Ruth Bader Ginsberg has pancreatic cancer

[Chef Jim]

14 hours ago, Crayola64 said:

I suppose so.  BUT you still have a lame duck session in November and December.  See what I’m saying? 
 

so if it gets it to that point, then confirm your nominee

So what’s the “rule”. Lame ducks cannot nominate a new SCOTUS what 60/90/120/ days before the election?  

[RochesterRob]

21 minutes ago, ALF said:

When one party has the Senate and WH without needing 60 votes they have the right to confirm a SC Justice if time permits. If the Democrats were in this position you better believe they would do it.  If the republicans confirm a SC Justice before the election it will just motivate more Democrats to vote .  Garland did not get a hearing in the Senate because it was Republican hoping to take the WH in 2016.Yep elections have consequences , if you don't vote don't complain afterwards.

  Rule number 1 of US politics is always bamboozle bystanders with talk of how they would never do what the opposition did even though in reality if presented with a similar opportunity that they would do it in a heartbeat.  I already believe that the maximum number of Democrats and Dem leaning indpendents is determined in terms of who plans to vote.  As said recently I have heard my left leaning friends voice concern about who is really running the show given Biden's health issues.  I caught a Biden ad during a commercial break last night on the television and it did not show Biden "live" and voice pitch changed through out indicating 30 seconds of material took hours to produce.  

[ALF]

If either the Senate or WH flips 3 Nov the lame ducks can vote as they want till end of Dec as far as I know. With a highly partisan climate all is fair. I would prefer bipartisan honorable Statesmen , that's just fiction in todays world.

[Numark3]

48 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

So what’s the “rule”. Lame ducks cannot nominate a new SCOTUS what 60/90/120/ days before the election?  

I think you misread my post, I said why not wait until the lame duck session if it comes to that.  If he wins, you’re gravy.  If he loses, just confirm your nominee and incur the “wrath.”  It’s not like you wouldn’t get equal wrath by confirming before the election

[SectionC3]

44 minutes ago, ALF said:

If either the Senate or WH flips 3 Nov the lame ducks can vote as they want till end of Dec as far as I know. With a highly partisan climate all is fair. I would prefer bipartisan honorable Statesmen , that's just fiction in todays world.

You have it right.  He should nominate now and have the senate hold the vote after the election.  It would be a way to save the Senate and turn the Tillis/Gardner/mcsally/graham seats into referenda on the justice.  Even if we all know the confirmation will be made in december.  Otherwise the Trumpublicans could lose the WH and the senate.  
 

of course, if the orange man is really smart he would withhold the nomination until after the election.  Might get the “hold my nose” vote from bush Republicans that otherwise is probably lost. 

[whatdrought]

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

It’s interesting and I see a parallel between RBG and Bill Clinton.  Both extremely intelligent and capable people, both perhaps a bit on the narcissistic side (one more than the other obviously), but in the end, both “undone” by circumstances that were fairly easy to predict and  project.  One involved exposing his throat to his enemies on one of the worst kept secrets in politics, the other by over managing the curves that life inevitably throws at us all. 
 

Simple human failings. 

I don’t think it was his throat that Clinton got in trouble for exposing... 

[B-Man]

[meazza]

1 hour ago, ALF said:

When one party has the Senate and WH without needing 60 votes they have the right to confirm a SC Justice if time permits. If the Democrats were in this position you better believe they would do it.  If the republicans confirm a SC Justice before the election it will just motivate more Democrats to vote .  Garland did not get a hearing in the Senate because it was Republican hoping to take the WH in 2016.Yep elections have consequences , if you don't vote don't complain afterwards.

 

I didn't know Alf was a right winger and white supremacist.

[BillsFanNC]

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, whatdrought said:

I don’t think it was his throat that Clinton got in trouble for exposing... 

Now you went and perved it up!  I rarely can work clean in my real life so I test drive being classy here. 

[RiotAct]

2 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

You have it right.  He should nominate now and have the senate hold the vote after the election.  It would be a way to save the Senate and turn the Tillis/Gardner/mcsally/graham seats into referenda on the justice.  Even if we all know the confirmation will be made in december.  Otherwise the Trumpublicans could lose the WH and the senate.  
 

of course, if the orange man is really smart he would withhold the nomination until after the election.  Might get the “hold my nose” vote from bush Republicans that otherwise is probably lost. 

probably not, though.  (Definitely not enough to tilt the election in his favor in the battleground states).

[SectionC3]

7 minutes ago, RiotAct said:

probably not, though.  (Definitely not enough to tilt the election in his favor in the battleground states).

 

Maybe you’re right.  But every vote will count.  And every little bit will help Trump.  If he makes his nomination before the election, he takes away a significant reason for Bush republicans otherwise fed up with the current state of affairs to vote for him.  DC knew that RBG’s death was imminent for about a week (it’s no accident that Trump released his list of potential nominees when he did).  So maybe Trumpublicans polled the issue whether their based wanted a nomination before the election.  But I kind of doubt it.  He would be much better served to slow roll this thing and (try to) make the election a referendum on the open Supreme Court seat.  

[Tiberius]

2 hours ago, B-Man said:

The Republican Senate wouldn’t have filled the seat 

3 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Maybe you’re right.  But every vote will count.  And every little bit will help Trump.  If he makes his nomination before the election, he takes away a significant reason for Bush republicans otherwise fed up with the current state of affairs to vote for him.  DC knew that RBG’s death was imminent for about a week (it’s no accident that Trump released his list of potential nominees when he did).  So maybe Trumpublicans polled the issue whether their based wanted a nomination before the election.  But I kind of doubt it.  He would be much better served to slow roll this thing and (try to) make the election a referendum on the open Supreme Court seat.  

Yes, but Trump is already saying the court pick is necessary to judge the election, so he is being impulsive about this. 

 

Jennifer Rubin has a great take on this https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/22/gop-senators-who-play-with-fire-will-get-scorched/

[B-Man]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 

 

You are misunderstanding.

 

No surprise.

 

 

 

[SectionC3]

17 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

The Republican Senate wouldn’t have filled the seat 

Yes, but Trump is already saying the court pick is necessary to judge the election, so he is being impulsive about this. 

 

Jennifer Rubin has a great take on this https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/22/gop-senators-who-play-with-fire-will-get-scorched/

 

I can’t read it, but I suspect she’s saying that confirming prior to the election is going to enrage the left and dampen enthusiasm amongst the right.  Which is where I’m at on the deal.  RBG messed up.  She should have retired during Obama’s presidency.  She didn’t, and now the seat is lost.

 

 Frankly I think this election is the most consequential in modern American history, so I’m less worried about a Republican Supreme Court for a minimum of the next 10 years and more concerned about reclaiming the presidency.  I don’t think we can fight the confirmation process too hard because we don’t want to whack a hornets nest with moderates who probably will cross over and vote for Biden.  

 

So the trick is to fight just hard enough to keep our base from getting upset with us, let the Trumpublicans jam this thing through, and retaliate in kind when we take back the Senate for the next Congress.  I used to believe that the “rules of the house” prevailed and that there was a decency between the parties.  That belief is gone.  The issue here isn’t filling the RBG seat; the Constitution empowers Trump and his cult senators to do so.  The issue is the refusal to hold a vote for Garland.  And, like Schumer says, every available option is on the table to address that issue in 2021. 

[spartacus]

saw this on another site regarding the audacity of Trump, breaking precedent, to nominate a SC replacement in an election year.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/supreme-court-why-no-justice-has-beenconfirmed-in-the-fall-of-a-presidential-election-year/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=top-stories&utm_term=second

 

 

So, in the history of our United States:

-There have been 29 times in which a vacancy came up during an election year.

Of those 29 times, the sitting president has nominated a replacement 29 times.  That's batting 1000 for us sports fans playing at home. Every single time, the sitting president has made a nomination.

1. In 19 cases, the president’s party held the Senate;

a. 17 of the 19 vacancies were filled, the exceptions being the bipartisan filibuster against Lyndon Johnson’s nominees in 1968 and George Washington’s withdrawal and resubmission in the next Congress of a nominee who was ineligible to be confirmed (he’d voted to create the Court, and the Constitution made him wait until there was a new Congress seated).

b.  Nine of those 17 were confirmed before the election, and eight after. Three were confirmed in lame duck post-election sessions even though the president had just lost reelection.

 

2. In ten cases, the party opposing the president held the Senate;

a. only one of the ten got a nominee confirmed before the election,

b. two were confirmed after the election when the president’s party won the election, and

c. one (Dwight Eisenhower’s nomination of William Brennan) was a pre-election recess appointment that was confirmed by the new Senate in the new year after Eisenhower was reelected.

. 

 

So, it's not really unprecedented at all.

Pretty much standard practice that Pres makes nomination in ALL cases and likely that Senate confirms if of same party as Pres. 

Edited September 22, 2020 by spartacus

[Alaska Darin]

17 minutes ago, spartacus said:

Pretty much standard practice that Pres makes nomination in ALL cases and likely that Senate confirms if of same party as Pres. 

But, but, but...our FEELINGS!

[spartacus]

more background on judiical appointments

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/because-he-is-latino-the-glorious-history-of-the-democrats-filibuster-fight

Former Judicial nominee Miguel Estrada. 

Go back to February 2003, the first weeks of a new Republican majority in the Senate, when Democrats were blocking a vote on D.C. court nominee Miguel Estrada. Liberal writer Dahlia Lithwick at Slate covered the upheaval around the filibuster and chastised Republicans for “the grotesque claim that Estrada is being blocked because he is Hispanic.” 

But of course, that was why Democrats were filibustering Estrada. In November 2001, as Democrats debated whether to undertake an unprecedented filibuster of President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees, liberal groups met with Senate Democrats.

According to leaks from Senator Dick Durbin's emails to DNC donors:

he identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment.

"Especially dangerous, because ... he is Latino."

 

Party of decency strikes again...fourteen years before Merrick Garland

[Doc Brown]

5 hours ago, RochesterRob said:

  She was not in a position to let assumptions guide her decision making unlike the people on this board who have no personal stake or control in the matter.  She let her ego run amok and here we are today with a vacant seat on the court.  How intelligent could she be if she was willing to jeopardize her team's position on the court.

Plus, she may have wanted to mentor/indoctrinate Sotomayer and Kagan.  It makes you wonder what Thomas and Alito will do as they're no spring chickens.