2020 SCOTUS Nomination...

[OakRiver]

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

I think she is an outstanding jurist, based on the few judgements of hers that I've read.

Now here's a potential angle: Judge Coney Barrett has already had a hearing not all that long ago. Could a vote take place almost immediately, and she would join SCOTUS in record time?

 

[OakRiver]

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.

At this point, what are the Democrats really threatening to do? This sounds like their gambit is "heads I win, tails you lose". They've been taking about packing SCOTUS for years, if Biden does get elected and the Democrats have a majority in both houses, what is to stop them choosing RBG's replacement, and packing SCOTUS?

 

[Phase2]

Nothing to stop them. They are claiming it is legal and fair. That's why I advocate Trump doing it and forcing them to put up or shut up.

 

[OakRiver]

Shot:

Chaser:

 

[Phase2]

Two thumbs up. Couldn't rep you again.

Or what? Dems will make more media fetishizing assassinating the president? Or mailing ricin to actually kill the president?

 

[Trigger Time]

Shot:

Chaser:

Democrats are a pox on the republic.
We all know what is coming and sooner the better imo. Bring it traitor dems.

 

[Alamo]

https://twitter.com/nedryun/status/1307136936193253377

 

[Leadeye]

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

I would expect some posturing right up to the vote, politicians have to measure gain against loss. Tossing away a seat on the court might make base voters stay home in greater numbers than fence sitters gained. A republican senator would have to have a serious issue with the president or not care about staying in their seat to vote against his nominee so I'm betting at vote time this will go the president's way. Senate leadership might sweeten the deal as well to seal it up.

 

[Redhorse]

I think my biggest issue I'm grappling with is what if this had been a Democrat in power, such as heaven forbid Hillary Clinton. Would we be ok with her rushing through a nominee right before the election? Granted, the current president maintains their position until January, but still, that is my concern. I don't want to let myself be one who is ok with one party doing just about anything as long as it suits the agenda but not being ok with the same party having the same opportunity because, in my mind, that is what leads to tyranny, abuse of power, etc. I posted once before "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" because that's what I believe. Had McConnell not been so steadfast against a vote in 2016 I'd have a different opinion on the matter.

 

[Jaybird1980]

I keep hearing Barbara Lagoa this morning, not very familiar with her. Apparently she says " Judges should say what the law is, not what they want the law to be. That part sounds good.

 

[OakRiver]

I think my biggest issue I'm grappling with is what if this had been a Democrat in power, such as heaven forbid Hillary Clinton. Would we be ok with her rushing through a nominee right before the election? Granted, the current president maintains their position until January, but still, that is my concern. I don't want to let myself be one who is ok with one party doing just about anything as long as it suits the agenda but not being ok with the same party having the same opportunity because, in my mind, that is what leads to tyranny, abuse of power, etc. I posted once before "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" because that's what I believe. Had McConnell not been so steadfast against a vote in 2016 I'd have a different opinion on the matter.

Initially I was in a similar boat to you, then I started looking at some of the differences in the circumstances:
1) in 2016 we had a Democrat POTUS and a Republican Senate. In 2020 we have a Republican POTUS and Senate
2) 2016 was a referendum on SCOTUS nominees, and the Republicans were elected, in part, on the basis of filling vacant judicial seats

Otherwise, if we just go by what statements each side made, then we twist ourselves in knots trying to justify why our party wants to do X when 4 years ago they argued to do Y

To go to your original point, about your reaction to the same circumstances if a Democrat was in power and got a new SCOTUS Justice just before an election, the people have the opportunity to address that concern at the ballot box. Democrats have already said that if they win they'll stack SCOTUS, mooting any new SCOTUS Justice. Of course, if Trump backs down and the Democrats win there is nothing to stop them packing SCOTUS anyway.

 

[BugI02]

I think my biggest issue I'm grappling with is what if this had been a Democrat in power, such as heaven forbid Hillary Clinton. Would we be ok with her rushing through a nominee right before the election? Granted, the current president maintains their position until January, but still, that is my concern. I don't want to let myself be one who is ok with one party doing just about anything as long as it suits the agenda but not being ok with the same party having the same opportunity because, in my mind, that is what leads to tyranny, abuse of power, etc. I posted once before "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" because that's what I believe. Had McConnell not been so steadfast against a vote in 2016 I'd have a different opinion on the matter.

If it was a Democrat in power, IMO they would be completely unmoved by precedent or what is best for the country and would absolutely fill the vacancy and feel no guilt - and their senators would move in lockstep to confirm with 90% of the media flying top cover

We are already in a war, but our adversaries are the only ones effectively fighting it right now. I think we need to take our lessons from Grant. Socialism/wokism needs to utterly defeated first, and then and only then should its less dogmatic adherents be offered lenient terms and the hand of friendship as fellow citizens

 

[BugI02]

Initially I was in a similar boat to you, then I started looking at some of the differences in the circumstances:
1) in 2016 we had a Democrat POTUS and a Republican Senate. In 2020 we have a Republican POTUS and Senate
2) 2016 was a referendum on SCOTUS nominees, and the Republicans were elected, in part, on the basis of filling vacant judicial seats

Otherwise, if we just go by what statements each side made, then we twist ourselves in knots trying to justify why our party wants to do X when 4 years ago they argued to do Y

To go to your original point, about your reaction to the same circumstances if a Democrat was in power and got a new SCOTUS Justice just before an election, the people have the opportunity to address that concern at the ballot box. Democrats have already said that if they win they'll stack SCOTUS, mooting any new SCOTUS Justice. Of course, if Trump backs down and the Democrats win there is nothing to stop them packing SCOTUS anyway.

I also think it is a valid point that there was no doubt we would have a different president after November 2016. Trump is not term limited and could quite possibly be re-elected, and the Democrat proselytizing for risky, untried wholesale voting changes without small scale trial runs, as well as threats to contest close results because of uncertainty they have added, will almost certainly make a full court necessary

As you might guess, I think Trump will win, but my fervent hope is that whoever wins does so by a margin that leaves no room to doubt the legitimacy of the result

 

[Phase2]

This seems relevant (and timely):

Most Americans, regardless of whether they are Republican or Democrat, believe the Senate should move forward with confirmation hearings for a Supreme Court Justice this year, a new poll says.

The Marquette University Law School poll found 67% of respondents believed confirmation should proceed in 2020 while just 32% said the chamber should hold off.

The survey was conducted between Sept. 8 to Sept. 15 — just days before the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg from cancer Friday evening.

The poll did not suggest a strong partisan divide over the issue, with 68% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats holding that a nomination vote should take place. Independents supported going forward by a 71% margin.

The poll also found that a majority of Democrats favor increasing the size of the supreme court. I endorse this and encourage Trump to embrace it as a bipartisan direction.

 

[Redhorse]

Initially I was in a similar boat to you, then I started looking at some of the differences in the circumstances:
1) in 2016 we had a Democrat POTUS and a Republican Senate. In 2020 we have a Republican POTUS and Senate
2) 2016 was a referendum on SCOTUS nominees, and the Republicans were elected, in part, on the basis of filling vacant judicial seats

Otherwise, if we just go by what statements each side made, then we twist ourselves in knots trying to justify why our party wants to do X when 4 years ago they argued to do Y

To go to your original point, about your reaction to the same circumstances if a Democrat was in power and got a new SCOTUS Justice just before an election, the people have the opportunity to address that concern at the ballot box. Democrats have already said that if they win they'll stack SCOTUS, mooting any new SCOTUS Justice. Of course, if Trump backs down and the Democrats win there is nothing to stop them packing SCOTUS anyway.

That is a great way to look at it.

 

[OakRiver]

That is a great way to look at it.

Another distinction to consider is that, in 2016 Obama was concluding his final term, we were always going to get a new POTUS and there was no way for the public to hold Obama accountable at the ballot box. In 2020 Trump is not term limited, and he may be the POTUS for the next four years, and citizens can hold him accountable at the ballot box.

 

[ljk]

Did the FBI have any legit cause to spy on Trump? Nope, but they did anyway.
Did the Dems have any legit cause to impeach Trump? Nope, but they did it any way.
Did Obama nominate SCOTUS late in his term? Yes, he did it.

Elections have consequences.

 

[Tombs]

I think my biggest issue I'm grappling with is what if this had been a Democrat in power, such as heaven forbid Hillary Clinton. Would we be ok with her rushing through a nominee right before the election? Granted, the current president maintains their position until January, but still, that is my concern. I don't want to let myself be one who is ok with one party doing just about anything as long as it suits the agenda but not being ok with the same party having the same opportunity because, in my mind, that is what leads to tyranny, abuse of power, etc. I posted once before "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" because that's what I believe. Had McConnell not been so steadfast against a vote in 2016 I'd have a different opinion on the matter.

Democrats changed the rules from a gentleman's agreement to be civil, to now total political warfare and activism.

Refusing to abide with the new rules is simply kneeling before your grave. This tension needs to be settled and civility needs to be agreed on again before we can get back to the old way of doing things.

Laws need drafted to stop many of these options that allow for this political warfare, like the nuclear option.


Even if to my detriment, as long as it's for all time and applies equally to force republicans and democrats to agree to accomplish something, I'd be 100% onboard with it.

 

[Leadeye]

The common word that runs through all of this is power. In dc people do things because they want to and they can. They might dress up the decision in different clothes, but it's still just Voldemort's axiom at the end of it all.

There is no good or evil, only power, and those too weak to pursue it.

 

[Scuba591]

If it was a Democrat in power, IMO they would be completely unmoved by precedent or what is best for the country and would absolutely fill the vacancy and feel no guilt - and their senators would move in lockstep to confirm with 90% of the media flying top cover

We are already in a war, but our adversaries are the only ones effectively fighting it right now. I think we need to take our lessons from Grant. Socialism/wokism needs to utterly defeated first, and then and only then should its less dogmatic adherents be offered lenient terms and the hand of friendship as fellow citizens

I am more inclined to think and agree with the above. Sometimes I think the Republican party is the only party playing by the "rules" . I would like to see a confirmation move forward.