The fight to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg megathread

[Stranger in a strange land]

Good question.

I was very skeptical of the Lincoln Project at the outset, but: https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1307468813718319104

Most likely they were just drafting a statement, because unlike Mitch McConnell, they didn't have one ready to go AN HOUR AFTER HER DEATH WAS ANNOUNCED.

[pppolitics]

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.

Obama won more votes than Trump and Republicans blocked his nominee.

[Stockdale for Veep]

A lame duck rush job would turn both GA runoffs blue. Giving Dems at least 51 seats.

But this being the Dems, the regular won't go to a runoff, and the special will be a RvR lockout...

injects bleach

[Ancestral Republican]

Good question.

I was very skeptical of the Lincoln Project at the outset, but: https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1307468813718319104

Most likely they were just drafting a statement, because unlike Mitch McConnell, they didn't have one ready to go AN HOUR AFTER HER DEATH WAS ANNOUNCED.

I posted too soon. That's encouraging to see.

[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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

Somewhere, Hoover's corpse is crying about how he nominated a Jewish Democrat in the election year in the hopes it would help him win, and he lost badly anyways.

[Ferguson97]

https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1307382999160414213

51-42? So basically the average Biden-Trump poll.

This country is so f-cked.

[Ferguson97]

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.

Just admit all you care about is getting conservatives on the supreme court. Just be honest.

[Badger]

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.

Just admit all you care about is getting conservatives on the supreme court. Just be honest.

This goes for all of you, btw.

you know whom you are.

[solidcoalition]

So correct me if I’m wrong but I see four scenarios:

A conservative justice is confirmed, Biden is elected President
A conservative justice is confirmed, Trump is elected President
Biden is elected, a conservative justice is confirmed
Trump is elected, a conservative justice is confirmed

All four scenarios get us a 6-3 conservative court. We need to suck it up and take it. They won’t overturn marriage equality, and John Roberts has been a pretty swingy vote. Try and be optimistic.

[Big Abraham]

https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1307382999160414213

51-42? So basically the average Biden-Trump poll.

This country is so f-cked.

I mean since the two parties flipped their position on this issue, there's really nothing surprising about this

[GeneralMacArthur]

So correct me if I’m wrong but I see four scenarios:

A conservative justice is confirmed, Biden is elected President
A conservative justice is confirmed, Trump is elected President
Biden is elected, a conservative justice is confirmed
Trump is elected, a conservative justice is confirmed

All four scenarios get us a 6-3 conservative court. We need to suck it up and take it. They won’t overturn marriage equality, and John Roberts has been a pretty swingy vote. Try and be optimistic.

No.  The Mitch McConnell precedent will ensure that Supreme Court vacancies can never be filled unless the same party controls both the presidency and the senate.

What's going to happen from here on out is that every single election will revolve around the Supreme Court.  Vacancies will go unfilled for years on end.  Get used to 4-4 ties, or even 3-3 ties.

The court would have had only 4 members from 1975-1977, since Nixon and Ford had 5 Supreme Court nominees that they ushered through a Democratic-controlled Senate.  With the McConnell Precedent in place, no Nixon/Ford nominees would have even received hearings.  The vacancies would have piled up until Jimmy Carter got to fill them.

This is a disaster for our democracy and for our country/society.  Every single election from here on out is going to hinge on the Supreme Court.  Polarization will be absolutely maximized because even if you hate your party's candidate and love the other side's candidate, you aren't going to give up control of the Supreme Court, especially after the precedent this right-wing court is about to set wherein the Supreme Court majority is a 5-person dictatorship that can create and repeal laws at will.

This is what Republicans want, though, because in the short-term they get to win.  And I'd bet all the money I own that some of the first cases heard by the Trump Court will be on all the voting rights issues that help Democrats, so Republicans can maximize their electoral advantage and entrench their minority rule.

[Amanda Huggenkiss]

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

That was n e v e r their argument in 2016.

[Dr. Frankenstein]

Obviously, a rushed nomination and confirmation would be disgusting and show a complete lack of fair-play. Also, this would be perfectly in line with Mitch McConnell's previous actions. It is really disheartening to witness how conservatives don't seem to have a problem with this kind of actions as long as they own the libs. Sadly, you're making a mockery of your institutions, while happily going down a very slippery slope.

Democracts will undeniably try and block this. If they do not succeed, they are going to strike back hard as soon as the tables have turned (presumably after the election). What the Democrats should do instead is a complete overhaul of the Supreme Court, but I am confident that they won't let the chance to get back at the Republicans pass them by, as you can only sh*t on someone for so long before they get fed up and punch back. This endless attempt to try and one-up the other side will undoubtedly lead to total destruction.

 

[American2020]

‘Extremely unlikely’ new SCOTUS justice could be confirmed before election: Expert

https://us.yahoo.com/news/extremely-unlikely-scotus-justice-could-221608706.html

[BigSerg]

https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1307382999160414213

51-42? So basically the average Biden-Trump poll.

This country is so f-cked.

No 48-45

[BigSerg]

‘Extremely unlikely’ new SCOTUS justice could be confirmed before election: Expert

https://us.yahoo.com/news/extremely-unlikely-scotus-justice-could-221608706.html

Pls stop spamming random news.

[Beet]

The more I think of it, the more the Democrats are playing it wrong by going to court packing/reform. By doing so, they are basically pre-emptively placing on the onus on themselves to take drastic action, when the ball is in Trump's court.

Instead what they should do is propose to Trump that he nominates a moderate justice in exchange for a legislative priority that he wants and that the Democrats can pass through the House.

The biggest objection to this is that Trump would not agree.

But that is not necessarily as much of a foregone conclusion as it may seem. For one thing, Trump loves to make deals. His entire political brand is that he's a businessman who wrote The Art of the Deal. He lives for dealmaking, and if he cannot make a deal on this, one of the most significant actions of his presidency, what does it say about his brand?

Second of all, the Democrats could potentially offer anything. There are things which Trump wants that the House could pass, which the Democrats might be willing to give up for a more moderate justice. Of course, massive overhauls of law, like privatizing Social Security, should not be offered. But for example, Democrats could offer to fund the Wall, which would fulfill a promise of Trump's campaign. More so, Trump claims to want to lower prescription drug prices and wanted $100 of cash rewards to be sent to seniors right before the election.

The Democrats could call his bluff and say they'll pass legislation to give seniors $100 cash rewards and lower prescription drug prices if Trump nominates a more moderate justice.

The worst thing that can happen is Trump refuses. And then he is shown as unreasonable and not committed to his political promises.

The point being is that no one is confirmed yet, and to go straight towards to the nuclear option is extremely premature. Court reform is justified only if every other option is absolutely exhausted and right now nothing is exhausted. There is still plenty of time and both parties should take things step by step.

[pppolitics]

The more I think of it, the more the Democrats are playing it wrong by going to court packing/reform. By doing so, they are basically pre-emptively placing on the onus on themselves to take drastic action, when the ball is in Trump's court.

Instead what they should do is propose to Trump that he nominates a moderate justice in exchange for a legislative priority that he wants and that the Democrats can pass through the House.

The biggest objection to this is that Trump would not agree.

But that is not necessarily as much of a foregone conclusion as it may seem. For one thing, Trump loves to make deals. His entire political brand is that he's a businessman who wrote The Art of the Deal. He lives for dealmaking, and if he cannot make a deal on this, one of the most significant actions of his presidency, what does it say about his brand?

Second of all, the Democrats could potentially offer anything. There are things which Trump wants that the House could pass, which the Democrats might be willing to give up for a more moderate justice. For example, Democrats could offer to fund the Wall, which would fulfill a promise of Trump's campaign. Trump claims to want to lower prescription drug prices and wanted $100 of cash rewards to be sent to seniors right before the election.

The Democrats could call his bluff and say they'll pass legislation to give seniors $100 cash rewards and lower prescription drug prices if Trump nominates a more moderate justice.

The worst thing that can happen is Trump refuses. And then he is shown as unreasonable and not committed to his political promises.

The point being is that no one is confirmed yet, and to go straight towards to the nuclear option is extremely premature. Court reform is justified only if every other option is absolutely exhausted and right now nothing is exhausted. There is still plenty of time and both parties should take things step by step.

No. Republicans are playing it wrong by completely hypocritical. We have statements and even videos from them since 2016.

If Republicans are not going to respect the norm, Democrats are not going to either.

The only "deal" Democrats will offer is for Republicans not to fill RBG seat in exchange for Democrats not packing the SCOTUS.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

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.

He won't because he knows that this isn't going to happen even if Democrats have a trifecta.

[Stranger in a strange land]

The filibuster is eventually going to have to go for the Republic to continue to function. It's become a major contributor to gridlock and dysfunction and it basically forces the judiciary to legislate from the bench beacause congress can't do its job as outlined in the constitution. No other Democracy has anything similar, and no state legislature even has it.

[American2020]

https://twitter.com/GeoffRBennett/status/1307696306782076930

[Silent Hunter]

Impeach a lame duck? Also, why not impeach him now?

[lfromnj]

Impeach a lame duck? Also, why not impeach him now?

The point is impeachment proceedings have to be taken up in the senate, so it could delay the confirmation vote.

[Silent Hunter]

Which you can do now. Then you can impeach him again.

The man has a rap sheet a mile long.