2020 SCOTUS Nomination...

[MCgrease08]

Susan Collins is up for reelection this year and is the one most likely at risk of losing her seat. There is no upside for her personally to vote on a nominee before the election, only downside. If she votes to confirm it energizes her opponent's voters to vote her out. If she holds off on a vote she can dangle the nomination over the Republican voters in Maine and say, "better keep me in or you won't get a conservative nominee confirmed."

Of course, she could just do the right thing based on principal, but looking at her track record we all know that won't happen. She loves pretending to be a centrist and having an inordinate amount of influence in these matters. Much more than a senator from Maine would/should ever have.

And right on cue, here comes Susan Collins trying to have her cake and eat it too.

Collins issued a statement Saturday afternoon in which she expressed her mixed sentiments about the succession of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

She said in the statement:

In order for the American people to have faith in their elected officials, we must act fairly and consistently — no matter which political party is in power. President Trump has the constitutional authority to make a nomination to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, and I would have no objection to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s beginning the process of reviewing his nominee’s credentials.

Given the proximity of the presidential election, however, I do not believe that the Senate should vote on the nominee prior to the election. In fairness to the American people, who will either be re-electing the President or selecting a new one, the decision on a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court should be made by the President who is elected on November 3rd.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

He said he will nominate a woman at his NC rally tonight.

 

[Redhorse]

He said he will nominate a woman at his NC rally tonight.

 

[Mikey1911]

If I thought the Romney-Murkowski-Collins axis would stand firm (and I don’t), I’d love to see the reaction if DJT were to nominate Merrick Garland (so that he could be voted down).

Schumer and Feinstein (not to mention Kamala) would be screaming for immediate hearings along with their allies in the media.

Then Trump could withdraw the nomination (nothing in the Constitution requires the consent of the nominee for the submission or the withdrawal of their nomination).

 

[KG1]

And right on cue, here comes Susan Collins trying to have her cake and eat it too.

She sure is talking out of both sides of her mouth. She's pretty much useless. I think I would rather just see her lose her seat. As a matter of fact I would have more respect for her if she lost her seat voting on a new Supreme Court Justice nominated by President Trump. Getting tired of her antics.

 

[bwframe]

Amy Coney Barrett emerges as a front-runner to fill Ginsburg Supreme Court seat

 

[bwframe]

SCOTUS battle prompts threats, calls for arson: 'Burn Congress down'

 

[Alpo]

It's about time we took out the terrorists. Even in Canada. Drone strike on Waterloo! Yeah baby!

Seriously, there is an October SCOTUS docket and we ought to have a full court sitting when it is presented. Having a woman replace Ginsburg would be a good thing for the country and a good thing to counter some of the court's activism. Let's get it done.

In addition, with the possibility of a contested election, we need a full court. I'm comfortable that judges will vote in favor of what is best for the country.

 

[HoosierLife]

Doing research on Dems planning to stack the bench to 13 when they get power took me to an article pushing for increasing the amount of justices to 27.

At first I thought it was liberal hogwash, but the author made some really good points.

Something like 80 out of 8000 potential cases get picked by SCOTUS. Mostly picked from among lawyers that clerked for the justices so they know which cases are more likely to get picked.

For the foreseeable future, Supreme Court nominees are going to be one the most important and determining factors when choosing a presidential candidate.

Plus we keep having 5-4 nail biters. No other circuit has this issue because they have a much larger group than the actual justices that sit on any particular case.

You might have 3 conservative justices trying a case in the 9th Circuit.

Having more Supreme Court Justices would also allow more cases to be heard. With so few cases being heard today, it makes every decision culture shattering.

Now obviously it would have to be implemented in phases, so said the author. Like 2 new Justices every 2 years.

Obviously none of this will happen before Nov 3. Just food for thought.

 

[Tombs]

It's about time we took out the terrorists. Even in Canada. Drone strike on Waterloo! Yeah baby!

Seriously, there is an October SCOTUS docket and we ought to have a full court sitting when it is presented. Having a woman replace Ginsburg would be a good thing for the country and a good thing to counter some of the court's activism. Let's get it done.

In addition, with the possibility of a contested election, we need a full court. I'm comfortable that judges will vote in favor of what is best for the country.

Wow you actually agree with me about the potential of a contested election needing a 9 person court. I'm kind of in shock lol!

Doing research on Dems planning to stack the bench to 13 when they get power took me to an article pushing for increasing the amount of justices to 27.

At first I thought it was liberal hogwash, but the author made some really good points.

Something like 80 out of 8000 potential cases get picked by SCOTUS. Mostly picked from among lawyers that clerked for the justices so they know which cases are more likely to get picked.

For the foreseeable future, Supreme Court nominees are going to be one the most important and determining factors when choosing a presidential candidate.

Plus we keep having 5-4 nail biters. No other circuit has this issue because they have a much larger group than the actual justices that sit on any particular case.

You might have 3 conservative justices trying a case in the 9th Circuit.

Having more Supreme Court Justices would also allow more cases to be heard. With so few cases being heard today, it makes every decision culture shattering.

Now obviously it would have to be implemented in phases, so said the author. Like 2 new Justices every 2 years.

Obviously none of this will happen before Nov 3. Just food for thought.

If we're going to make the SCOTUS have that many seats it needs to have an election held for it.
Otherwise an amendment might need made to fix the number of SCOTUS justices so this doesn't continue to be a looming threat.

I really don't like the idea of SCOTUS becoming another political institution, but democrats are straying so far from the constitution, merely doing their job will be seen as bias.
We're getting to the point that "moderate" merely means you don't completely agree with the constitution.

 

[NKBJ]

Supreme Court Justice candidates?
The tenets and mandates of their chosen religion should be ruthlessly dissected. And, we need people who haven't previously sworn oaths that would take precedence over their duties as a Supreme Court Justice. Oh and yeah, not starring in an Epstein feature presentation would be nice.

 

[HoosierLife]

Wow you actually agree with me about the potential of a contested election needing a 9 person court. I'm kind of in shock lol!



If we're going to make the SCOTUS have that many seats it needs to have an election held for it.
Otherwise an amendment might need made to fix the number of SCOTUS justices so this doesn't continue to be a looming threat.

I really don't like the idea of SCOTUS becoming another political institution, but democrats are straying so far from the constitution, merely doing their job will be seen as bias.
We're getting to the point that "moderate" merely means you don't completely agree with the constitution.

Well I don’t see any new amendments getting passed anytime soon. It’s what 2/3 of congress has to ratify?

Only takes a 51 majority to add more Supreme Court justices.

Keep that in mind. Even if we ram through Amy Barrett, but Biden wins and the Dems gain 4 seats, they will most likely stack the court to 13 anyway, nullifying any majority we had.

 

[HoosierLife]

See... https://www.breitbart.com/clips/202...supreme-court-if-trump-appointment-confirmed/

 

[HoosierLife]

And here... https://www.breitbart.com/2020-elec...-gop-fills-ginsburg-seat-before-inauguration/

 

[Alpo]

Wow you actually agree with me about the potential of a contested election needing a 9 person court. I'm kind of in shock lol!

I don't see why. I've never been a "liberal" although some progressive ideas I find have some merit. Perhaps I'm more libertarian in that regard. I'd never admit to being on your side though.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Or was it no confirmation votes at the end of a second term?

A clarification missing back in 2016. But is it honestly surprising to anyone? Politicians on both sides are generally are hypocrites and liars, so l let’s not twist ourselves into pretzels trying defend them. We know what they are.

 

[Phase2]

Well I don’t see any new amendments getting passed anytime soon. It’s what 2/3 of congress has to ratify?

Only takes a 51 majority to add more Supreme Court justices.

Keep that in mind. Even if we ram through Amy Barrett, but Biden wins and the Dems gain 4 seats, they will most likely stack the court to 13 anyway, nullifying any majority we had.

You realize this isn't a 2020 thing, right? They've been talking about packing the supreme court for Trump's entire presidency. It is a play directly from the FDR playbook.

The counter is actually fairly simple- if Trump wins. He just starts nominating a dozen or so new SC judges. The Democrats would be screaming for a constitutional amendment to limit them.

 

[HoosierLife]

You realize this isn't a 2020 thing, right? They've been talking about packing the supreme court for years. It is a play directly from the FDR playbook.

Yes. But they seem more likely to go to extreme as of late.

 

[Expat]

A clarification missing back in 2016. But is it honestly surprising to anyone? Politicians on both sides are generally are hypocrites and liars, so l let’s not twist ourselves into pretzels trying defend them. We know what they are.

Can't argue with you on this one. I told my son months ago that if RBG died they would fill the seat and he (hard core leftist) was shocked.

 

[Phase2]

Yes. But they seem more likely to go to extreme as of late.

Very true. The left has been ramping up the rhetoric, threats and actual violence as the election approaches. This is just another excuse for their hair-on-fire anti-constitutional behavior.