The fight to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg megathread

[7,052,770]

I side with Obama.

Obama's stance:

"When there is a vacancy on the SCOTUS, the President is to nominate someone, the Senate is to consider that nomination... There's no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off-years. That's not in the Constitution text.".

Obviously we all would too if McConnell and the Republicans hadn't set a new precedent in 2016.

If Garland had taken Scalia's seat, none of us here would be making demands that Trump not fill the seat. We'd be stewing about how unlucky it was, but we at least try to govern with a sense of fairness.

[7,052,770]

For politically uneducated mutes such as myself from outside the USA trying to explain what is going on to my associates, the Australian media is literally useless for understanding the big picture.

We will get Elton John songs and some RBG black and white clips with her achievements. But the big news is the effect that another nomination has on the US.

Let's say Trump nominates a right-wing judge for life before the election.

1. If Trump wins the election - what effect does this really have?

2. If Biden wins the election - and the SC is predominantly on the right, what effect does this really have?

I guess I am asking does it really matter in the lives of your average American.

It's possible (but not certain) that Trump's nominee will be the 5th judge to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, which would have a huge impact on tens of millions of Americans.

[7,052,770]

Wait do you think Garland 100% had to get the seat or just his hearing and then if the senate denied him the seat. Would it be fine in the 2nd scenario ?
I agree Garland deserved a hearing but he did not deserve a seat just because Obama was president.

It didn't have to be him necessarily, but it should not be allowed for the Senate to reject any nominee no matter what.

This is why I say that a president should be able to elevate a circuit court judge automatically without Senate approval, since the Senate would have approved their appointment to the second-highest court already. This would guarantee the president would be able to place a justice - maybe not the one he really wants - but someone that the Senate has already judged to be qualified and suitable. I realize that means Trump would have already filled RBG's seat, and I'm fine with that.

[7,052,770]

One word: Realpolitik.

Don’t have another hissy fit because you didn’t get what you want.

Don't have a hissy fit in January when the Senate nukes the filibuster and passes President Biden's entire platform, including adding 2 new states and 2 or more new Supreme Court justices.

[7,052,770]

Most likely situation: Collins and Murkowski haven't decided what they would do in a hypothetical lame duck session and are just waiting to see how things develop.

[7,052,770]

https://twitter.com/MikeShepard4/status/1308155299736547330

It would be an insult for RBG to be replaced by Amy Coney Barrett.

Maybe she should have retired in 2014.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-ginsburg/u-s-justice-ginsburg-hits-back-at-liberals-who-want-her-to-retire-idUSKBN0G12V020140801

So you could have whined about how awful Obama's replacement would have been?

[7,052,770]

ugh im embarrassed shes my senator its a bummer KDL didn't win in 2018

Yeah, it really was a missed opportunity that I was quasi-blind to at the time. I'm not a big fan of primary challenges, but this one was totally safe since it was 2 Democrats in a general election.

[7,052,770]

https://twitter.com/Jamie_Weinstein/status/1308227292884336643

OSR, we've been over this. It didn't start with Bork. Justices have been rejected, Bork-style thought the 20th century.

And even if it had, Reagan still got to fill the seat. That's the key and incredibly huge difference between the Garland and Bork situations. Democrats told Reagan to pick someone else, and confirmed him unanimously (in an election year). Republicans have Obama a hard no, no matter what.

[7,052,770]

https://twitter.com/Jamie_Weinstein/status/1308227292884336643

No one cares about your party’s bad-faith whining about imaginary grievances.

What you mean is that you don't care about them, so it's convenient for you to assume they must be bad faith and imaginary.

None of those were anywhere near as egregious as telling Obama explicitly that he just couldn't put anyone on the Court.