If history is the guide they use, the most likely outcome is the seat is filled soon. We'll see.

3 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

We will have 13 by the end of 2021

And all minorities. 

some of the reactions from "the right" in this thread are absolutely disgusting and completely expected. the worst human beings in this forum represent "the right".  

 

 

 

RIP rbg     

14 hours ago, Diehardfan said:

And there is nothing in the Constitution that says the judge in Hawaii can do what he wants, but he does. It's prison rules and now we are going to have the power so liberals can bend over now.

Goddamn you are stupid.

The number of SC Justices can be changed by Congress.

46 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

If history is the guide they use, the most likely outcome is the seat is filled soon. We'll see.

There has never been a nomination made this close to an election, and rarely have we sat a new SC justice within 6 weeks of a vacancy.

If history is the guide they are fighting against it. 

This is pure power play by a dying movement. The current flavor of conservatism is only still alive - but on life support - because of the EC. I'm not saying the Republican party will go away and Democrats will rule indefinitely, that's not how it works - the Republican party will change its platform (well, first it will have to actually create one but that's besides the point) to be competitive again, and so it goes.

The current population distribution of the nation coupled with Senators being awarded equally among states has resulted in a perversion of majoritarian by a minority party. And this is the last - and most egregious - example of their willingness to engaged in scorched Earth tactics. 

They would literally rather destroy the Union than allow the other party their due power (see: Garland, among other examples).

They hate Democrats more than they love America. It's disgusting to me.

Much of this is about Roe v Wade. The vast majority of the nation - over 70% - support maintaining abortion rights in some form. A majority want to keep access rules the same or relax them further, making abortion more available. And these numbers are pretty inline with historical support.

Yet for generations the Republicans have managed to make this a wedge issue, always teasing that "this time" they will be able to tip the scales and turn back Roe v Wade. And they do this at their own peril: the only way the left in this country has managed to unify in the last 20 years is when the actions of the right compel it. 2018 was a taste. 

I don't disagree that they will try to do it. That much is obvious, because they have no moral or ethical compass - they have no commitment to the ideals of the nation, their only motivation is naked power, and when that is not achievable denying it to duly elected Democrats by any means necessary. Democrats are the enemy. 

12 hours ago, Dave Moss said:

They’re not going to vote before the election and we’re still going to have a 9-member Supreme Court.  Everyone relax...

I disagree. They will absolutely try to ram Barrett through.

Collins will vote to confirm because that's what she does. All she has said to this point is that she would not want to see confirmation hearings. Once they're underway it won't matter, she will cave because she has no spine.

Murkowski will probably hold the line. Romney may as well, but that won't be enough.

They need 4. The Democrat's best hopes here rest on guys like Gardner and Grassley. Which isn't much to go on. After election day, assuming McSally is gone, that seat will go away immediately because it's a special election. They might have a shot then.

 

John Roberts will basically bend over backwards to make legal arguments he only half-agrees with in order to try and preserve the integrity of the courts. But the damage by McConnell will be done. If they ram this through, and I believe they will likely be successful, the people's trust in the SC will erode further.

Can you imagine Gore v Bush in 2020? Gore vehemently disagreed with the findings of the court, and with good reason frankly, but in the end he acquiesced out of respect to the system and specifically the court. In 2020? No way the people will allow for that. 

And Republicans - starting with McConnell - simply do not care. They hide behind baseless assertions that it's always been like this (it absolutely has not) and that the Democrats would do the same (which has no basis in historical fact). They project their own evils on the opposition, plain and simple.

2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I disagree. They will absolutely try to ram Barrett through.

Collins will vote to confirm because that's what she does. All she has said to this point is that she would not want to see confirmation hearings. Once they're underway it won't matter, she will cave because she has no spine.

Murkowski will probably hold the line. Romney may as well, but that won't be enough.

They need 4. The Democrat's best hopes here rest on guys like Gardner and Grassley. Which isn't much to go on. After election day, assuming McSally is gone, that seat will go away immediately because it's a special election. They might have a shot then.

 

John Roberts will basically bend over backwards to make legal arguments he holy half-agrees with in order to try and preserve the integrity of the courts. But the damage by McConnell will be done. If they ram this through, and I believe they will likely be successful, the people's trust in the SC will erode further.

Can you imagine Gore v Bush in 2020? Gore vehemently disagreed with the findings of the court, and with good reason frankly, but in the end he acquiesced out of respect to the system and specifically the court. In 2020? No way the people will allow for that. 

And Republicans - starting with McConnell - simply do not care. They hide behind baseless assertions that it's always been like this (it absolutely has not) and that the Democrats would do the same (which has no basis in historical fact). They project their own evils on the opposition, plain and simple.

We’ll see, but I think it comes with a high political cost if they do it in October.  Even greater than Obamacare was for Dems.

3 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

There has never been a nomination made this close to an election, and rarely have we sat a new SC justice within 6 weeks of a vacancy.

If history is the guide they are fighting against it. 

This is pure power play by a dying movement. The current flavor of conservatism is only still alive - but on life support - because of the EC. I'm not saying the Republican party will go away and Democrats will rule indefinitely, that's not how it works - the Republican party will change its platform (well, first it will have to actually create one but that's besides the point) to be competitive again, and so it goes.

The current population distribution of the nation coupled with Senators being awarded equally among states has resulted in a perversion of majoritarian by a minority party. And this is the last - and most egregious - example of their willingness to engaged in scorched Earth tactics. 

They would literally rather destroy the Union than allow the other party their due power (see: Garland, among other examples).

They hate Democrats more than they love America. It's disgusting to me.

Much of this is about Roe v Wade. The vast majority of the nation - over 70% - support maintaining abortion rights in some form. A majority want to keep access rules the same or relax them further, making abortion more available. And these numbers are pretty inline with historical support.

Yet for generations the Republicans have managed to make this a wedge issue, always teasing that "this time" they will be able to tip the scales and turn back Roe v Wade. And they do this at their own peril: the only way the left in this country has managed to unify in the last 20 years is when the actions of the right compel it. 2018 was a taste. 

I don't disagree that they will try to do it. That much is obvious, because they have no moral or ethical compass - they have no commitment to the ideals of the nation, their only motivation is naked power, and when that is not achievable denying it to duly elected Democrats by any means necessary. Democrats are the enemy. 

I respect your opinion even if I disagree.

My 3 points:

1. The Democratic Party is a party that embraces Socialism, and that ideology is the enemy of the United States. That is the modern liberal movement. They have abandoned their roots in individual liberties, and individual rights in favor of Big Brother. No thanks.

2. Roe v. Wade is decided and it is precedent case law. It won't ever be reversed. Many conservatives support the right to choose, even if they disagree with choosing an abortion. 

2. It is my understanding that there have been 17 times of a possible 19 times when the President and Senate (same Party) advanced a nominee in an election year. It is irrelevant that an election is looming. RBG herself spoke publicly in NY on the subject, and her position was that the President doesn't stop being President because it's an election year, and when asked about the Senate voting on a Nominee in an election year her reply was "That's their job." I agree with her. If the strongest liberal voice on the SCOTUS says do it, that's good enough for me.

8 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

I respect your opinion even if I disagree.

My 3 points:

1. The Democratic Party is a party that embraces Socialism, and that ideology is the enemy of the Unites States. That is the modern liberal movement. They have abandoned their roots in individual liberties, and individual rights in favor of Big Brother. No thanks.

2. Roe v. Wade is decided and it is precedent case law. It won't ever be reversed. Many conservatives support the right to choose, even if they disagree with choosing an abortion. 

2. It is my understanding that there have been 17 times of a possible 19 times when the President and Senate (same Party) advanced a nominee in an election year. It is irrelevant that an election is looming. RBG herself spoke publicly in NY on the subject, and her position was that the President doesn't stop being President because it's an election year, and when asked about the Senate voting on a Nominee in an election year her reply was "That's their job." I agree with her. If the strongest liberal voice on the SCOUTS says do it, that's good enough for me.

I have no problems with a conservative Supreme Court. As long as Trump ends up a distant memory this time next year I'll be happy.

7 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

I have no problems with a conservative Supreme Court. As long as Trump ends up a distant memory this time next year I'll be happy.

How would you feel if a conservative Supreme Court names him the winner in a "contested” election?

2 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

How would you feel if a conservative Supreme Court names him the winner in a "contested” election?

I threw in the qualifier "As long as Donald Trump is a distant memory" so I think you know.

10 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

I have no problems with a conservative Supreme Court. As long as Trump ends up a distant memory this time next year I'll be happy.

This! Was the only reason I was voting for him again and now it's a win win for me

26 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

I respect your opinion even if I disagree.

My 3 points:

1. The Democratic Party is a party that embraces Socialism, and that ideology is the enemy of the Unites States. That is the modern liberal movement. They have abandoned their roots in individual liberties, and individual rights in favor of Big Brother. No thanks.

This is reductionism at its finest. The Republicans have been incredibly good at negative branding. There are at most a handful of representative in Congress that would qualify as socialist, and they have very little actual political power. Biden's platform is a testament to that.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/17/opinion/trump-biden-socialism.html

The Tea Party had a stronger hold on the Republican party than the "Socialist" Squad will ever have on the Democratic party. The vast majority of elected Democrats - those who were voted in by the majority of the nation and who hold actual political power - are moderates who reject socialism, embrace markets, and fall more into the neo-liberal camp. They were more readily be co-opted by moderate a Republican agenda than by anything the squad puts forward.

 

Quote

2. Roe v. Wade is decided and it is precedent case law. It won't ever be reversed. Many conservatives support the right to choose, even if they disagree with choosing an abortion. 

That remains to be seen. Evangelical support will erode if they don't get a win soon.

 

Quote

3. It is my understanding that there have been 17 times of a possible 19 times when the President and Senate (same Party) advanced a nominee in an election year. It is irrelevant that an election is looming. RBG herself spoke publicly in NY on the subject, and her position was that the President doesn't stop being President because it's an election year, and when asked about the Senate voting on a Nominee in an election year her reply was "That's their job." I agree with her. If the strongest liberal voice on the SCOUTS says do it, that's good enough for me.

It would have been more irrelevant had they not sat on Garland. It all comes back to that. The Senate did not even give a hearing to a SCJ nominee from a twice elected President of the United States, who was nominated eight months before the election. A centrist nominee that was specifically named by the opposition party as a "consensus pick" for whom there was "no question" would be confirmed by the Senate if nominated (see: Orrin Hatch). So even when Democrats have been willing to name a compromise pick, Republicans obstruct.

This is the timeline of election-year nominations:

 

RBG spoke on that subject before Republicans destroyed the argument by sitting on Garland for 8 mos. Every other nomination that happened anywhere within around 150 days of the election was either rejected before the election, (Thornberry, Fortas), after: (Crittenden, Badger), or confirmed later under the new administration (Brennan).

15 hours ago, TEW said:

The only reason the GOP can do this is because Dems took the nuclear option.

And the only reason the Dems went nuclear was because the Republicans refused to consider any judicial nominations during Obama's second term. They simply refused to adhere to their Constitutional duties as Senators. It wasn't like they were willing to consider a moderate nominee and the Dems just wouldn't meet in the middle. They were more than willing to compromise. Case in point: Republican Merrick Garland.

18 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

I respect your opinion even if I disagree.

My 3 points:

1. The Democratic Party is a party that embraces Socialism, and that ideology is the enemy of the Unites States. That is the modern liberal movement. They have abandoned their roots in individual liberties, and individual rights in favor of Big Brother. No thanks.

2. Roe v. Wade is decided and it is precedent case law. It won't ever be reversed. Many conservatives support the right to choose, even if they disagree with choosing an abortion. 

2. It is my understanding that there have been 17 times of a possible 19 times when the President and Senate (same Party) advanced a nominee in an election year. It is irrelevant that an election is looming. RBG herself spoke publicly in NY on the subject, and her position was that the President doesn't stop being President because it's an election year, and when asked about the Senate voting on a Nominee in an election year her reply was "That's their job." I agree with her. If the strongest liberal voice on the SCOUTS says do it, that's good enough for me.

Agree with all of this, especially number 2.  Overturning RoevWade is always a talking point on the left when a conservative justice is nominated.  Its just not going to happen.  

I might also add a 4th bullet here.  If democrats were in the exact same position right now they would 100% fill this seat.  If the situations were reversed I'd be pissed too, I get it.  But this is a golden opportunity and conservative constituencies are going to hold their senators accountable if they squander it.  

1 minute ago, Paul852 said:

I threw in the qualifier "As long as Donald Trump is a distant memory" so I think you know.

Tbf, it’s easier to win a contested election when your brother is the Governor of the state in question...

Just now, The Norseman said:

I might also add a 4th bullet here.  If democrats were in the exact same position right now they would 100% fill this seat.  If the situations were reversed I'd be pissed too, I get it.  But this is a golden opportunity and conservative constituencies are going to hold their senators accountable if they squander it.  

If Garland hadn't happened, yeah you'd still hear a bunch of rhetoric from Democrats like Schumer (who sucks) and others, but it would be just sour grapes. 

But Garland did happen.

1 minute ago, The Norseman said:

Agree with all of this, especially number 2.  Overturning RoevWade is always a talking point on the left when a conservative justice is nominated.  Its just not going to happen.  

I might also add a 4th bullet here.  If democrats were in the exact same position right now they would 100% fill this seat.  If the situations were reversed I'd be pissed too, I get it.  But this is a golden opportunity and conservative constituencies are going to hold their senators accountable if they squander it.  

You have to fill the seat. It's like running towards the goaline and sliding on purpose (in the first quarter). Score the touchdown. Yes, the opposing fans are supposed to be pissed.

4 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

If Garland hadn't happened, yeah you'd still hear a bunch of rhetoric from Democrats like Schumer (who sucks) and others, but it would be just sour grapes. 

But Garland did happen.

Yeah.  Scalia died in the beginning of February.  Not the end of September.

Just now, Dave Moss said:

Yeah.  Scalia died in the beginning of February.  Not the end of September.

And Garland was nominated in March.

Garland, a guy who had been specifically named by Republicans as someone who would easily get confirmed. 

Just now, Dave Moss said:

Yeah.  Scalia died in the beginning of February.  Not the end of September.

Irrelevant. If there's enough time to go through the process, then go through the process.

Just now, PoconoDon said:

Irrelevant. If there's enough time to go through the process, then go through the process.

I don’t understand your argument.

Just now, Dave Moss said:

I don’t understand your argument.

Is there a reasonable amount of time to advance a nominee, hold hearings and confirm or not confirm? If yes, then do it.

Moderate Democrats like me have never been in favor of changing Constitutional norms and traditions. I've always been in favor of having grown ups in the room maintain some semblance of order and common sense.

Seeing the complete 180 coming from Republicans after they refused to do their jobs voting on an Obama nominee has completely changed what I consider to be acceptable and common sense governance. The only rules for me now are what Democrats can legally get away with. So as of this very moment I am 100% in favor Biden and Democrats winning the Senate and legally changing the rules so that Democrats can get their two Supreme Court Justices back... and even a third for their troubles. I am also in favor of changing any Congressional rule or norm that benefits Democrats solely on the basis that it benefits "their side".

Democrats have been treating Republicans like they are mentally retarded kid in school who doesn't deserve their time. For me and every other Democrat I've spoken to over the past week, that's ending now. There are no more rules. You Republicans want to act like it's a war between parties with no rules? Fine. Let's go. 

1 minute ago, PoconoDon said:

Is there a reasonable amount of time to advance a nominee, hold hearings and confirm or not confirm? If yes, then do it.

Eight months seems like enough time to me.