Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Replaced by Amy Coney Barrett)(Now Abortion Discussion) (1 Viewer)

[GrandAdmiral]

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

ETA: Reported on CNN.

 

[superchuck500]

I see it differently. It erases all of Trump's incompetence and negligence and character issues and instead focuses the entire election on only one thing. It gives the GOP the rallying cry to turn out voters that "they're going to burn down your suburban house" was never going to match. It resets the entire election.

Perhaps resetting the entire election is an oversell but I think you’re right that it’s a potentially a huge boost to Trump if he handles it right. Of course there’s always a chance he’ll just blow it up like he does most things.

 

[JimEverett]

I see it differently. It erases all of Trump's incompetence and negligence and character issues and instead focuses the entire election on only one thing. It gives the GOP the rallying cry to turn out voters that "they're going to burn down your suburban house" was never going to match. It resets the entire election.

It very well could. But, I think it will be difficult.
I mean if he throws a lot of red meat to the base with his pick he risks further alienating the moderate to center-right female suburban voters that have left him since 2016.
It probably seems like a good idea to nominate a woman - but for the woman to be conservative "enough" to appease his base is going to mean she, and Trump, are open to the sort of attacks that resonate with those female voters.

But I agree with you - it is a chance for Trump to reset the election, even if he doesn;t actually have to get the nominee across the finish line before the election.

 

[not2rich]

I see it differently. It erases all of Trump's incompetence and negligence and character issues and instead focuses the entire election on only one thing. It gives the GOP the rallying cry to turn out voters that "they're going to burn down your suburban house" was never going to match. It resets the entire election.

Yep, and Democrats need to recognize the stakes for what they are. But they probably won't, as is typical.

 

[not2rich]

I don’t think he can force it by rule of law but I don’t see Senator Graham standing in the way.

No shirt.

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

I agree with all of you that implying that this ties the game with seven weeks to go is a bit of hyperbole. Trump still has serious problems, and this increases turnout across the board. But Trump needed something really big to happen to shift the focus to something other than COVID and the economy and he just got it.

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

In a different time I would love to celebrate some of RBG's most meaningful opinions and dissents and celebrate her being a real one. But right now, with everything going on in the world, it's hard for me not to focus on how selfish she was not to step down before the GOP retook the Senate majority in the 2014 elections. (She was 81 years old in 2014!!!) This was entirely predictable and we have feared this since the moment Trump won, and the balance of the entire court has been teetering on the edge with every announcement of her health problems. And it didn't have to happen.

 

[not2rich]

In a different time I would love to celebrate some of RBG's most meaningful opinions and dissents and celebrate her being a real one. But right now, with everything going on in the world, it's hard for me not to focus on how selfish she was not to step down before the GOP retook the Senate majority in the 2014 elections. (She was 81 years old in 2014!!!) This was entirely predictable and we have feared this since the moment Trump won, and the balance of the entire court has been teetering on the edge with every announcement of her health problems. And it didn't have to happen.

Well, if the precedent is that a President can't nominate and have a confirmation vote unless his/her party also controls the Senate, I'm not sure this was foreseeable to her.

If this isn't an argument to divide California into separate states and make D.C. a state, I don't know what is.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I see it differently. It erases all of Trump's incompetence and negligence and character issues and instead focuses the entire election on only one thing. It gives the GOP the rallying cry to turn out voters that "they're going to burn down your suburban house" was never going to match. It resets the entire election.

Voters motivated by supreme court nominations were already motivated to vote, because it was assumed that Ginsberg would be replaced in the next term.

If she's replaced before the next term, it might actually decrease motivation.

However if she's not replaced before the next term, then voters are also going to be highly motivated not to allow Trump to seat another justice.

I think it's most likely a zero net gain.

 

[B4YOU]

In a different time I would love to celebrate some of RBG's most meaningful opinions and dissents and celebrate her being a real one. But right now, with everything going on in the world, it's hard for me not to focus on how selfish she was not to step down before the GOP retook the Senate majority in the 2014 elections. (She was 81 years old in 2014!!!) This was entirely predictable and we have feared this since the moment Trump won, and the balance of the entire court has been teetering on the edge with every announcement of her health problems. And it didn't have to happen.

Agree. There will be an asterisk next to her name for some liberals.

 

[JimEverett]

Voters motivated by supreme court nominations were already motivated to vote, because it was assumed that Ginsberg would be replaced in the next term.

If she's replaced before the next term, it might actually decrease motivation.

However if she's not replaced before the next term, then voters are also going to be highly motivated not to allow Trump to seat another justice.

I think it's most likely a zero net gain.

You make a good point. I think, though, that there will be so much energy/attention/focus on the pick that it will increase enthusiasm on both sides. Who has less enthusiasm right now? Probably Trump, so it , on paper, would seem to be a big opportunity for him.
But I get your point about squeezing blood out of a turnip on the issue of SCOTUS for Trump.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I agree with all of you that implying that this ties the game with seven weeks to go is a bit of hyperbole. Trump still has serious problems, and this increases turnout across the board. But Trump needed something really big to happen to shift the focus to something other than COVID and the economy and he just got it.

I don't see how he can make the Covid go away as long as 1,000 or more people are dying every day.

People can't escape the daily reminders and impact of COVID. That keeps it as the primary thing on their minds. Those that deny or downplay it are still preoccupied with it. That's not going to change before the election.

 

[superchuck500]

Just another reason why Lindsey Graham sucks - he says stupid, unnecessary things.

 

[superchuck500]

Mitch wants time to work the room before anyone goes committing to anything.

 

[not2rich]

Just another reason why Lindsey Graham sucks - he says stupid, unnecessary things.

Why do you say that? If he votes to confirm a Trump nominee before the election, he'll pay no price. Give me a break.

 

[superchuck500]

Why do you say that? If he votes to confirm a Trump nominee before the election, he'll pay no price. Give me a break.

I'm just saying that he had nothing to gain from those statements and now he's going to raked-over for them. He's got shirtty judgment.

I'm saying that because I live in his state and can't wait to vote against him because I think he sucks. I wasn't here when he won this term, but I did think, back then, that he was a reasonably respectable member of the Republican Senate caucus. My view has totally changed, primarily because he has inserted himself so squarely up Trump's arse that he has given up himself and lost any individual he appeal he might ever have had.

 

[BobE]

 

[TaylorB]

I'm just saying that he had nothing to gain from those statements and now he's going to raked-over for them. He's got shirtty judgment.

I'm saying that because I live in his state and can't wait to vote against him because I think he sucks. I wasn't here when he won this term, but I did think, back then, that he was a reasonably respectable member of the Republican Senate caucus. My view has totally changed, primarily because he has inserted himself so squarely up Trump's arse that he has given up himself and lost any individual he appeal he might ever have had.

His 180 on Trump is one of the most bizarre things I’ve ever seen in politics.

 

[BobE]