:(
No doubt it would be completely unacceptable to replace her so close to the election. /sarcasm
Printable View
:(
No doubt it would be completely unacceptable to replace her so close to the election. /sarcasm
Yeah.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Aaaaah shit.
There goes the neighbourhood.
This is the wrong angle. American conservatives aren't principled. If McConnell replaces Ginsburg, the pressure on the next Dem president and senate to expand the court will be irresistible. The best thing Trump can do is to not nominate anyone until after the election.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Well, now. Let's see if Trump does the "best thing." Would be the first time in four years he didn't reach to do more evil, but there's a first time for everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
2020 just went from brutal to Ruthless.
I'm sure Republicans will have the same sentiment as they had in 2016 with regard to Scalia. And that was 9 months prior to the election, not 6 weeks. Surely they won't try to capitalise on the death of .... oh hi Mitch.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
My bad.
Best thing for himself, I mean. It would make it much more difficult for the tiny handful of principled conservatives to vote against him.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
At least Lindsey Graham wants you to use his words against him.
https://youtu.be/QGerk0XRvLc
Lindsey has been giving Trump hand-jobs for the last 3.5 years, after first denouncing candidate Trump in no uncertain terms, so don't expect much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
The people that want a conservative in that spot are voting for Trump no matter what. He has zero to gain by waiting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Yes, but what about the five honorable principled conservatives who've been psyching themselves up with Project Lincoln videos... if Trump replaces Ginsburg with a new, young, conservative justice, it'll be even easier for them to vote against him in November.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
They're in California.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
He already changed his tune on that issue in 2019.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
It wouldn't surprise me if he waits until after the election, then tries to nominate someone and get them ratified in Nov/Dec before the new Senate and President get inaugurated in January.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
By that point Congress will have adjourned, Rand. He'd have to call the Senate into special session due to extraordinary circumstances, that will get challenged in the courts and I expect the courts will delay until it's no longer justiciable, i.e. January.
I wouldn't put it past Trump or McConnell trying.
Do the Courts really have the power to challenge a special Lame Duck session of the Senate?
To overrule it directly, against the wishes of the Executive and the house in question? They definitely don't have the power to do so, regardless of whether they'd technically have the authority or not. To delay things? Always, absolutely. And since it's not something they'd want to get involved it, I expect them to just delay, particularly since if SCOTUS does issue a formal ruling it would be with only eight justices which raises the possibility of a 4/4 decision.
Nope, he's gonna pretend he didn't say that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Twitter Link
(the tweet shows him to be a liar in two ways)
I know, it wasn't posted in a hope he'd actually do that, more to show what a dishonest guy he is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
People are really stupid about this. What Mitch did was about optics and not holding a hearing. The reality is that the other party is NEVER obligated to approve the president's nominee to the Supreme Court. Garland was never getting confirmed by a Republican senate. The rhetoric was all smoke and mirrors to justify not having public hearings that could sway public perception.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
I know they were talking bullshit back then to save face, just as they are now talking bullshit to rush to take advantage of the death of RBG. "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president" vs "We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us", both statements are tosh. "We are motivated only by power, principles or ideology or even respect for the recently deceased are dropped the moment they get in the way of the ultimate goal" would be the honest statement.
https://youtu.be/49pDoICdrqw?t=320
Foxnews, so you feel at home. See how this dick blatantly avoids answering any questions about this?
If they pull this stunt then they'd better hold onto the Oval Office or Senate. Otherwise there's nothing stopping Biden from nominating 4 liberal Justices giving the Court a 7-6 liberal majority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
I mean, there's nothing stopping him but that doesn't mean he'll actually do it.
Given the stunt that the GOP played last time, if they play silly buggers now then I think its quite probable he'll do something to restore balance if they have the Senate majority.
The GOP would have no grounds to complain. They will complain, but they'll have no grounds to do so. Oh and the GOP removed the filibuster from SCOTUS appointments so it will just take a simple majority in the Senate to do it.
The GOP may be better leaving RBG's position unfilled and letting the new President fill it, removing any excuse to act like that. That way even if RBG is replaced by a liberal they still have a 5-4 majority anyway.
Several Republican politicians explicitly stated that it was, at least to them, about the principle—the principle a president should not be allowed to nominate anyone to SCOTUS towards the end of his term, until the people have expressed their approval or disapproval in a new election. Their present reversal of opinion on that matter shows them to be unprincipled, spineless liars—not rhetoricians. If you're trying to say that cowardice and lying are conservative virtues, okay, fine—but don't expect to be regarded as anything better than a contemptible shithead. People are only as good as their word; a person whose word means nothing, is, in several important respects, worth nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
If they push a replacement through before the election, or in the lame duck period, the political pressure on the next Dem-controlled Senate to expand the court will be nigh irresistible; failure to nullify and punish that move will have negative consequences for several of the 12 Dem senators up for re-election in 2022. Though ordinary people don't tend to care much about SCOTUS, they do care about being screwed or humiliated—and then let down by their political representatives. Dem senators would be leaving themselves open to savage attacks from challengers on their left.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Except for the fact that every other Senate in American history did hold a hearing. But since you don't care about norms, I guess you won't whine when the Democrats increase the size of SCOTUS to 13.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I don't really understand where you guys are getting the idea that it's such a sure thing that Biden is going to do this if he wins the election. I mean, he might do it but it would be a fairly major change in from how the Dems normally do things, and Biden is an extremely conventional D candidate.
How many nakedly corrupt, Bullshit Republican Things have there been this term which have had no more consequences than Lindsey Graham getting owned on Twitter? Six, seven hundred? Why is this the one that's going to push the Dems over the edge?
Frankly, though, it's a lot more likely they'll rush things in before the election. And that's not really stoppable. If any of the vulnerable Republican senators bolt, it'll practically be guaranteeing their loss, no matter how ridiculous a nomination Trump makes.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
He won't have much of a choice after a particularly egregious abortion decision. Or even in response to Obamacare being struck down, which might happen this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
During Trump's first term, Dems have had very little power to punish, and no power to nullify. What they have been able to do, they have done—namely, to impeach Trump, and exercise oversight powers (though hampered by extraordinary levels of obstruction). In the event that they keep the House and retake the Senate—not to mention the WH—that changes completely. Instead of thinking about it as Dems needing to be "pushed over the edge", think of it as them needing to be nudged over the power threshold. When you say that it would be a major change from how the Dems normally do things, consider that Dems are "normally" not in a position to do anything like what's being proposed here—neither wrt. actual power, or the political capital & justification required. Trump & McConnell pushing through a new SCOTUS justice in the next few weeks/months would provide plenty of political cover and pressure, if Dems also retake the senate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
What are you expecting the Democrats to do when the Republicans control the Oval Office, the Senate and the Justice Department?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
If they control them then that's a different kettle of fish.
RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg. What a wonderful contribution she made to our country, that improved the lives of millions. Fighting to the very end for Equality Under Law. Such an inspiration! :)
Is there any statement by Democrats suggesting that this is something they'll do, or consider doing, or consider thinking about doing if they win in November, or is this just a twitter fan theory?
Why won't he have much choice?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Firstly, it would not provide political cover because it will happen before the election and this hypothetical expansion of the supreme court will happen after the election, which might as well be in the next ice age in the world of political media, especially in these times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Secondly, while the Democrats are not usually in a position to do anything as radical as expanding the supreme court, there are things they are in a position to do and they usually do not do them. At the very least, they could stop actively helping Trump's legislative agenda but for example, voting for bills expanding funding for the border force by 4.6 billion or a 0.7 trillion (!) expansion of the military budget.
Also, you bring up impeachment but they dragged their feet so hard on impeachment they scuffed all the carpets in the Capitol building. Only did it because Trump was going after their chosen POTUS candidate Joe Biden.
It's not much what I expect them to do as their attitude. Republicans do whatever it takes to get and keep power and enact their legislative agenda, the only real check on their power is their own stupidity (see repealing obamacare), Democrats stay up all night worrying about bipartisan compromise, the importance of institutions and democratic norms, then give the GOP what it wants. Like, if they did this before the end of September it wouldn't even be the worst thing they've done this month. We've had the attempts to destroy UPS for nakedly political reasons, we've got forced sterilization of women, and we've had the news broke that the Trump admin killed a plan to send out free masks to Americans, a decision which undoubtedly killed people. And I'm expected to believe that the GOP doing something it has every right to do constitutionally is what's going to get the Dems to wake up and start playing hardball?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I mean, I hope it is, but I just don't understand why people are acting like this is definitely going to happen. Equally likely Biden, if elected, is going to take "it's time to bring the nation together" approach and reach out to those "good republicans" he apparently thinks exist.
Equally likely Biden, if elected, got there in no small part because of those "good republicans" voting for him and not Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Democratic think tanks, yes. Politicians? Generally no, because it would be politically dumb to say right before an election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Because he's a Democrat. In the end, it's hard to ignore your own party's views when it becomes a highly salient issue.Quote:
Why won't he have much choice?
This is all good debate...but it's gauche in a thread meant to honor the life of RBG, and mourn her death. Is it too much to ask that this thread should be about her life and legacy, and the other political pontificating be done in another thread? Please?
Either that, or maybe Rand should change the title....
Twitter Link
:up:
Twitter Link
:up: