The fight to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg megathread

[Silent Hunter]

Is it wrong that I think ACB is quite good looking?

[Silent Hunter]

https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1307252351141584896

Stop pls
Murkowski is the only one who have said so since RBG passed away.

RBG hasn't even been dead for a day, so let's see what the others say.

[Silent Hunter]

Yet Biden was the VP at the time when Obama tried to do it.

[Silent Hunter]

Not enough time in Senate to confirm an appointee before the election

Which means we're having a lame duck battle.

[Silent Hunter]

I somehow doubt a staffer tweeted that.

Doing a public service to the owner of the pigeon, or at least making the loss memorable.

[Silent Hunter]

Impeach a lame duck? Also, why not impeach him now?

[Silent Hunter]

Which you can do now. Then you can impeach him again.

The man has a rap sheet a mile long.

[Silent Hunter]

Collins and Murkowski are a no. Now they just have to work on convincing their colleagues. The Democrats should offer something like lowering prescription drug prices and sending cash to seniors in exchange for a more moderate nominee.

“You give us the holy grail, we’ll give you this ordinary cup.”

The Holy Grail was an ordinary cup...

[Silent Hunter]

ACB is going to be confirmed literally a week before the election. Beating Trump is one thing, but if Democrats don't take the Senate, nuke the filibuster, and expand the Court, then get used to living in a theocracy I guess. Meanwhile the Court loses its legitimacy as a political arm of the GOP as faith in the Court continues to diminish. It's not going to be pretty.

If they do that though, what will stop the Republicans from doing it right back when they regain control? The precedent will have been set.

Constitutional change is a better ambition. The thing is in dire need of an update.

[Silent Hunter]

ACB is going to be confirmed literally a week before the election. Beating Trump is one thing, but if Democrats don't take the Senate, nuke the filibuster, and expand the Court, then get used to living in a theocracy I guess. Meanwhile the Court loses its legitimacy as a political arm of the GOP as faith in the Court continues to diminish. It's not going to be pretty.

If they do that though, what will stop the Republicans from doing it right back when they regain control? The precedent will have been set.

Republicans aren't concern with naked power-grab, so why should Democrats be?

Because a tit for tat response will end up in the destruction of the republic.

[Silent Hunter]

And you plan is what, unilateral disarmament? At least tit for tat gives Republicans some incentive to negotiate, and at the bare minimum has a nonzero chance of Democrats coming out the winners.

There is no incentive for Republicans to negotiate on Roe vs. Wade. They see it as mass child murder and will bend or break any rule to get it overturned.

All the Democrats will be doing is giving them a justification. A better use of energies would be in winning state legislatures and changing public opinion so the laws can be changed at state level when/if Roe goes.

[Silent Hunter]

Clarence Thomas is 72. He's likely to be the next justice to retire.

Anyway, this will now be somewhat sidelined by the tax returns.