Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Replaced by Amy Coney Barrett)(Now Abortion Discussion) (6 Viewers)

[GrandAdmiral]

Ugh... breaking news I DID NOT want to see.

ETA: Reported on CNN.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

I know some of y'all felt different when I said it a couple days ago, but I just don't think this is going to be anything but bad for Republicans chances at maintaining the presidency and Senate. The hypocrisy is blatant enough that I think on its own it will do some damage.. and I also think that wielding this sort of power is likely to receive push back as ultimately when one side appears to possess too much power generally there is pushback via the elections.

I agree that, from the GOP perspective, it can only result in more votes against them than in favor. Someone who emphasizes the Supreme Court that much was already going to be voting GOP so it doesn't gain them any additional votes. The only scenario where it could help Trump is in Florida if he goes with Lagoa. I would say the smart money is on her because, assuming Trump isn't that stupid, he should realize he can tick far more boxes by nominating a Hispanic, non-Barrett level conservative. On the flip side, she probably isn't an ideal choice of McConnell and the religious right but it's ultimately Trump's call and he couldn't care less what McConnell thinks.

Trump absolutely needs Florida to win. If Biden somehow won Florida then he wouldn't even need Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and one of either Arizona or Michigan.

 

[Nebaghead]

I know some of y'all felt different when I said it a couple days ago, but I just don't think this is going to be anything but bad for Republicans chances at maintaining the presidency and Senate. The hypocrisy is blatant enough that I think on its own it will do some damage.. and I also think that wielding this sort of power is likely to receive push back as ultimately when one side appears to possess too much power generally there is pushback via the elections.

I don’t see why they don’t use the nomination as bait to get conservatives to turn out. If we don’t win the election we can’t confirm his nomination. Even if they lose they can still do it but then they are making people vote who don’t like Trump but want a conservative on the SC. Why pay for the milk if you get it for free.

 

[bdb13]

I agree that, from the GOP perspective, it can only result in more votes against them than in favor. Someone who emphasizes the Supreme Court that much was already going to be voting GOP so it doesn't gain them any additional votes. The only scenario where it could help Trump is in Florida if he goes with Lagoa. I would say the smart money is on her because, assuming Trump isn't that stupid, he should realize he can tick far more boxes by nominating a Hispanic, non-Barrett level conservative. On the flip side, she probably isn't an ideal choice of McConnell and the religious right but it's ultimately Trump's call and he couldn't care less what McConnell thinks.

Trump absolutely needs Florida to win. If Biden somehow won Florida then he wouldn't even need Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and one of either Arizona or Michigan.

I think he'll pick her to try and help him win Florida, too.. but on top of everything else I do kind of wonder if that would possibly hurt him at all in some other states, like Texas and Arizona, where the Hispanic population is mostly Mexican instead of Cuban.

Maybe it's little to no effect, maybe it actually helps him a bit broadly with the Hispanic population (doubt it, but could be wrong I guess), but I think that's going to be the pick he makes.

 

[bdb13]

I don’t see why they don’t use the nomination as bait to get conservatives to turn out. If we don’t win the election we can’t confirm his nomination. Even if they lose they can still do it but then they are making people vote who don’t like Trump but want a conservative on the SC. Why pay for the milk if you get it for free.

I just think those conservatives were voting for Trump no matter what and don't really need anything dangled in front of them to ensure they do so.

Your George Will type of conservative was an anti-Trumper from the jump and I don't think there's much of anything Trump could do to win that type of conservative back anyways.

 

[MT15]

As I said before both parties are hypocrites, but accusing the last nominee of being a gang rapist and alcoholic probably didn't help win over any Republicans that might have been on the fence with the the new seat to fill. The Democrats do have a history of smearing Republican Supreme Court nominees so it's not surprising.

you should note that Herridge conspicuously failed to mention that Graham was on tape vowing to not do what he is now doing after the Kavanaugh hearings. She is a partisan who has no trouble telling only the parts that make her “side” look good.

 

[B4YOU]

Respondents in the six swing states — three of which in Arizona, Michigan and North Carolina will decide whether to keep an incumbent senator in office this year — had broadly different views on whether Trump should be able to nominate a justice if he loses.

• Arizona: 38% said he should, 53% said he should not
• Florida: 43% should, 53% should not
• Michigan: 40% should, 57% should not
• North Carolina: 47% should, 48% should not
• Pennsylvania: 43% should, 52% should not
• Wisconsin: 42% should, 53% should not

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/09/22...-shouldnt-fill-ginsburg-seat-if-he-loses.html

The GOP will gladly take a lifetime SC appointment over a second term for Trump. However, I think Trump/McConnell’s actions will force the pendulum to swing. It’s going to cost House seats. It could result in a 50/50 or even a 51/49 Senate with Dems in control if Biden wins. There will be calls for a rebalancing if Dems hold all the cards.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Does Herridge provide any dates for context? For example, Graham stated in October 2018 that "if an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait until the next election."

How is that reconciled with his assertion that the Kavanaugh nomination process (which played out the month before this statement)?

It's simple, none of them have any integrity. Everything they said in 2016 was just lies to justify what they were going to do anyway and Graham has the least amount of integrity of anyone else in Congress. He has shown, time and again, that he will put party over country no matter what. I'll just add his 2018 comments about SCotUS to his 1998 position on impeachment.

 

[MT15]

Thought we should revisit Bork, since there was no smear.

 

[jdn9201]

Haven’t read all of this thread but I am disgusted in a way I never thought possible. I’m a 30 something female and I’ve voted Republican in every election I’ve been eligible to vote for (except for Rick Scott - I voted against him for governor when I lived in FL but I digress)
I voted for Trump and am not voting for him again. Before the court fiasco, I was likely voting 3rd party but if they don’t drop this I’m considering flipping to Biden (even though I think he’s a bumbling idiot) and maybe even voting straight blue ticket - something I thought I would never do.

Trump is in more danger of losing and McConnell is more danger of losing the Senate if they try to ram this nomination in before Election Day. Any conservative who cares about having conservative was already going to vote Trump. I don’t see how he gains from this. I want to yell at the party for stop pretending like it’s 1950. I agree a lot with Republicans in the economy and other issues but I’m a Libertarian when it comes to social issues and am pro choice. They will kill their party if they don’t wake up and stop this power grab, I wouldn’t care about Trump getting to fill RBG seat if McConnell hadn’t pulled what he did in 2016. You can’t change precedent all of a sudden because you don’t like it anymore and they can’t even show any class by waiting until after her funeral.

 

[superchuck500]

I think it has been done before. At least it has effectively been done before - by both parties.

Here is an article from 2008: https://www.politico.com/story/2008/03/nominations-staredown-in-the-senate-008839

Yeah, I was referring only to SCOTUS but you’re right to point out that it’s broader than that because it’s the same process.

 

[SaintForLife]

you should note that Herridge conspicuously failed to mention that Graham was on tape vowing to not do what he is now doing after the Kavanaugh hearings. She is a partisan who has no trouble telling only the parts that make her “side” look good.

I've never seen anyone complain as much as you do about the sources of what people post. Despite your constant complaining, you have never once pointed out anything she has said that's inaccurate.

She didn't include what you wanted and therefore she's a partisan. She has an axe to grind or she's partisan is something you say just about every time.

It's quite obvious that you consider anyone who doesn't fall in line with the media group think as partisan. Everyone knows that the national media has a liberal bias outside of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal Opinion page.

 

[SaintForLife]

Eh, yeah probably... but I still give him credit for being the only Republican honorable and brave (imo, of course) enough to vote to remove Trump from office

Was Romney really honorable and brave or did he not want anyone looking at Burisma considering his former foreign policy advisor was on the Burisma board?

Burisma faced a money-laundering investigation and questions over how it had obtained some of its licenses to drill for natural gas. In spring 2014, the company appointed Hunter Biden and a former Polish president, Aleksander Kwasniewski, to its board. Three years later, Burisma added Cofer Black, a former CIA official and foreign policy adviser to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, to the board.

What To Know About The Ukrainian Company At The Heart Of Trump's Biden Allegations

Burisma Group, the company where former Vice President Joe Biden's son Hunter served on the board of directors, keeps a low profile even as it promotes itself as a major natural gas producer.

www.npr.org

 

[SaintForLife]

I know some of y'all felt different when I said it a couple days ago, but I just don't think this is going to be anything but bad for Republicans chances at maintaining the presidency and Senate. The hypocrisy is blatant enough that I think on its own it will do some damage.. and I also think that wielding this sort of power is likely to receive push back as ultimately when one side appears to possess too much power generally there is pushback via the elections.

What's more damaging? The hypocrisy of the Republicans or the Democrats accusing a SCOTUS nominee of being a gang rapist and an alcoholic?

 

[wardorican]

I've never seen anyone complain as much as you do about the sources of what people post. Despite your constant complaining, you have never once pointed out anything she has said that's inaccurate.

She didn't include what you wanted and therefore she's a partisan. She has an axe to grind or she's partisan is something you say just about every time.

It's quite obvious that you consider anyone who doesn't fall in line with the media group think as partisan. Everyone knows that the national media has a liberal bias outside of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal Opinion page.

I took it more as a comment to not take things at face value. Shouldn't we all be critical of what we read and believe?

 

[wardorican]

What's more damaging? The hypocrisy of the Republicans or the Democrats accusing a SCOTUS nominee of being a gang rapist and an alcoholic?

Breaking procedural norms for a power grab that threatens a counter response, for petty reasons. I'm not in love with the Senate removing the filibuster for normal federal appointments, but I understood why they did it.

There were legitimate allegations against Kavanaugh... True or not, it seemed like a pretty legit allegation. That's why you investigate. It's why these folks are vetted beyond belief.

 

[RobF]

I took it more as a comment to not take things at face value. Shouldn't we all be critical of what we read and believe?

Yes.

And @MT15 was pointing out a specific, crucial, omission, that "Graham was on tape vowing to not do what he is now doing after the Kavanaugh hearings," not simply pointing out Herridge's partisanship.

Just to further back this up, here's the video of Graham saying, "If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait 'til the next election." (55 seconds in):


That's from October 3rd, 2018. The Kavanaugh hearings were in September.

 

[bdb13]

Was Romney really honorable and brave or did he not want anyone looking at Burisma considering his former foreign policy advisor was on the Burisma board?

Burisma faced a money-laundering investigation and questions over how it had obtained some of its licenses to drill for natural gas. In spring 2014, the company appointed Hunter Biden and a former Polish president, Aleksander Kwasniewski, to its board. Three years later, Burisma added Cofer Black, a former CIA official and foreign policy adviser to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, to the board.

What To Know About The Ukrainian Company At The Heart Of Trump's Biden Allegations

Burisma Group, the company where former Vice President Joe Biden's son Hunter served on the board of directors, keeps a low profile even as it promotes itself as a major natural gas producer.

www.npr.org

How did Romney's vote help prevent anyone from looking at his former foreign policy advisor?

What's more damaging? The hypocrisy of the Republicans or the Democrats accusing a SCOTUS nominee of being a gang rapist and an alcoholic?

In this moment, just a month and a half before the election? The former.

 

[superchuck500]

There isn't any 'short-circuiting' of the advice and consent process. The clause itself does not spell out any formal requirements nor is there any jurisprudence interpreting such to my knowledge. The political question doctrine applies so that the Senate itself determines the necessary procedure. With the removals of the filibusters for judicial nominees it now only requires a majority vote (after proceeding through the Judiciary Committee). The Democrats would be doing the same thing. There's nothing illegitimate about it. The word 'illiberal' has been used but the design of the Constitution itself is illiberal. It bends over backwards to protect smaller states.

People, of course, are also part of the problem. It's not an either-or proposition. Society and political morals have degraded in the last thirty or so years. The advent of talk radio and the internet (particularly these horrendous YouTube personalities) has bred a society of tribalist voters and those voters are going to install tribalist politicians. If this seems bleak that's because it is -- there is no going back. You are not going to get everyone to start being civil again. Especially when this type of behavior reaps results.

I have stopped assuming that because the sun rose yesterday on the American Empire it will rise again tomorrow. The damage Trump has done to the foundations of democracy cannot be understated. Anything could happen on November 3, including the birth of a dictatorship. All of it aided by an archaic form of government. And imagine, only a little more than half of eligible voters can actually be bothered to vote.



I wouldn't expect any meaningful rationalizations from Graham or Romney or any of the GOP Senators aside from: "we have the votes, so we will confirm." And that's all there is to it. And if the Democrats manage to get back into power that will be the rationalization for their policies, too.

You're right that in the end, it's likely ultimately a political question. And refusing to take up the nomination for consideration is a form of refusing consent, so I can't say that I disagree with your view on that unfortunately. The irony is that if you look at the writings associated with the creation of the Constitution (e.g. The Federalist), there is ample discussion of why the advice and consent role is vested with the Senate, as the more wise body - less subject to political motives and shenanigans. Well, it took 220 years but that's no longer the case.

I just find your notion that the Constitution is aiding the birth of a dictatorship to be misplaced. I think you could take a more persuasive argument that it is the repeated failure of the Congress to check against (or even willingly facilitate) the consolidation of power by the executive branch that eroded the Constitution's interbranch orientation of power to the point where it could be fully exploited by a purely-political, wholly self-interested demagogue who carries no genuine commitment to the service of the American people.

I think the tools are all there, we're just not using them - and we are at a place were nearly all of the key players are committed to their party above all else. There is no mention of political parties in the Constitution.