I've seen a few political bloggers suggest that -- in the event that R.B.G. doesn't remain on the court for whatever reason for the next year -- that the battle that would ensue over the appointment would dwarf the Kavanaugh circus. I'm inclined to agree for 2 main reasons:
1 - It would mean the possibility that Trump would get 3 S.C. appointments in just 4 years, which would basically lock up a conservative majority for a generation to come.
2 - It would be a total reversal for McConnell, who explicitly refused to hold a hearing for Garland on the basis of "letting the voters have a say" considering that Obama was in his final year in office.
#2 would have the most public credibility for outrage, in my opinion. McConnell's decision could be a real backfire here, because realistically, he could have just had Garland's hearing and known that the Republican majority simply wouldn't vote for him. Instead, he's kind of set a precedent here, even though his office has already publicly stated that he will allow a hearing for a potential replacement if the opportunity arises.
I think this could be an enormous battle with very serious long-term consequences, should this actually come to pass. How does everyone see this playing out?
(no message)
The Dem base craves policy changes that could not survive the legislative process.
(no message)
..he said that no lame duck president has passed through a SCOTUS appointment >when the other party controlled the senate<. Why would that ever happen?
McConnell has it mapped out as he should. We learned to play by their rules - you saw how it went for Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh.
We just saw Adam Schiff execute a soviet-style hearing on impeachment with the rules skewed to guarantee the outcome. Why? Because as Chris said, "elections have consequences".
He and Trump will move forward in a heartbeat. Elections have consequences.
(no message)
Would it be hypocritical? Sure. But Mitch will not care.
Elections have consequences.
McConnell is scum. The left had perfected the art of the double standard, but the Republicans are gaining ground.
They will 100% go forward if Justice Ginsburg's seat becomes available anytime prior to August 2020. The Court is McConnell's perceived legacy.
They will distinguish Garland as a nominee from a 2nd term President -- in essence, making the disingenuous argument that the 2012 Presidential election did not confer President Obama with the same authority that the 2016 election conferred upon Trump.
(no message)
I'm just thinking of everything that happened with Kavanaugh - the protests, the anger, the seeking out of anyone from his past who would talk - I'm wondering if that would be escalated exponentially if a seat opens up while Trump is still in his 1st term.
Would there be legal challenges? Any Hail Mary type of moves that have never been done before backed by big democrat money? This is the type of incident that I would worry could create the biggest fracture in this country yet.
But it would amount to nothing, as would all Democratic attempts to stonewall, and all legal challenges.
At the end, we'd have a new justice.
Also - if a Democrat wins the presidency and the GOP holds the Senate, we will get no new justices. That's the world we live in.
because that is also the world that we live in.
(no message)
Sure, there will be attacks on jurisprudence, but the GOP will likely pick someone like a Judge Hardiman -- seasoned jurist from 3d Circuit, who would draw 65+ votes.
Such a non-polarizing nominee would also help Trump in November.
(no message)
that the Left has is that she is Catholic. Bring it.
P.S. - nobody is bullet proof when the media chooses sides and is complicit making up false information and narratives.
She won’t draw more than 53-54 votes.
Trump and GOP need a slam dunk, even if the nominee isn’t as conservative as they may wish.
Politically, Trump/GOP do not want a divisive choice to negatively impact their election prospects with the swing voters. If they get a nominee who draws 65 + votes, they can then point to that bipartisan support which softens their Grand Theft re Garland’s seat, and they still wind up with a 6-3 advantage.
bad. It’s more time than Kagan ever spent (none), and I believe similar to Sotomoyer (not sure there).
Being slightly green is a lot easier of a political handicap to manage than being the 3rd white male appointed by Trump.
(no message)
He also passed the vetting last time around.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
My friend is not a Trump supporter, by the way. Unfortunately, I'm not willing to disclose more, so I will just have to accept that I will not convince you on this point.
But I believe you about the friend.
Would ensure a conservative majority for a generation.
Realistic chance Orange loses.
Unifies the party and energizes the base even more for the election.
He really doesn’t care about being accurately described as a hypocrite.
They may want to choose the next nominee a little more wisely.
D’s will do their thing but they don’t have the votes. They should also piss on any photos they have of Harry Reid as he started this ball of only needing a simple majority rolling.
P.S. The aforementioned Harry Reid would have done the same if the shoe was on the other foot.
McConnell will give his turtle smile, just like Reid gave his snarky smirk & shrug when asked about lying on the floor of the Senate about Romney not paying his taxes, "Romney didn't win did he?"
And, yes, the Dems would have anyone who lived near, or went to high school with, the nominee, or has kids going to school with the nominee's kids, or sat next to the nominee on a plane, or could have been in the same bar as the nominee...anyone who is willing to make up a story...all those people will testify in the media at the least.
One would hope they would do a better job of vetting background this time.
They may try the ND prof or Hardiman this time.
(no message)
Bart on the other hand was well remembered by many.
He handed himself upon a silver platter. There was always “that guy” in HS, college and LS.
(no message)
Uhm, as you would say, google is your friend.
(no message)
Tradition or precedent for restraint be damned.
Which is that Obama was in his final possible term. So, there was zero doubt that there would be a new president in under a year. In this case, there is a possibility that Trump could gain another term in office.
It's weasely, but that's about the only justification that I can come up with for why this would be a different scenario that would allow for a different decision.
(no message)
(no message)