Would you take this deal to fund the wall

[OSR stands with Israel]

Trump's Wall gets funded and his merit-based plan passes as well(without changing the overall cap) for exchange that Ginsburg gets replaced by a judge of the Senate Democrats choosing.


How that would work is Ginsburg would retire on the confirmation of her successor and the Democrats would get to select her confirmation.


and then the House Democrats and Senate Republicans hold the vote at the same exact time so both would know that they have to live up to their end of the deal



To me this would be a win for everyone


Trump gets his wall, the overall cap of immigration doesnt change just the composition goes from low skilled to high skilled

Democrats get to replace Ginsburg with a Liberal who could be on the court for 40+ years and the ideological balance of the court wouldnt change even if Trump gets reelected.

[Del Tachi]

No, because I don't consider the wall an important enough issue to give Chuck Schumer free reign on a SCOTUS seat.

[Frodo]

Don't reward bad behavior -no deal, no matter how enticing, is worth it.  That sets a very bad precedent.    

[OSR stands with Israel]

No, because I don't consider the wall an important enough issue to give Chuck Schumer free reign on a SCOTUS seat.

Well but it wouldn't change the composition of the court and it isnt just the wall its a reform of immigration as a whole

[Santander]

To me this would be a win for everyone

Even if this were true, do you not know that both sides (but let's be honest, the GOP more so) are more motivated by seeing the other side lose more than getting "wins" for their agenda?

[OSR stands with Israel]

To me this would be a win for everyone

Even if this were true, do you not know that both sides (but let's be honest, the GOP more so) are more motivated by seeing the other side lose more than getting "wins" for their agenda?

The base may be but the Establishment is not

[Del Tachi]

No, because I don't consider the wall an important enough issue to give Chuck Schumer free reign on a SCOTUS seat.

Well but it wouldn't change the composition of the court and it isnt just the wall its a reform of immigration as a whole

Sure it would.  A Scalia-like conservative replacement for Ginsburg would significantly alter the composition of the Court because it allows a Roberts/Kavanaugh/Gorsuch defection to still result in a 5-4 conservative majority.

[Badger]

I take it in a heartbeat, but the Republican Party would never ever EVER go for this.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

This would be an absolutely terrible deal.   Most Republicans in Congress don't even want the wall that much, they just have to make a show of supporting it because Trump remembered that he promised it three years ago. 

[OSR stands with Israel]

This would be an absolutely terrible deal.   Most Republicans in Congress don't even want the wall that much, they just have to make a show of supporting it because Trump remembered that he promised it three years ago. 

Its just not the wall , its immigration reform in general


Merit-Based System would be passed(The Cap stays the same)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No, because I wouldn't trust either McConnell or Trump to not put another "Federalist" Society approved Justice on the Court.

[OSR stands with Israel]

No, because I wouldn't trust either McConnell or Trump to not put another "Federalist" Society approved Justice on the Court.

Well this is how it would work : Ginsburg Resigns on the confirmation of her successor which means she can withdraw her resignation if McConnell or Trump break the deal

[Associate Justice PiT]

To me this would be a win for everyone

Even if this were true, do you not know that both sides (but let's be honest, the GOP more so) are more motivated by seeing the other side lose more than getting "wins" for their agenda?

     There is little incentive to be the first one that blinks, because if the other side does not then you just end up looking weak to your base.

[Alabama_Indy10]

Absolutely not. A SCOTUS seat is much more important than the wall.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Under no circumstance is there a case where this country can survive unless Democrats pack the Court in 2021.

If this deal was taken, the Country would instantly die.

No deal.

[Alabama_Indy10]

Under no circumstance is there a case where this country can survive unless Democrats pack the Court in 2021.

If this deal was taken, the Country would instantly die.

No deal.

lol

[OSR stands with Israel]

Absolutely not. A SCOTUS seat is much more important than the wall.

Well it’s just not a wall , a merit based system would get implemented as well. So it would be a win on immigration reform as a whole .


And the conservatives already have the Supreme Court ,  and if Ginsburg was replaced by a liberal it wouldn’t change anything from now

[DavidB.]

Nope. The wall should be built, but more importantly, America needs to temporarily halt immigration and at the very least curb legal immigration much more than Trump currently does, and a very conservative judge who is not in the business of inventing rights should replace RBG. The wall/fence is important, but the least important of all these things.

[courts]

no

[Xing]

No, we've let Trump push things way too far on immigration as it is.

[Santander]

No, we've let Trump push things way too far on immigration as it is.

Like?

[Xing]

No, we've let Trump push things way too far on immigration as it is.

Like?

The travel ban, making the process of certain visas (K1, for example) more difficult and time-consuming, his current effort to deny legal status to those who have ever used services such as healthcare, the zero tolerance policy, the treatment of children in asylum centers, not to mention countless statements, and his grandstanding on the wall, to name a few.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

No, because I wouldn't trust either McConnell or Trump to not put another "Federalist" Society approved Justice on the Court.

You like who the Democrats would pick better?

[Politician]

Yes.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No, because I wouldn't trust either McConnell or Trump to not put another "Federalist" Society approved Justice on the Court.

You like who the Democrats would pick better?

Yes.

No, because I wouldn't trust either McConnell or Trump to not put another "Federalist" Society approved Justice on the Court.

Well this is how it would work : Ginsburg Resigns on the confirmation of her successor which means she can withdraw her resignation if McConnell or Trump break the deal

If resignations could be withdrawn, O'Connor would've done so. When Rehnquist died, she was forced to stay on the Court long enuf that the main reason she resigned no longer applied.