Mitch McConnell says if GOP win back control he won’t let Biden replace Breyer

[lfromnj]

I don't get what broken rules or "double standards" everyone is panicking about here. It's just the new norm is that Supreme Court nominees, from now on, won't get confirmed with the opposition party in the Senate. Not the same as court packing and not going to lead to end of democracy either.

Yes.
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.”

Obviously this feud goes quite a while back but this isn't a particularly major change of precedent. Its still a bad statement arguably although its understandable that both parties see SCOTUS as very paramount and important. I will say Mitch's turnaround from 16 > 20 was absurd. The smarter move for Mitch to have done back in 2016 was demand a moderate conservative like Hardeman which Obama would not have wanted .

[lfromnj]

https://twitter.com/jbendery/status/1404565340386959366?s=21

I don't get Graham.

[lfromnj]

https://twitter.com/jbendery/status/1404565340386959366?s=21

I don't get Graham.

I've noted before that Graham seems to have maintained his pre-Trump sensibility with regards to confirming presidential nominees. As Graham himself noted during the Kavanaugh hearings, he voted to confirm both Sotomayor and Kagan.

As for this statement by McConnell, I'm not surprised. It's an unfortunate precedent that has been established, and one that should not be, but here we are. This is why it is critical for Breyer to retire either this year or next, so that the Democrats can confirm his replacement before the new Congress convenes in 2023. I consider it more likely than not that the Senate will be back under Republican control by then. As I've said before, Democrats will be angered if Breyer dies under a Republican trifecta, President, or Senate, and that paves the way to a 7-2 conservative majority.

Oh please. You believe for one instant that if Graham were the deciding vote that he would support this nominee?

Of course not, just like anyone should believe the same with Manchin/Kavanaugh. However I don't get why he does this unlike Manchin who is trying to pull a clear and obvious move.

[lfromnj]

Also one point to mention in the courts, the lower courts are not noticeably Republican appointed.  The 91 district courts 34 R-16 Equal and 33 D.
The Circuit courts are 7 R 1 Equal and 5 D with Democrats controlling the relatively more powerful DC circuit court. District courts though are a different ballgame as they often involve a lot of compromise nominees and it is harder to keep track of that.

[lfromnj]

Pretends to be shocked...

As already said, the new precedent seems no prez will get a SCOTUS appointment confirmed under an opposition party senate. That's why reforms are necessary, but let's be honest that no legislation can be passed here as the GOP obstructs everything.

On the flip side, I wonder what would the GOP reaction be if a conservative judge suddenly died, and Biden refused to nominate anyone.

I mean the odds of that is basically 0% outside of a left wing assassin doing it. Maaaybe and even then thats a big maybe could I see Biden not doing a nomination.

[lfromnj]

https://twitter.com/thejackweller/status/1407436992682643459

You should actually read the first article. It argues for court packing instead.