The fight to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg megathread

[pppolitics]

...might as well have a megathread about this

[pppolitics]

https://twitter.com/vanitaguptaCR/status/1307153104941518848

[pppolitics]

Does the vice president have a tie breaker vote in a 50-50 split on Supreme Court nominees? I assume yes. It would be extremely bitter if Collins, Romney and Murkowski vote against, but Pence ultimately becomes the 51st vote for confirmation. I could actually see above three opposing a Trump nominee, but I don't see who number four is. As already pointed out, maybe the floor vote can be delayed to after the election and Mark Kelly replaces Martha McSally. But McConnell for sure knows that and rushes through ahead of the election.

Democrats are probably screwed on the court no matter what. I was actually against court packing, but it shouldn't be ruled out any more if Trump installs one more justice, especially if he loses the election. However, I don't see court packing going through. Maybe through the House, but the senate won't approve such a bill, even with 51 Democrats.

Yes. That's how Kavanaugh was confirmed.

I guess you didn't even bother looking up anything because you are a typical Trumpster (impervious to facts).

The vote was 50-48.

Pence didn't vote.

[pppolitics]

https://twitter.com/AmandiOnAir/status/1307140706285293568

https://twitter.com/AnaCabrera/status/1307123819463749640

https://twitter.com/DrGJackBrown/status/1307119743481114625

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

We have yet to get confirmations from the others.

[pppolitics]

what a pathetic little man

https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1307342669572702208
https://twitter.com/vanitaguptaCR/status/1307153104941518848

[pppolitics]

I get expecting Romney, Murkowski, and Collins to vote Nay, but why Grassley? IIRC, he only said that he’d recommend not holding a hearing a few months ago, but feel free to update me if there was a new development or statement.

"Well, I don't know what history will do and I don't care what history will do," Grassley said. "I'm just following what was established by the Biden Rule in 1986 and then emphasized by him in 1992.

"They set the pattern. I didn't set the pattern. But it was very legitimate that you can't have one rule for Democratic presidents and another rule for Republican presidents."

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2018/05/12/u-s-sen-chuck-grassley-supreme-court-seat-left-open-if-vacant-2020/604730002/

[pppolitics]

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

Which means we're having a lame duck battle.

What's going to be McConnell's excuse for confirming a nominee during the lame duck?

[pppolitics]

https://twitter.com/SenatorCollins/status/1307412600397987842

[pppolitics]

Bad sign.  That essentially tells us that McConnell has already locked up the 50 votes he needs if Collins is allowed to come out publicly against the fast-track confirmation.

I don't think Collins give a -f what McConnell thinks at this point.

It's every man/woman for himself/herself.

[pppolitics]

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=356452.0

I voted on this poll HI because I think it required you to vote to see but anyway most of you dems already supported court packing in January. Whatever, Im pretty sure the D base would have pushed for court packing from the beginning with or without a 3rd pick.

That is what happens when McConnell refused to even allow the Senate to vote on Merrick Garland.

Anyway, that is for a different thread.

[pppolitics]

Can somebody decode this secret message?

https://twitter.com/ChuckGrassley/status/1307421592411156482

[pppolitics]

https://twitter.com/CNNnewsroom/status/1307309056084897793

Have many of those have actually said SINCE Ginsburg passed away?

[pppolitics]

Her seat doesn't belong to her anymore. It belongs to the American people who voted for a Republican Senate in 2018 to confirm whatever nominee Trump puts forward.

Republicans didn't considered Merrick Garland, who was nominated by Barack Obama, a duly elected president who won the majority of the votes.

[pppolitics]

Her seat doesn't belong to her anymore. It belongs to the American people who voted for a Republican Senate in 2018 to confirm whatever nominee Trump puts forward.

Republicans set the precedent: no confirmations in an election year, full stop.

Democrats didn’t have control of the senate when Obama was in office

So if the President is a Republican, the Democrats control the senate, and there is a vacancy in the Supreme Court, are you saying that the Democrats should hold up the nomination indefinitely?

[pppolitics]

Eric Holder has spoken.

https://twitter.com/pnrodenbush/status/1307439758294081537

Democrats once again can’t accept a loss, don’t understand why they lose, call it illegitimate which leads to no self reflection. This refusal to accept reality is now an inherent problem within the Democratic Party.

Obama won more votes than Trump and Republicans blocked his nominee.

[pppolitics]

The more I think of it, the more the Democrats are playing it wrong by going to court packing/reform. By doing so, they are basically pre-emptively placing on the onus on themselves to take drastic action, when the ball is in Trump's court.

Instead what they should do is propose to Trump that he nominates a moderate justice in exchange for a legislative priority that he wants and that the Democrats can pass through the House.

The biggest objection to this is that Trump would not agree.

But that is not necessarily as much of a foregone conclusion as it may seem. For one thing, Trump loves to make deals. His entire political brand is that he's a businessman who wrote The Art of the Deal. He lives for dealmaking, and if he cannot make a deal on this, one of the most significant actions of his presidency, what does it say about his brand?

Second of all, the Democrats could potentially offer anything. There are things which Trump wants that the House could pass, which the Democrats might be willing to give up for a more moderate justice. For example, Democrats could offer to fund the Wall, which would fulfill a promise of Trump's campaign. Trump claims to want to lower prescription drug prices and wanted $100 of cash rewards to be sent to seniors right before the election.

The Democrats could call his bluff and say they'll pass legislation to give seniors $100 cash rewards and lower prescription drug prices if Trump nominates a more moderate justice.

The worst thing that can happen is Trump refuses. And then he is shown as unreasonable and not committed to his political promises.

The point being is that no one is confirmed yet, and to go straight towards to the nuclear option is extremely premature. Court reform is justified only if every other option is absolutely exhausted and right now nothing is exhausted. There is still plenty of time and both parties should take things step by step.

No. Republicans are playing it wrong by completely hypocritical. We have statements and even videos from them since 2016.

If Republicans are not going to respect the norm, Democrats are not going to either.

The only "deal" Democrats will offer is for Republicans not to fill RBG seat in exchange for Democrats not packing the SCOTUS.

[pppolitics]

https://twitter.com/kasie/status/1308078039255912448

[pppolitics]

https://twitter.com/JakeSherman/status/1308135785326088193
https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1308138519630680070

[pppolitics]

https://twitter.com/SenatorRomney/status/1308403638897958914

[pppolitics]

there is already a megathread on this:

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=395240.0

[pppolitics]

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?