The fight to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg megathread

[American2020]

For Mitch McConnell, Keeping His Senate Majority Matters More Than the Supreme Court

But now that the moment is here, the calculation isn’t quite so simple. On Friday night, McConnell released a statement vowing that a Trump nominee “will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.” While McConnell’s obstruction of Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, made him the bane of liberals, he has regarded it with pride as the single “most important decision I’ve made in my political career.” He and many others believe it handed Trump his victory by motivating the politically powerful evangelical bloc to vote for Trump, despite their doubts about him, because he promised to fill the Court vacancy with a social conservative. It’s entirely possible that the same scenario will play out again this November, with Trump and McConnell offering another enticing gift to evangelicals.

But McConnell is also what Ornstein calls “a ruthless pragmatist,” whose No. 1 goal has always been to remain Majority Leader of the Senate. He’s made the conservative makeover of the federal court system his pet project, but if he faces a choice between another right-wing Justice and losing his control of the Senate, no one who knows him well thinks he’d hesitate for a moment to do whatever is necessary to stay in power. In fact, back in the summer of 2016, when it looked like Trump would lose to Hillary Clinton, far from being distressed at his party’s dim prospects, McConnell was savoring the probability of being the single most powerful Republican in the country, according to a confidant who spoke with him then.

The problem for McConnell now is that it may be impossible for him to both confirm a new Justice and hold onto his personal power as Majority Leader. A power grab for the Court that is too brutish may provoke so much outrage among Democrats and independents that it could undermine Republican Senate candidates in November. As he knows better than anyone, polls show that Republican hopes of holding the Senate are very much in doubt. If Joe Biden is elected, enabling a Democratic Vice-President to cast the deciding vote in the Senate, Democrats need only to pick up three seats to win a majority. And, at the moment, according to recent polls, Democratic challengers stand good chances against Republican incumbents in Maine, Arizona, and Colorado. Democrats also have shots at capturing seats in South Carolina and Iowa.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/for-mitch-mcconnell-keeping-his-senate-majority-matters-more-than-the-supreme-court

[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.

[GoTfan]

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.

[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.

[BigSerg]

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

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

One word: Realpolitik.

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

[Pericles]

One word: Realpolitik.

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

Because you can do it, you should? Then you wouldn't have a problem with Democrats increasing the size of the Court by 2, 4, hell just go for the full 6 seat increase, when they are able to.

[Splash]

I think it's going to be tough for McConnell and Co. to push whomever Trump nominates through before the election. There's really not a lot of time left. If I had to guess, they'll probably dispense with the individual meetings that the nominee has with each Senator on the Judiciary Committee, using COVID as a faux concern, maybe. They might tee up a committee vote right before the election to signal to their base that they'll be ready to move on final confirmation during the lame duck, especially if they think that scenario helps Collins, Gardner, McSally, and the others.

[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?

[Del Tachi]

Because you can do it, you should?

Yes.  That’s literally the justification for every political decision ever.

[lfromnj]

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?

No, the right thing to do is give the judge a hearing for basic respect and then reject them if you believe they will not follow the constitution according to your rules.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1307372950388199425

Chuck is starting to play hardball.

[Frodo]

I know, I'm shocked too:

Amy Coney Barrett front-runner on Trump's list of justice nominees: Sources

And here are the other three finalists on Trump's shortlist:

Judge Barbara Lagoa
Judge Allison Jones Rushing
Judge Amul Thapar

[Wakie77]

Republicans are not even trying to pretend they are anything short of hypocritical turds.

[American2020]

Eric Holder has spoken.

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

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/pkcapitol/status/1307162138692247553
https://twitter.com/pkcapitol/status/1307163140514369536

[GoTfan]

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1307372950388199425

Chuck is starting to play hardball.

He should've been doing that in 2017.

[Wakie77]

He’s still president. He still has the senate.

And he is still a hypocrite who perved on his own daughter.

[Badger]

Atlas megathreads on controversial subjects are always cancer.  There's always going to be some Republican f--kwit here to spam the entire thread with derailing arguments and posts that quote 200 other posts to ensure the thread is completely unreadable.

Point of order. How are we supposed to tell apart Republicans of the f--kwit variety and the "normal" type?

The f--kwits are the ones who keep posting the same argument over and over again, and then when anyone replies to them discrediting their argument they completely ignore it and divert the thread down some tangential rabbit hole.

So, Republicans. Got it.

[Beet]

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

The b**** is totally leaving the door open for a lame duck confirmation vote. She will lick Mitch's and Donald's shoes when they snap their fingers.

You are so partisan it's ridiculous. Collins' statement is clear that whoever is elected on Nov. 3 gets to pick. That's great and we should welcome statements like hers that try to de-escalate and pursue a moderate path.

[Badger]

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

Yippee f****** Skippy. Here's the key question. Will they honor the results of the election and refuse to vote in a lame duck session if either they nor Trump are re-elected? Hell, if an incoming Democratic Senate is elected, one could argue they shouldn't even vote then if Trump and that Senator are re-elected.

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

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.

[Nyvin]

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.

They won the popular vote and more votes for the Senate in 3 of the last 4 cycles.   

[GeneralMacArthur]

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.

The Democrats didn't lose anything.  We won the last election by 9%, the biggest landslide since 1988.

The illegitimate move was the stealing of the Garland seat.  It was straight up stolen.  If you believe that the president should be allowed to appoint a supreme court justice in an election year, you must believe the Garland seat was stolen.  There's no way to reconcile the two without sounding like an idiot.  There can be no doubt now that the seat was 100% stolen, since even the Republicans refuse to defend their actions in 2016.  It's just "lol yeah we did steal it, suck it."

It's pretty telling that many of the Republicans on this thread have been reduced to "lol, we won, so we can do what we want, suck it libs."  There's no actual moral defense of what they're doing.  The hypocrisy is so disgustingly obvious that even someone as dumb as the average American voter can see it.  But the GOP is really only about two things -- acquiring power at all costs, and "owning the libs."  Take those away and there's no reason for you guys to be happy about this.  Fortunately, that's all you need to celebrate an incredibly immoral, unconstitutional set of actions.

[Ancestral Republican]

Good question.