How Many GOP Votes Will Judge Jackson Get?

[Court Jester]

Cheney, kinzinger, Collins & maybe Romney.
Much optimism!

 

[lurchadams]

Silly rant!

Aww... your opinion really means a lot to me.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Romney maybe. Anything else is not probable.

Susan Collins.

 

[phoenix2020]

I suspect 1 or 2. Since she was nominated during a (D) administration, I expect the vast majority of (R) to have decided to vote against her before hearing, because how else is one expected to practice zero-sum political warfare?

 

[Cordelier]

I'd say probably about a half-dozen. If I had to guess:

Burr, Collins, Murkowski, Portman, Romney, & Sasse

 

[Noodlegawd]

How many buck Mitch?

How many Democrats voted for Amy Coney Barrett?

 

[Noodlegawd]

I suspect 1 or 2. Since she was nominated during a (D) administration, I expect the vast majority of (R) to have decided to vote against her before hearing, because how else is one expected to practice zero-sum political warfare?

It IS possible for a president presiding over an evenly divided Senate to nominate someone else that might appeal to both sides. I know, crazy talk.

 

[Cordelier]

How many Democrats voted for Amy Coney Barrett?

If I were a Senator, I would have voted for Barrett... Gorsuch too. Neither one of them were who I would have picked, but I had no reason to vote against either one of them.

 

[Noodlegawd]

If I were a Senator, I would have voted for Barrett... Gorsuch too. Neither one of them were who I would have picked, but I had no reason to vote against either one of them.

The only reason you need to vote against a nominee is that you think there is someone better available.

 

[Cordelier]

The only reason you need to vote against a nominee is that you think there is someone better available.

Not really... I can think of a few good reasons - lack of character, lack of judgment and ability, lack of experience.

Everybody is always going to think there's someone better available. Only one person's judgment matters on that front, though.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Not really... I can think of a few good reasons - lack of character, lack of judgment and ability, lack of experience.

Everybody is always going to think there's someone better available. Only one person's judgment matters on that front, though.

Lack of character, etc. are characteristics that indicate someone else would be better.

What one person, exactly, and what are you basing that on?

 

[MaryP]

I'd say probably about a half-dozen. If I had to guess:

Burr, Collins, Murkowski, Portman, Romney, & Sasse

Not Sasse. He says no.

 

[Cordelier]

Lack of character, etc. are characteristics that indicate someone else would be better.

What one person, exactly, and what are you basing that on?

Only the President gets to choose whom he feels is best. You can disagree with him or not, but the choice is his alone. The most anyone else gets to do is decide whether his choice is acceptable or not.

 

[Cordelier]

Not Sasse. He says no.

That's too bad. When all of the rest of the GOP contenders are doing their dance of a thousand veils in Trump's harem, I had hoped he'd be the one to stand apart when tent collapsed.

 

[Loulit01]

How many Democrats voted for Amy Coney Barrett?

In March 2016, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell tried to justify denying a vote on Obama’s nomination of DC Circuit Court Judge Merrick Garland to replace Justice Antonin Scalia: “All we are doing is following the long-standing tradition of not fulfilling a nomination in the middle of a presidential year.”

There is no such tradition. The table shows the nine Supreme Court vacancies in place during election years in the Court’s post-Civil War era—once Congress stabilized the Court’s membership at nine and the justices largely stopped serving as trial judges in the old circuit courts. Those nine election-year vacancies (out of over 70 in the period) were all filled in the election year—one by a 1956 uncontested recess appointment and eight by Senate confirmation.

McConnell’s fabricated history to justify a 2020 Supreme Court vote | Brookings

The historical record doesn't support the justifications the Senate GOP have proffered for blocking, and now permitting, election-year Supreme Court appointments, as shown by this case-by-case analysis of how nominations in election years have played out with both unified and divided government.

www.brookings.edu

McConnell refused to bring Obama's nominee up for a vote because it was in the last year of Obama's presidency. He has no problem bringing ACB up for a vote in the last year of Trump's presidency.

So much for McConnell's and the republicans' credibility on SCOTUS appointments.

 

[Airyaman]

That's too bad. When all of the rest of the GOP contenders are doing their dance of a thousand veils in Trump's harem, I had hoped he'd be the one to stand apart when tent collapsed.

Yeah, and his comments scream partisanship, just like the rest.

 

[jpevans]

Yeah, and his comments scream partisanship, just like the rest.

Admitting that she is exceptionally qualified, but I'm unable at this time to vote against Moscow Mitch.

 

[Perotista]

How many buck Mitch?

Probably the same amount of votes the Democrats gave Kavanaugh and Barrett. With the nuclear option in place, how many votes the nominees received from the minority party is irrelevant. Be that Kavanaugh, Barrett or Jackson. It means these hearings are also irrelevant. In today’s modern political era of polarization, the great divide and the super, mega, ultra-high partisanship, Democrats will vote against any Republican nominee and Republicans against any Democratic nominee. That’s life and a political reality in today’s modern political era.

Hence, these hearings are nothing more than a political show, political theater. They mean nothing outside of giving the minority party a chance to heap their scorn on the nominee. Probably makes their base feel better since there’s no chance of the nominee not being confirmed. The fact is these hearings accomplish nothing outside of giving folks like us a chance to spout our opinions on DP. With the nuclear option, these confirmations are a done deal. Guaranteed results.

 

[Cardinal]

How many buck Mitch?

I think she’ll get one or two. She’s already lost Sasse, though, and unless I’m mistaken he’s one of the more “reasonable” Republican Senators. If Harris ends up being a tie breaker it wouldn’t suprise me.

 

[Cardinal]

Probably the same amount of votes the Democrats gave Kavanaugh and Barrett. With the nuclear option in place, how many votes the nominees received from the minority party is irrelevant. Be that Kavanaugh, Barrett or Jackson. It means these hearings are also irrelevant. In today’s modern political era of polarization, the great divide and the super, mega, ultra-high partisanship, Democrats will vote against any Republican nominee and Republicans against any Democratic nominee. That’s life and a political reality in today’s modern political era.

Hence, these hearings are nothing more than a political show, political theater. They mean nothing outside of giving the minority party a chance to heap their scorn on the nominee. Probably makes their base feel better since there’s no chance of the nominee not being confirmed. The fact is these hearings accomplish nothing outside of giving folks like us a chance to spout our opinions on DP. With the nuclear option, these confirmations are a done deal. Guaranteed results.

Do you think Jackson will get as many Republican votes as Gorsuch got from Democrats?

 

[j brown's body]

Not Sasse. He says no.

Sasse is a "sadly" no. Although he didn't explain.

 

[j brown's body]

It's unfair to compare Jackson's nomination to Gorsuch's and Barrett's. They were confirmed through a terribly corrupt process. And Kavaugh was, at least, an alleged black-out drunk who sexually assaulted a woman.

 

[Rexedgar]

I think she’ll get one or two. She’s already lost Sasse, though, and unless I’m mistaken he’s one of the more “reasonable” Republican Senators. If Harris ends up being a tie breaker it wouldn’t suprise me.

I had forgotten about Romney and Sinema is keeping her head down. Wonder if Sinema is trying to “get” something for her vote.

 

[multivita-man]

This is an example why partisan bullshit is really, really bullshit.

Yeah, there's not a single Republican senator who is going to feel comfortable voting for a black woman named Ketanji. I hate to say it, but that's the brutal truth. She checks all the boxes for signs of the anti-Christ as far as Republicans are concerned: she's black, a woman, a democratic nominee, and has an intellect.

 

[Cardinal]

I had forgotten about Romney and Sinema is keeping her head down. Wonder if Sinema is trying to “get” something for her vote.

Oh, I haven’t forgotten her. I saw the headline yesterday that Manchin stated he would vote for Jackson, and my only thought was “Aaaaand have we forgotten somebody?”