The fight to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg megathread

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It's true that Schumer would have blocked a bush appointment in 2008, It's true that if Romney won the presidential election in 2012, dems would have blocked a nominee from him in 2016, and it's true that dems would be appointing a judge right now if we had President Hillary Clinton and Ginsburg somehow didn't retire right away in 2017.

But that being said, Trump is simply inept to pick a judge of the type that will not be bound by precedent and whom will have absolute power. With the ACA and other key legislation in danger, in the middle of a pandemic, we must fight. And Trump seems so likely to lose that him getting a third justice is simply not within the popular will.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It's true that Schumer would have blocked a bush appointment in 2008, It's true that if Romney won the presidential election in 2012, dems would have blocked a nominee from him in 2016, and it's true that dems would be appointing a judge right now if we had President Hillary Clinton and Ginsburg somehow didn't retire right away in 2017.

Any evidence whatsoever behind any of those claims?

 Seriously dude, both sides ism is the most intellectually lazy form of argument if you can't back it up with specifics.

https://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146

I see little reason to believe Schumer would have had a sudden change of heart in 2016 or 2020 if power was his.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Not gonna lie, I supported ACB for Appeals court. I didn't agree with her ideologically but I didn't agree with attacking her religion and felt Dems failed to make a large case against her.

Obviously however she cannot be trusted on SCOTUS where she is not bound by precedent and thus is likely to make dangerous rulings.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

https://twitter.com/IanSams/status/1309586996952813570
There goes the ACA.

This goes in every ad. Every single one.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It's true that Schumer would have blocked a bush appointment in 2008, It's true that if Romney won the presidential election in 2012, dems would have blocked a nominee from him in 2016, and it's true that dems would be appointing a judge right now if we had President Hillary Clinton and Ginsburg somehow didn't retire right away in 2017.

Any evidence whatsoever behind any of those claims?

 Seriously dude, both sides ism is the most intellectually lazy form of argument if you can't back it up with specifics.

https://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146

I see little reason to believe Schumer would have had a sudden change of heart in 2016 or 2020 if power was his.

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

Wait both parties are hypocritical and keep switching their position except the GOP got lucky with the timing?

Keep telling yourself that. Whatever you have to do to get you through the night and be able to look at yourself in the mirror the next morning and tell yourself you're not behind and amoral hypocritical power grab because your side can't win the popular vote anymore.

Were the courts from the 1940s-early 1970s packed in favor of the liberals , as for much of the period you had 6-3 or 7-2 courts in favor of liberals

No, because the Senate during that time never held a seat open out of spite against the incumbent President. The Democrats held the Senate for Decades, from the 50s the 80s, and they never denied a GOP President from filling a seat. Nor did they hold it open, until a Democrat won.

Look What Schumer said in 2007

https://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

If Stevens retired in 2008 the democrats would have blocked it according to Schumer unless Lieberman used his leverage of switching parties and thus giving the gop the majority, unless of course the nominee was a liberal.

I’m talking about reality, not hypotheticals. Had the Democrats done that, they would only be hypocrites if they went and confirmed one of Obama’s picks in 2012 or so. That’s literally the whole issue we have. Had McConnell allowed Obama to fill the seat in 2016, we wouldn’t be as outraged at this. Sure, we’d be saddened by Ginsburg’s death and the fact that Trump gets another SC appointment, but had they allowed Obama to make his pick you would not see as nearly the same amount of anger as you’re seeing now. The hypocrisy is what we hate.

Actually, had Dems blocked a bush appointee in 2008, their backing of Garland in 2016 would be hypocritical, no further history changing needed.

Of course no such 2008 vacancy occurred but I have no reason to believe Schumer was lying. But let's not pretend either party has any moral high ground here.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Democrats can't use literally every tool in the book. They have a presidential election and trifecta to win, if they alienate voters they put that at risk, the Court will be even more out of grasp and the policy consequences will be truly horrific. Republicans will do whatever it takes to confirm the nominee and they have the votes, so they can just put a stop to procedural tricks pretty quickly anyway (and they have until January 3 to confirm the nominee, not November 4. It's just too much time.) Democrats should try their best, but radical options like a random impeachment or shutting down the government are much too risky and won't work. Maybe if the nominee isn't confirmed after the election, they can try more radical tricks, but even then it's almost certain to be done by January 3.

The D's, confirmed most of Trump's lower Crt nominees recently, Trump is emboldened to make this choice

Recent confirmation votes were bipartisan because McConnell had finally stopped focusing on gop state nominees and gave Dems votes on the nominees they wanted and gave positive blue slips to.

Holding over this scotus vacancy for Biden would have been a continuation of the good practice we've seen this fall. But alas, the GOP can never stop its power grab for all that long.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

If I'm 20 years old and can afford $10 a month for healthcare, I damn well know all of you can too.

A bunch of sexist fearmongering bigots.

Disgusting.

It'll be far more than $10 a month when Obamacare is declared unconstitutional.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

We knew that RBG death was imminent and her family doesn't appear on TV to say how she died, but she should of retired before 2016, she had Pancreatic cancer and like colon cancer, it affects the way you sit for long periods of time. She knew she couldn't last as a judge, sitting a long time

Yep Ginsburg’s decision to not retire in 2014 will go down as one of the worst political mistakes in modern history

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

https://twitter.com/JTHVerhovek/status/1309968841238286336

Has there ever been a straight party-line vote on confirming a Supreme Court justice?

In the 18th, 20th, and 21st Centuries - No

In the 19th Century - Exact documentation is lacking, but some of the margins suggest the answer is yes.


Of course, this nomination won't be straight party line because Collins and probably Murkowski.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

If procedural sleights of hand don't buy enough time, the Democrats should resort to less sophisticated measures.

Pull the fire alarm so everyone has to leave the building.

Hit the emergency stop button in the elevator with a few GOP senators.

Call Mitch McConnell's cable company pretending to be him and cancel his service, necessitating that Mitch get it turned back on and spend a day sitting at home waiting for the Comcast guy to show up.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Delaying the vote till after the election is a terrible idea. She's going on the Court either way, so it's better (from a DSCC/DCCC tactical perspective) to let the ACB Train leave the station before all the "I don't like Trump personally, but at least he's stacking the courts with City of God types" socons go to the polls.

This is so dumb. Give up because Socons might be less motivated to vote for Trump if Barrett's already confirmed before the election?

Give up on what, exactly? There's going to be a Republican Senate majority for the next three months even if November is a Democratic wave. She's going on the Court. Genuinely what is the point of going to the mattresses to have her confirmed on November 10 rather than October 30?

The idea is to somehow make this so miserable for Republicans that they give up. The Senate having to take recorded votes on daily motions to adjourn for the evening, bills to name post offices, etc, to the point where the GOP gets so annoyed they give in.

Any Democrat who isn't willing to support any possible floor tactic Schumer comes up with should resign in shame.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Delaying the vote till after the election is a terrible idea. She's going on the Court either way, so it's better (from a DSCC/DCCC tactical perspective) to let the ACB Train leave the station before all the "I don't like Trump personally, but at least he's stacking the courts with City of God types" socons go to the polls.

This is so dumb. Give up because Socons might be less motivated to vote for Trump if Barrett's already confirmed before the election?

Give up on what, exactly? There's going to be a Republican Senate majority for the next three months even if November is a Democratic wave. She's going on the Court. Genuinely what is the point of going to the mattresses to have her confirmed on November 10 rather than October 30?

The idea is to somehow make this so miserable for Republicans that they give up. The Senate having to take recorded votes on daily motions to adjourn for the evening, bills to name post offices, etc, to the point where the GOP gets so annoyed they give in.

Any Democrat who isn't willing to support any possible floor tactic Schumer comes up with should resign in shame.

The Republican party knows how to fight tooth and nail for the courts. It's the Democrats who cave.

Yep, I'm well aware Dems have caved in the past. But there are also examples where they forced the GOP to be the one to blink, like on the wall in 2019. I hope this is more like that.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Delaying the vote till after the election is a terrible idea. She's going on the Court either way, so it's better (from a DSCC/DCCC tactical perspective) to let the ACB Train leave the station before all the "I don't like Trump personally, but at least he's stacking the courts with City of God types" socons go to the polls.

This is so dumb. Give up because Socons might be less motivated to vote for Trump if Barrett's already confirmed before the election?

Give up on what, exactly? There's going to be a Republican Senate majority for the next three months even if November is a Democratic wave. She's going on the Court. Genuinely what is the point of going to the mattresses to have her confirmed on November 10 rather than October 30?

The idea is to somehow make this so miserable for Republicans that they give up. The Senate having to take recorded votes on daily motions to adjourn for the evening, bills to name post offices, etc, to the point where the GOP gets so annoyed they give in.

Any Democrat who isn't willing to support any possible floor tactic Schumer comes up with should resign in shame.

But how far can they even go with those motions and bills so long as it's McConnell who decides what gets voted on when? There's a reason the Senate hasn't even considered the dozens if not hundreds of comprehensive Democratic proposals that have passed the House since Pelosi retook the gavel. The filibuster for SCOTUS judges is gone and in hindsight throwing it away for Gorsuch was a bad move.

You can't move to proceed to most bills whenever you like, but you can make as many motions to adjourn, adjourn to date certain, postpone consideration of the nomination, and live quorum calls as you so choose, and force recorded votes on each one. You can also force  recorded votes on stuff like post office naming that is usually done in wrap up at the end of the day, and while doing that, the debate clock on the SCOTUS nomination is paused.

Also you can proceed to certain privileged legislation at any time. If the House passed a war powers resolution for instance, Democrats could immediately file a motion to proceed, and it would only need a simple majority vote as privileged legislation is not subject to the legislative filibuster. If they did move to proceed to something successfully then the Senate would have to spend valuable time debating the measure, and again if the nominee is reported to the floor by that point, the debate time on them is paused when the Senate is doing other business.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The hypocrisy of politicians amuses me, this is all about Citizens United, D's thought that Biden was gonna replace Ginsburg and Roberts was gonna reverse himself on Citizens United and give Unions not big business power over elections. That's why Act blue is asking for donations as soon as Ginsburg died.

Not only that, including Warren, all the Ds in the same week Ginsburg died, voted for Trump's lower Crt nominations. D's maybe able to pack the Crt come Jan, but overturning Citizens United isn't priority on voters minds, Covid is

Each Trump lower court nomination that came to the floor in September had been approved by a bipartisan majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and with the exception of the claims court where blue slips don't apply, had been pre-approved and given a positive blue slip by a Democratic Home State Senator.

There was thus no reason to oppose any of the nominations considered in September even if the timing is a bit late.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

So now that Lee and Tillis are positive, Barrett does NOT have the votes in committee. It's set to be a 10-10 tie. Yes there's lots of time until October 22. But as of NOW, Barrett does not have the votes

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

apparently proxy voting is fine (I was sorta thinking this was the case, I believe I've seen it before on some less high profile things)

https://twitter.com/greggnunziata/status/1312192982414581760?s=20

Yes but the rules also say that a majority of the members actually present have to support the action taken. So this only works if some dem is randomly absent.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Some procedure stuff:

proxy voting is governed at the committee Level not the full Senate Level
The committee rules clearly state a majority of the members actually present have to support the action taken
Yes you can change the committee rules- with a vote of the committee
Not a vote of the Senate
To change the committee rules, again, a majority of the members actually present have to support that action

McConnell CAN circumvent the committee entirely and pull her out with a vote of the Senate, but with Murk and Collins against this crap, and Lee and Tillis sick, it would be 49-49. It's enough, but there's ZERO room for error then. So anything could happen.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Barrett already had COVID this summer.  She has immunity.

This. It's already been announced that Barrett is testifying in person regardless of any contact she had, and I expect most senators on both sides to do the same.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Let's just say Dems are going to have some real fun on the floor once the nomination gets there. Live quorum call after Live quorum call. Hopefully each democrat moves to adjourn at the end of each speech they make. Multiple motions to proceed to some other matter.

Can they do enough to use up all floor time before the election? Hard to say. But they should try.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Just going to leave this here for some thoughts over the next few days: Do people want me to create a separate thread for the hearing itself like we had with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, or should we just keep everything on this thread?

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Stream to watch the hearing: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/nomination-of-the-honorable-amy-coney-barrett-to-be-an-associate-justice-of-the-supreme-court-of-the-united-states

I'll be watching the hearing "cover to cover" and will make comments here periodically. At the end of the hearing I will make a statement reaffirming my opposition to this nominee.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Senators are currently making opening statements, this will go for several hours.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Opening Statements are just about done - next we have introductions of the nominee from Senator Braun, Senator Young, and a Notre Dame Professor.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Barrett is giving her opening statement now - due to technical difficulties we will hear from professor O'Hara afterward.

Then hearing should adjourn for the day.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Stream to watch day 2 of the hearing: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/nomination-of-the-honorable-amy-coney-barrett-to-be-an-associate-justice-of-the-supreme-court-of-the-united-states-day-2

Agenda will be approximately 11 hours of questioning [30 minutes/senator]. We expect 30 minute breaks for lunch and dinner, so a 12 hour day.