SCOTUS-Watch: It's Gorsuch!

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Wasn't Pryor in a gay porn magazine or was that a different "Family Values Conservative?"

Pryor probably because many conservatives would like to appointed an unabashed pro-life justice to the court and Sykes while conservative is ambiguous on the issue

What has Sykes said to make us doubt her on abortion?  Trump has already promised that the nominee will be 100% pro-life, and I have no reason to doubt him.

I guess she has no pro-choice record but her case history has very little to no abortion rulings meaning that we have no history to base her position off of. This is how conservatives got screwed on Souter

Based on what I know of her I imagine she's pretty pro life

Of all his short list I still think Gorsuch is the best choice, at least on non-abortion issues. He had a writing that spoke to me about how over-legislating is a negative

Yeah, I think she would be the top pick if Ginsberg dies. I still think Pryor gets Scalia's seat because his pick would maintain the status-quo on the court and he has a better chance of not getting filibustered now than if he were nominated for Ginsberg's or Kennedy's seat

Anyone the Mayor of Oompa-Loompa land nominates for any SC seat is going to get filibustered.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Schumer had better have a filibuster ready.

Then say goodbye to the filibuster for SCOTUS appointments.

Schumer should make them do it.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

We've already established that the president doesn't get to fill Supreme Court vacancies for his entire term.  Shouldn't we just wait until the next president takes office to fill this one?

Indeed, the people deserve a chance to have their voice heard in 2020 before any nominee is given a vote.  Qualifications are completely irrelevant, this is – as the Republicans liked to say last year – a matter of respecting the will of the people and they have not yet had chance to have their say regarding how that seat gets filled.  Hillary won the popular vote, so clearly America wants a Democratic President to fill the vacancy.  Maybe they'll change their minds in 2020, but the seat should obviously remain vacant until a President who won the popular vote has been sworn-in.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Probably not Diane Sykes. Her husband, Charlie Sykes, former conservative talk show host isn't fond of Trump. He should nominate a black or Latino conservative, and see the reaction of the Far Left.

Filibuster.  Next.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Probably not Diane Sykes. Her husband, Charlie Sykes, former conservative talk show host isn't fond of Trump. He should nominate a black or Latino conservative, and see the reaction of the Far Left.

Filibuster.  Next.

Repeal of the filibuster. Next.

Bring it on.  If the filibuster is useless, let's get rid of it.  We'll just skullf*** you on every single issue the next time we have the Senate.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Probably not Diane Sykes. Her husband, Charlie Sykes, former conservative talk show host isn't fond of Trump. He should nominate a black or Latino conservative, and see the reaction of the Far Left.

Filibuster.  Next.

Repeal of the filibuster. Next.

Bring it on.  If the filibuster is useless, let's get rid of it.  We'll just skullf*** you on every single issue the next time we have the Senate.

And the #McConnellRule will be around for years to come, of course.

I believe the last year thing was actually the Biden Rule...

I'm pretty sure the "Biden Rule" doesn't mean what you think it means...

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Probably not Diane Sykes. Her husband, Charlie Sykes, former conservative talk show host isn't fond of Trump. He should nominate a black or Latino conservative, and see the reaction of the Far Left.

Filibuster.  Next.

Repeal of the filibuster. Next.

I wish. Mccain, Graham look serious about keeping it though.

Hmm, I guess it's possible, but I think they will cave in to McConnell if Democrats obstruct everything. Anyway, if Trump and McConnell make this an issue in 2018, the GOP should have enough votes in 2019 to repeal it.

You hope.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

We've already established that the president doesn't get to fill Supreme Court vacancies for his entire term.  Shouldn't we just wait until the next president takes office to fill this one?

That only applies during the last year of a president's term. Or at least, that was the official republican party line.

It doesn't matter.  The important thing is that the people have a chance to make their voice heard in 2020 before any nominee is confirmed, regardless of whatever qualifications s/he may or may not possess.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I want to see the nuclear option extended to the sc after Schumer flings his feces over a nomination that will not change the balance of the court

I don't know why McConnell is even pretending he's going to keep the filibuster. Like c'mon man, we know you by now. Just get it over with.

Idk he's probably giving Schumer enough rope to hang himself with Pryor or Gorsuch(who seem to be the leading candidates) so that he seems justified in extending the nuclear option

Just remember that what goes around comes around...

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Gorsuch is right-wing nutjob and I'm not sure what would make anyone think otherwise.  If anything he'd shift the court to the right.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Crazy hypothetical:

Let's say that Scalia is replaced by Pryor or Gorsuch.  Kennedy decides to retire under a Republican president and is replaced by the other or Pryor and Gorsuch.  Then, either Ginsburg or Breyer retire and gets replaced by, say, Mike Lee.  Obviously, Roe v. Wade is history.  But, would Alito, Thomas, Pryor, Gorsuch, and Lee overturn Obergefell too?

How about Hardiman or Thomas Rex Lee (Mike's older brother). Please, no Senators on the court. They are obvious judicial activists. Activism can come from either side, though I'm obviously far more scared when it comes from the left. No way does Mike Lee make confirmation, even with the nuclear option. Collins and Murkowski are probably "no" votes, and Lee would probably have to abstain from the vote.

Short answer: I think if they go too aggressive, it will backfire big time, and at least with SSM, there will be far more backlash, as opinion on that issue has been moving hard left very quickly, while with abortion, it has been, if anything, moving right.

Can we please not pretend "judicial activist" means anything more than "makes rulings I don't agree with?"  Thanks!

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Crazy hypothetical:

Let's say that Scalia is replaced by Pryor or Gorsuch.  Kennedy decides to retire under a Republican president and is replaced by the other or Pryor and Gorsuch.  Then, either Ginsburg or Breyer retire and gets replaced by, say, Mike Lee.  Obviously, Roe v. Wade is history.  But, would Alito, Thomas, Pryor, Gorsuch, and Lee overturn Obergefell too?

How about Hardiman or Thomas Rex Lee (Mike's older brother). Please, no Senators on the court. They are obvious judicial activists. Activism can come from either side, though I'm obviously far more scared when it comes from the left. No way does Mike Lee make confirmation, even with the nuclear option. Collins and Murkowski are probably "no" votes, and Lee would probably have to abstain from the vote.

Short answer: I think if they go too aggressive, it will backfire big time, and at least with SSM, there will be far more backlash, as opinion on that issue has been moving hard left very quickly, while with abortion, it has been, if anything, moving right.

Can we please not pretend "judicial activist" means anything more than "makes rulings I don't agree with?"  Thanks!

My definition of judicial activism also includes judges who are insiders to the partisan electoral system (Senators, Governors, Representatives, etc.).

You must really hate Pryor then

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Update: Announcement may be coming Monday or Tuesday. Down to Gorsuch and Hardiman.

Jonathan Karl ‏@jonkarl  56m56 minutes ago
Senior administration official tells me @realDonaldTrump's SCOTUS short list is down Neil Gorsuch & Thomas Hardiman.

Jonathan Karl ‏@jonkarl  59m59 minutes ago
WH SOURCE: The WH is preparing for an earlier announcement of @realDonaldTrump's pick for Supreme Court - likely Tues, possibly tomorrow

My money's on Hardiman. He's being pushed hard by Trump's sister and Hardiman has no known record on anything abortion related making him easier to push through

Both are completely unacceptable right-wing extremists, especially Gorsuch who would undoubtably move the court to the right.  Of course, anyone Trump nominates should be blocked since the country voted to have a Democratic nominee on the Supreme Court.

Looks like I was right and Trump will nominate a liberal/"moderate" Republican to the SCOTUS.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

While both are totally right-wingers, they are both a bit more moderate than Scalia was, so this could actually be a net move of the court to the left.

Gorsuch would definitely move the court to the right.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Update: Announcement may be coming Monday or Tuesday. Down to Gorsuch and Hardiman.

Jonathan Karl ‏@jonkarl  56m56 minutes ago
Senior administration official tells me @realDonaldTrump's SCOTUS short list is down Neil Gorsuch & Thomas Hardiman.

Jonathan Karl ‏@jonkarl  59m59 minutes ago
WH SOURCE: The WH is preparing for an earlier announcement of @realDonaldTrump's pick for Supreme Court - likely Tues, possibly tomorrow

My money's on Hardiman. He's being pushed hard by Trump's sister and Hardiman has no known record on anything abortion related making him easier to push through

Both are completely unacceptable right-wing extremists, especially Gorsuch who would undoubtably move the court to the right.  Of course, anyone Trump nominates should be blocked since the country voted to have a Democratic nominee on the Supreme Court.

Looks like I was right and Trump will nominate a liberal/"moderate" Republican to the SCOTUS.

Yeah, whoever ends up on the bench is going to have a controversial standing for the sole fact that this seat was stolen for political purposes.  Any rulings against abortion or marriage equality should be ignored.

Any conservative rulings should be ignored, period.  The court has no legitimacy so long as a Trump appointee holds the balance of power.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

This just in: "Senate Dems will filibuster Trump’s Supreme Court nominee"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/senate-democrats-filibuster-supreme-court-pick-234368

Response from McConnell:

Then require literally every house and senate bill to have full roll call vote, require thirty hours of debate for literally every nominee needing Senate approval, deny quorum for any nominatees, put holds on all judicial nominees, and generally do everything (and there are many things that can still be done) to grind things to a halt and make life a living hell for the Senate GOP caucus.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Regardless of how badly Democrats want to stop this and how deservedly pissed they are about Garland's seat being stolen, this is simply a fight that cannot be won. Neil Gorsuch may be a conservative, but he is too qualified for Democrats to stay grouped against his confirmation. Enough cracks will appear.   

Gorsuch is to the right of Scalia...

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Which Republicans would vote against Gorsuch and which Dems would vote for him? Maybe Manchin and Paul could be defectors, but that's about it, unless I'm underestimating Collins.

LOL. Collins is not a moderate despite her pretend appearances, and Paul wouldn't dare cross McConnell on something like this. I think he gets to 60 fairly easily anyway. Heitkamp, Manchin, Donnelly, Tester, McCaskill, Warner, King, and Baldwin seem like the most obvious path, but a few more could jump on. Though if I were Schumer, I'd want to get rid of the nuclear option anyway, that way when D's do eventually win the majority, they can use the rules already intact.

Baldwin won't vote for a right-wing nutjob like Gorsuch and I could easily see King (and quite possibly Tester and McCaskill) voting to filibuster.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

From what I have read, Gorsuch doesn't seem to be the worst of the possible Supreme Court picks.

Not as bad a Pryor... but Hardiman would've been the more moderate pick.

Gorsuch will face tough questions about:
1) Ruling for Hobby Lobby (Employers not having to provide insurance under ACA, that covers Contraceptive like birth control pills)

2) Giving money to politicians while running campaigns is a "fundamental right" (he definitely is not overturning Citizens United)

3) Opinion and writing indicated is would likely vote to overturn Roe v. Wade

4) Gorsuch wrote "American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box."

5) Gorsuch wrote that, "American liberals are circumventing the democratic process on issues like gay marriage, school vouchers, and assisted suicide"

He's also written a god-awful opinion on police brutality lawsuits (among other things).

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

This is an unprecedented steal for a seat in the Supreme Court. I have no reason to respect such actions. They could have given Garland a hearing AT LEAST, but no. They knew he was qualified so they just blocked him until their party could get their nominee in.

Payback for Bork sure was sweet

What does any of this have to do with Bork? When the other party controls the senate, the president doesn't always get his first choice.

Many of the biggest whiners in the Senate about the supreme court are people like Harry Reid, and Patrick Leahy who slandered Bork for political reasons. Getting screwed over on a pick was overdue justice

Not even a little bit the same thing.

It's EXACTLY the same thing, but as always it's ok for Leftists, if they do it cause the have "moral reasons" and if it is done to them it is "shameful". Hypocrisy at an unbelieveable level. If you don't want to be treated unfairly, then don't treat the other side unfairly if you are in charge. Very easy.

Therein lies the point.

The simple fact of the matter is we are heading towards greater polarization and that is especially true over Supreme Court nominees. Since the 1980's, Republicans have been aiming for a anti-Roe Majority. Since the late 1980's, Democrats have been keen to prevent this especially after Rehnquist/Scalia double appointment in 1986, there was a keen awareness that the next justice was decisive.

So Ted Kennedy, Biden and the like developed the "Borking" strategy. They took down Bork, and forced Reagan to appoint a wildcard on the issue. Republicans saw this as an affront to tradition. The President was suppose to nominate, and the Senate was suppose to confirm as long as they were qualified. There weren't suppose to be litmus tests and there weren't suppose to be the kind of character assassination that was occurring over these nominees like Bork and later with Thomas in their view.

That is why the Republicans for two decades tried to own the higher ground, by "opposing litmus tests" like Bush did in 2000 and voting to confirm nominees like RBG with wide margins. But it meant nothing, these were naive attempts to paper over the reality that Democrats were more committed to saving Roe than Republicans were at overturning it. So there was no deference. Daschle and later Reid blocked dozens of lower count appointees leaving Obama with a hefty backlog when he took office (the root cause of Obama's transforming the judicial branch lauded in an article last year before Scalia died, was directly because Democrats Garland the lower courts under Bush, especially after 2006). To a Republican, Democrats broke the rules in 1986, in 1991 and again in 2001-2008.

It didn't matter that they tried to play by the rules in the 1990's in the hopes that Democrats would return the favor. They still acted ridiculously with Bush and after Roberts and Alito was confirmed, Hillary went around saying they had bamboozled the Senate and outright lied their way onto the court. Bush won 51% of the vote, had 55 Senate seats and yet there was no sense of deference, the successful appointment of two pro-life Justices was in the eyes of Democrats, a con job.  Democrats get liberals and Republicans have to settle for moderates or it is corrupt. This plays into the narrative that "Democrats always get their way while Republicans have to take it in the chin", Ted Cruz narrative. Going further from a Republican perspective, they see Democrats as willing to go to any means necessary because in their mines it is for the cause, however noble it may be, but since Republicans are either crooked or ignorant if they go to excess in pursuit of something, it is evil.

If you go back to the statement by Biden, yes indeed he was thinking as he was speaking. But that misses the underlying point, that in 1992 Biden was not going to let Republicans secure the 4th seat or worse gain a 5th anti-Roe seat with Bill Clinton looking likely to be President. By 2016, with the establishment in ruins, no one cared to keep up appearances or play by old rules. It was either a far right movement guy like Cruz or shoot from the hip populist like Trump, war had been going on for decades and they were going to fight back. Thus very few paid lib services to avoiding litmus tests like Bush did in 2000. Most of the leading contenders pledged to appoint solid pro-life judges

I was fine with Garland, especially because it was probably the best we could get out of Obama. However, I am glad that it worked out in a way so as to keep this seat in the hands of a Conservative as it has been for 80 years and also preserving that 4th pro-life seat, to ensure at the very least that late-term abortion remains banned.

It is not the way I would have preferred it to come about, but at the same time Merkley is wrong. Despite what one thinks of Trump, he was elected in the manner proscribed by the Constitution. The evidence of involvement by foreign gov'ts to my knowledge extends only to spread of information both true and false around the internet. Democracy depends on voters being able to take information and judge for themselves what the best course is and therefore is inherently based on a sense of faith in people to make the right decisions. That doesn't change because of who is waving said information in their face. Continuing in this line of thought, the constitution affords him the right to make an appointment to a vacant seat, regardless of the circumstances that produced it. He is President, the seat is vacant, he makes an appointment.

Just like in 1968 when Earl Warren purposely retired before the elections to ensure that LBJ would name his successor and not Richard Nixon, whom he despised. This led to the nomination of Fortas who was filibustered until it was forced to be withdrawn. During the process, the first of his scandals came to light, but the origin of filibuster was anger at the political relationship between LBJ and Fortas (which was inappropriate and a violation of separation of powers) and also the rulings of the Warren Court. So inherently politicization of the process by both sides. The end result was that there was not time to name another replacement, and Nixon ended up appointing Warren Burger, who was followed by Reagan's selection of William Rehnquist and then Bush's selection of John Roberts, who at 62, is expected to remain on the court until the 2030's. Considering how that originated, is the Chief Justice a stolen seat? Liberals have not held it since and Democrats have not held it since 1953 and that is largely because of what happened in 1968.

What happened with Clarence Thomas wasn't character assassination, the man had a history of sexually harassing women and it's a disgrace that he was confirmed.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

This is an unprecedented steal for a seat in the Supreme Court. I have no reason to respect such actions. They could have given Garland a hearing AT LEAST, but no. They knew he was qualified so they just blocked him until their party could get their nominee in.

Payback for Bork sure was sweet

What does any of this have to do with Bork? When the other party controls the senate, the president doesn't always get his first choice.

Many of the biggest whiners in the Senate about the supreme court are people like Harry Reid, and Patrick Leahy who slandered Bork for political reasons. Getting screwed over on a pick was overdue justice

Not even a little bit the same thing.

It's EXACTLY the same thing, but as always it's ok for Leftists, if they do it cause the have "moral reasons" and if it is done to them it is "shameful". Hypocrisy at an unbelieveable level. If you don't want to be treated unfairly, then don't treat the other side unfairly if you are in charge. Very easy.

Therein lies the point.

The simple fact of the matter is we are heading towards greater polarization and that is especially true over Supreme Court nominees. Since the 1980's, Republicans have been aiming for a anti-Roe Majority. Since the late 1980's, Democrats have been keen to prevent this especially after Rehnquist/Scalia double appointment in 1986, there was a keen awareness that the next justice was decisive.

So Ted Kennedy, Biden and the like developed the "Borking" strategy. They took down Bork, and forced Reagan to appoint a wildcard on the issue. Republicans saw this as an affront to tradition. The President was suppose to nominate, and the Senate was suppose to confirm as long as they were qualified. There weren't suppose to be litmus tests and there weren't suppose to be the kind of character assassination that was occurring over these nominees like Bork and later with Thomas in their view.

That is why the Republicans for two decades tried to own the higher ground, by "opposing litmus tests" like Bush did in 2000 and voting to confirm nominees like RBG with wide margins. But it meant nothing, these were naive attempts to paper over the reality that Democrats were more committed to saving Roe than Republicans were at overturning it. So there was no deference. Daschle and later Reid blocked dozens of lower count appointees leaving Obama with a hefty backlog when he took office (the root cause of Obama's transforming the judicial branch lauded in an article last year before Scalia died, was directly because Democrats Garland the lower courts under Bush, especially after 2006). To a Republican, Democrats broke the rules in 1986, in 1991 and again in 2001-2008.

It didn't matter that they tried to play by the rules in the 1990's in the hopes that Democrats would return the favor. They still acted ridiculously with Bush and after Roberts and Alito was confirmed, Hillary went around saying they had bamboozled the Senate and outright lied their way onto the court. Bush won 51% of the vote, had 55 Senate seats and yet there was no sense of deference, the successful appointment of two pro-life Justices was in the eyes of Democrats, a con job.  Democrats get liberals and Republicans have to settle for moderates or it is corrupt. This plays into the narrative that "Democrats always get their way while Republicans have to take it in the chin", Ted Cruz narrative. Going further from a Republican perspective, they see Democrats as willing to go to any means necessary because in their mines it is for the cause, however noble it may be, but since Republicans are either crooked or ignorant if they go to excess in pursuit of something, it is evil.

If you go back to the statement by Biden, yes indeed he was thinking as he was speaking. But that misses the underlying point, that in 1992 Biden was not going to let Republicans secure the 4th seat or worse gain a 5th anti-Roe seat with Bill Clinton looking likely to be President. By 2016, with the establishment in ruins, no one cared to keep up appearances or play by old rules. It was either a far right movement guy like Cruz or shoot from the hip populist like Trump, war had been going on for decades and they were going to fight back. Thus very few paid lib services to avoiding litmus tests like Bush did in 2000. Most of the leading contenders pledged to appoint solid pro-life judges

I was fine with Garland, especially because it was probably the best we could get out of Obama. However, I am glad that it worked out in a way so as to keep this seat in the hands of a Conservative as it has been for 80 years and also preserving that 4th pro-life seat, to ensure at the very least that late-term abortion remains banned.

It is not the way I would have preferred it to come about, but at the same time Merkley is wrong. Despite what one thinks of Trump, he was elected in the manner proscribed by the Constitution. The evidence of involvement by foreign gov'ts to my knowledge extends only to spread of information both true and false around the internet. Democracy depends on voters being able to take information and judge for themselves what the best course is and therefore is inherently based on a sense of faith in people to make the right decisions. That doesn't change because of who is waving said information in their face. Continuing in this line of thought, the constitution affords him the right to make an appointment to a vacant seat, regardless of the circumstances that produced it. He is President, the seat is vacant, he makes an appointment.

Just like in 1968 when Earl Warren purposely retired before the elections to ensure that LBJ would name his successor and not Richard Nixon, whom he despised. This led to the nomination of Fortas who was filibustered until it was forced to be withdrawn. During the process, the first of his scandals came to light, but the origin of filibuster was anger at the political relationship between LBJ and Fortas (which was inappropriate and a violation of separation of powers) and also the rulings of the Warren Court. So inherently politicization of the process by both sides. The end result was that there was not time to name another replacement, and Nixon ended up appointing Warren Burger, who was followed by Reagan's selection of William Rehnquist and then Bush's selection of John Roberts, who at 62, is expected to remain on the court until the 2030's. Considering how that originated, is the Chief Justice a stolen seat? Liberals have not held it since and Democrats have not held it since 1953 and that is largely because of what happened in 1968.

What happened with Clarence Thomas wasn't character assassination, the man had a history of sexually harassing women and it's a disgrace that he was confirmed.

have you ever heard of Bill Clinton?

*snip*

Yes, have you ever heard of Clarence Thomas?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I argue the Courts have been politicized too long. But then again, we started the road to hell with the Democratic Party. The New Dealers started with trying to swing the Court to the Left, and it should be no shock the Reaganites began to value the Courts.

But that's all water under the bridge compared to 2016.

But Merrick Garland, to me, represented a nuclear option in that a vacancy came up in February 2016 and was not filled until February 2017. While Scalia's death was highly unfortunate, the partisan reasoning to leave a Court seat open for a full year stretches political norms past their breaking point. If this is the rationale - and the fig leaf of it being an election year being exactly that - then why shouldn't an opposition party in the majority hold up a Court appointment for 2 years? 3 years? What if a Republican President had a Democratic Senate and a court vacancy occurred?

There's a stretching of political norms and there's a breaking point. Garland was a breaking point. The President nominated him. We have a duty to have a fully staffed Court. The postponing of a Court vote in the name of partisan control of the Court was in a sense going beyond mere politics and validated the "anything goes."

Robert Bork was rejected, yes. I don't like it too much but the Senate fulfilled their Constitutional duty to "advise and consent." They looked at the nomination and they rejected it. Plain and simple. Senators are not required to rubber stamp a Court nominee. They're required to use their judgment as elected representatives to evaluate nominees and give them an up and down vote. Had McConnell said "we'll give Garland an up and down vote," and they failed him, I would have been happy. Instead, the Senate refused to even give him a courtesy hearing and held the seat open for a year.

I admit, I cheered this strategy a year ago as a partisan Republican. Since then, seeing the partisan gyre that has widened with Donald Trump's election and the "anything goes" mentality of the Republican Party (and now, the corresponding response from the Democratic Party, who rightfully believe that they have to respond in kind to stay viable) has made me reevaluate how far we go to break political norms. They may not be Constitutional, or whatnot, but they undergird how we function as a republic.

Indeed, Donald Trump was elected on that basis - that anything goes, and that political norms no longer matter in the name of "winning." The name of the game is to win, even if we stop being a republic in the process and our political divisions become so intense and bitter that like Rome, we require a monarch to rule us. This is exactly - I know it's cliched - what happened in ancient Rome. Norms were slowly stripped away as partisan factionalism intensified, ending in Augustus' rule.

Returning to my original point, now that the fig leaf has been used, now every Senate majority can ruthlessly stop an opposition president by holding open an Court seat for as long as they want - without consequences. That precedent has now been set - and the Court's balance is now considered fair game and no political norms now govern how we fill Supreme Court nominations.

We've crossed a Rubicon and unfortunately, to restore it, we're going to need one party to decisively defeat the other party and restore the political norms that make this republic functional.

Trump should have bucked his base, and risked his presidency to nominate Garland in the name of restoring political norms. That he didn't is understandable but it shows that our system's norms are broken and we need to address that.

I fully admit that, had Hillary Clinton won and Republicans kept the Senate, I would have advocated to not confirm any judges and justices for the entire four years.  Ending abortion is too important for that!

Speaking as a pro-lifer, the republic matters vastly more than abortion.

Nothing that man could accomplish is more important than ending abortion.  And, the USA is in no danger, anyway.

What about all the preventable deaths caused by Trump and the congressional Republican's policies?  What about the senseless loss of life that would occur if Trump starts a completely unnecessary war (nuclear or otherwise)?  If you're truly pro-life, I don't see how you can reconcile that with voting for someone like Trump...unless of course you're simply a partisan hack who only cares about "protecting the sanctity of life" when it suits your party.