Since I havent seen a thread started on this yet, I thought I would open it up.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Champion Of Gender Equality, Dies At 87
Ginsburg, the second woman to serve on the Supreme Court, died from complications from cancer. Her death will set in motion what promises to be a tumultuous political battle over who will succeed her.www.npr.org
"Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the demure firebrand who in her 80s became a legal, cultural and feminist icon, died Friday. The Supreme Court announced her death, saying the cause was complications from metastatic cancer of the pancreas."
First off, RIP RBG, you were a giant and you will be sorely missed. I am at a loss as to what to say about her passing, but I am deeply frustrating and angry that instead of celebrating her life, we were all immediately reduced to talking about filling her vacancy.
Which brings me to my next point (s): What will the Republican senate do? What should they do, given their previous positions in the past regarding open SC seats in an election year? What, if anything, can be done to stop a vacancy from being filled?
Couldnt agree more...let the constitutional process work its way out. But for the sake of doing it right, this thing shouldnt be rushed just to fill the seat before the election. Proper vetting and hearings probably cant be done in such a short amount of time and ramming through a nomination would damage the integrity of the court the eyes of the American peopleFollow the constitution. Both sides are hypocritical. Thats why the constitution exists.
Couldnt agree more...let the constitutional process work its way out. But for the sake of doing it right, this thing shouldnt be rushed just to fill the seat before the election. Proper vetting and hearings probably cant be done in such a short amount of time and ramming through a nomination would damage the integrity of the court the eyes of the American people
The smart political move, IMO, would be to make the nomination the primary issue going-Since I havent seen a thread started on this yet, I thought I would open it up.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Champion Of Gender Equality, Dies At 87
Ginsburg, the second woman to serve on the Supreme Court, died from complications from cancer. Her death will set in motion what promises to be a tumultuous political battle over who will succeed her.www.npr.org
"Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the demure firebrand who in her 80s became a legal, cultural and feminist icon, died Friday. The Supreme Court announced her death, saying the cause was complications from metastatic cancer of the pancreas."
First off, RIP RBG, you were a giant and you will be sorely missed. I am at a loss as to what to say about her passing, but I am deeply frustrating and angry that instead of celebrating her life, we were all immediately reduced to talking about filling her vacancy.
Which brings me to my next point (s): What will the Republican senate do? What should they do, given their previous positions in the past regarding open SC seats in an election year? What, if anything, can be done to stop a vacancy from being filled?
The smart political move, IMO, would be to make the nomination the primary issue going-
into election night, thereby having a base 'rallying cry' - while concurrently taking the coronovirus and other heat off Trump. I'd paint the Dems as obstructionists, and let the nomination fight play-out past election day. That would save the vulnerable Senators from taking a hard vote going into the election, where they are then politically less restrained after.
No one would have cared about the replacement of RBG, if TurtleFace hadn't blocked Garland.Follow the constitution. Both sides are hypocritical. Thats why the constitution exists.
And it would save his vulnerable Sens a hard vote that might effect their re-elections. His first goal is to save his Senate, even though he might make the calculus that 'saving Trump' is the most effective way to 'save his Senate'.That would be the smart play...ramming it through before Election Day would get rid of an incentive for cons to go out and vote.
I have little doubt McConnel's highest priority is remaining Senate Leader, so I disagree.OTOH, confirming a nominee during a lame duck session would delegitimize said nominee in my opinion. I have a feeling that McConnell will be willing to sacrifice the chamber to Democrats for a term just to get another conservative seated on the SC
Would you support the Dems waiting if they had the presidency and the Senate?The smart political move, IMO, would be to make the nomination the primary issue going-
into election night, thereby having a base 'rallying cry' - while concurrently taking the coronovirus and other heat off Trump. I'd paint the Dems as obstructionists, and let the nomination fight play-out past election day. That would save the vulnerable Senators from taking a hard vote going into the election, where they are then politically less restrained after.
And it would save his vulnerable Sens a hard vote that might effect their re-elections. His first goal is to save his Senate, even though he might make the calculus that 'saving Trump' is the most effective way to 'save his Senate'.
I have little doubt McConnel's highest priority is remaining Senate Leader, so I disagree.
There will not be enough defections to stop the nomination, of that I have little doubt. I wouldn't even count on these two, though McConnel will give them the room if they believe they need it.Fair enough. Then again, this whole thing could be rendered moot and come down to whether four GOP senators can grow a spine. Two (as far as I know) have already said they won’t support the process before the election
No one would have cared about the replacement of RBG, if TurtleFace hadn't blocked Garland.
There will not be enough defections to stop the nomination, of that I have little doubt. I wouldn't even count on these two, though McConnel will give them the room if they believe they need it.
It's not 'who I support', but what I 'believe will occur'. Obviously, both parties would do it if they believe they can get away with it. Why wouldn't they?Would you support the Dems waiting if they had the presidency and the Senate?
Which is why McConnel will (should) let this drag-out until after the election. Unless in his calculus he believes the bolster it would give Trump would be positively reflected in Trump's coat-tails, thereby puling his vulnerable Senators along. But I'm not sure that's the calculus.I also have my doubts that they can get 4 defections. Silver lining could be that if Collins votes to confirm, she’s almost certain to lose her seat. Gardner at this point probably doesn’t care, and Murkowskey isn’t in any danger
Definitely.It's not 'who I support', but what I 'believe will occur'. Obviously, both parties would do it if they believe they can get away with it. Why wouldn't they?
Agreed.Definitely.
Which is why McConnel will (should) let this drag-out until after the election. Unless in his calculus he believes the bolster it would give Trump would be positively reflected in Trump's coat-tails, thereby puling his vulnerable Senators along. But I'm not sure that's the calculus.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?