

If that sounds like the proverbial definition of insanity....Otay

We've established that the D's would do the exact same thing as Trump and Co. If they were in the same spot

Both the WH and Senate are R. I pray the House is soon... St Jude...hear our prayer

Most people are not going to be persuaded by the endless repetition libs engage in. For one, they don't have truth on their side.
Thinking ppl notice that

The unthinking don't care

But hey, it's a free country...waste your precious, cant get it back time if you want
T

Did you not see what Lindsey Graham said in 2016 and 2018 about this? You Repugs are ridiculous, shameless hypocrites.

 

[kamikaze483]

If Trump were a decent person, that's what he would do. Supreme Court confirmations do not happen in 45 days.

Either way, it's not a done deal. Collins and Murkowski already stated that they are not going to support this power grab. And McConnell will deeply regret it if Trump loses and Democrats gain control of the Senate. Get ready for 11 seats on the Supreme Court.

Actually, it is a done deal... the only question is whether Trump's appointee will be confirmed before or after the election. McConnell only needs 48 yes votes to have a simple majority if at least two republicans vote "present" rather than no. Which is probably what Murkowski and Collins would do.

 

[kamikaze483]

And that is the fault of the Republicans for not confirming a highly qualified candidate. Republican Senators used to confirm Democratic Supreme Court nominees all the time, before the Repug Party completely lost their minds. Including Republican Senators currently in Congress, like that pathetic hypocritical piece of shit Lindsey Graham.

Interesting. When was the last time a Senate of one party affirmed the SC nominee of a President of the other party IN AN ELECTION YEAR? Answer: 1888.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Interesting. When was the last time a Senate of one party affirmed the SC nominee of a President of the other party IN AN ELECTION YEAR? Answer: 1888.

And how often has that happened, dude? Like 3 ****ing times? You're posting meaningless bullshit.

 

[Cordelier]

There's no way a SCOTUS nominee gets a vote before election day.... it's just not in the cards - even if the Republicans put on a full-court press, the Democrats could dig in their heels on Judiciary and on the Senate floor pretty much right up to the election. How much stomach do you figure Senators like Collins, McSally, Gardner or Tillis are going to have for that kind of trench warfare while they're fighting for their political lives? I think you'll see a consensus form where the Senate agrees to confirmation hearings before the election, but postpones a final vote until after the election. If Trump somehow wins, then the whole exercise is academic... but if he loses - especially if he loses big - I think you'll see the air go out of the nomination. There's no way you're going to have retiring Senators like Alexander or defeated lame duck Senators show up in that kind of scenario.

 

[kamikaze483]

And how often has that happened, dude? Like 3 ****ing times? You're posting meaningless bullshit.

No. Not three times. Quote facts, not some ignorant narrative that originated inside of your brain. There were 4 in one year appointed by President Taft that the Senate failed to confirm in 1844. And regardless of the rarity of such an occurrence, the parties have always behaved the same way: confirming justices if the President was from their party and failing to confirm them if the President was not during election years.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

No. Not three times. Quote facts, not some ignorant narrative that originated inside of your brain. There were 4 in one year appointed by President Taft that the Senate failed to confirm in 1844. And regardless of the rarity of such an occurrence, the parties have always behaved the same way: confirming justices if the President was from their party and failing to confirm them if the President was not during election years.

Meaningless bullshit. All I have to do is quote what that hypocritical piece of shit Mitch McConnell said in 2016 and what that hypocritical piece of shit Lindsey Graham said in 2016 and again in 2018. And then I win the argument. Easily.

You people are shameless hypocrites and you will pay in November.

 

[Chomsky]

I have read that Pelosi is thinking of bringing new articles of impeachment against Trump which could stop the vote on a new court member until after the election.

Besides the political ramifications, whatever they may be, I don't see how impeachment would slow the nomination process down. McConnell could simply bring the articles to order, and immediately dismiss them. At least that's my understanding.