Patterico's Pontifications

9/18/2020

BREAKING: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Has Died

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 4:42 pm



RIP.

Things are now going to get very nasty very quick.

UPDATE:

UPDATE x2:

LOLOLOL

470 Responses to “BREAKING: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Has Died”

  1. Will Trump try to install someone before the new Senate comes in? Surely not, right? There just isn’t time. But I bet he tries.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  2. UPDATE:

    Patterico (115b1f)

  3. May she rest in peace.

    Things are now going to get very nasty very quick.

    At least she won’t have to bear with the circling vultures anymore.

    nk (1d9030)

  4. There’s always time.
    If not, you make time
    in a New York minute.

    Revisit the Wollman Rink.

    Trump Luck is in the air, kids.

    Buy that lottery ticket.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  5. RIP Justice Ginsburg.

    And RIP the comment thread I fear may follow.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  6. MSNBC Joyless Joy Reid: “This is a dark night.”

    Frowns all ’round.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  7. RIP Justice Ginsburg.

    Aye carumba.

    Yeah, the next four months weren’t going to be crazy enough.

    But now they will…

    Dave (1bb933)

  8. Trump is doing a rally in MN live [on CSPAN] and apparently nobody has told him yet.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  9. No problem. Trump can wait until after Inauguration Day to name a replacement.

    Icy (6abb50)

  10. Other than the issue of replacing her before the election does this change anything?

    Did anyone think she was going to make it through the next four years? Whoever gets elected was going to replace her. This was already baked into the “anything to replace Trump” game plan.

    frosty (f27e97)

  11. We (that’s me and somebody else) were talking about poor Alex Trebek just the other day. Pancreatic cancer is one mean mother-figure.

    nk (1d9030)

  12. @10. Yes. It does. It changes a lot. It places a viable alternative to the attitude of the spineless conservative ideologues who openly abandoned their principles and their party to voice support for Biden [like George Will, the Lincoln Project crackers, etc.,] and presents them w/t chance to secure a conservative court. That is, if McConnell picks up the ball and runs for the goal line.

    Trump Luck, frosty. It has surfaced for him at key times all his life.

    Desperately sad news.” – MSNBC Chris Hayes

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  13. @11. It is. It killed my grandmother in just 6 weeks.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  14. If Trump just says, like Icy does, that we can deal with this in February, we can relax just the littlest bit.

    A forced through nomination will be very bad. Look for an 11 person court, if that happens. That will go with the 104 person senate.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  15. #12. A filibuster free Senate will kill that dream in no time.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  16. Ugly?

    Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh could not be reached for comment

    Marco (7bed92)

  17. @14. He’s a New Yorker. The private sector businessman will kick in. If he wants to make it happen, he’ll make the push– and McConnell will have to feel the heat.

    It’s certainly drama. And drama is an element of… entertainment.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  18. Qui bono?

    Seems unclear.

    It was obvious that she would be replaced by the next president, if she lived long enough.

    I don’t think Trump will gain any votes that he wouldn’t have already won. It might galvanize the Dems. Conventional wisdom is that anything that increases turnout across the board helps Biden. This has to increase turnout unless they confirm someone in six weeks, during an election campaign. But since so many people will vote early, it will increase turnout anyway.

    To the extent it takes over the news, it tends to drown out any possibility of a Trump comeback. Trying to ram a nomination through before the election seems extremely risky.

    Trump will likely name someone as soon as possible, and try to force Biden to do the same. Without the capability to vet potential candidates that the president has, that would be risky. He will need to handle this with some care.

    Dave (1bb933)

  19. “Things are now going to get very nasty very quick.”
    _

    lololol – welcome to the party!
    _

    harkin (a7d74f)

  20. If Trump just says, like Icy does, that we can deal with this in February, we can relax just the littlest bit.

    Dude.

    Trump, do the reasonable and circumspect thing?

    Are you new here?

    Dave (1bb933)

  21. “My most fervent wish is that i I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”
    _

    Politics to the end. What a judge.

    And if Trump is re-elected she wants everyone to wait four years so the court will remain as Left as possible?
    _

    harkin (a7d74f)

  22. I think I need to start with condolences to her family and thanks for her service. I disagreed with many of her opinions, but I cannot fault her for her comittment to them. Rest in Peace.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  23. @18. ‘I don’t think Trump will gain any votes he wouldn’t have already won.’

    Yes, He will.

    And if they’re in the punditry- they won’t tell you. There’s no way they’ll pass up a shot at securing a fully loaded conservative SCOTUS and leave it to Bidfen- it’s been the rightie ideological goal for decades– and a wet dream of McConnell’s.

    Lots of frowns and depressing adjectives on MSNBC tonight. CNN, too.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  24. Of course he will try. And of course McConnell will let him.

    So: do Romney, Murkowski, and Collins put a break on it?

    Or does whoever it is get confirmed, causing the Democrats — having ended the filibuster — to pass a court-packing plan in the spring?

    Such a thing will guarantee the partisan politicization of the supreme court, with every party that achieves uniform control of the executive and legislature following suit for a generation at least.

    But if the democrats *don’t* do it, half their base will stay home in 2022.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  25. That being said, this changes the election entirely, and I think it dooms any hope that Trump has of re-election. He will send a name up, and it will be confirmed after the election, but a lot of people won’t have to hold their nose any more. 6-3 is good enough.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  26. Andrea Mitchell is in hang dog mode.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  27. Will Trump try to install someone before the new Senate comes in? Surely not, right? There just isn’t time. But I bet he tries.

    Of course he will. His ONLY reason not to will be that it harms his chances of re-election. It’s all about Trump. Or do you really think he will refrain from some sense of decency?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  28. What say you now, Never/Anti Trumpers? Who do you want to select the next Justice? Joe? Kamala? Or the Orange Man?

    Horatio (79bbf3)

  29. #21

    Hey, he hasn’t done too badly on the Middle Eastern front lately. Good things can happen in 2020. And a man can hope…

    Appalled (1a17de)

  30. @25. Doom? This makes his re-election a near certainty. No way the spinless, hollow-principled, Lincoln Project/George Will-bottom-of-the-deck-ideologues are going to risk letting this pass into Biden’s hands.

    Trump put out a list last week.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  31. Let’s think outside the box…

    Suppose Biden says he will nominate Barack Obama.

    Or Michelle.

    Dave (1bb933)

  32. @24. Are you suggesting R, M & C are Rinos? 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  33. Rip Justice RBG, You were a strong individual with convictions.

    mg (8cbc69)

  34. Trump will nominate someone, and the Senate will decide. I expect that the vote will not happen until after the election anyway.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  35. @31. Let’s quote back to him his own words instead:

    “I’m not the President.” -Joe Biden

    ‘No miracle is coming,’ Dave.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  36. What say you now, Never/Anti Trumpers? Who do you want to select the next Justice? Joe? Kamala? Or the Orange Man?

    My opinion doesn’t count for much, so I asked those whose does:
    Putin said, “I don’t give a borscht”.
    Xi Jinpin said, “I don’t give a xiaolongbao”.
    Kim Jong Un said, “I don’t give a kimchi”.
    Erdogan said, “I don’t give a kabob”.
    Netanyahu said, “I don’t give a matzo”.

    nk (1d9030)

  37. This makes his re-election a near certainty.

    So you’ll take a friendly little wager of $5K or $10K now?

    Just to add a little spice to what’s sure to be a walk-over, you understand.

    Dave (1bb933)

  38. @34. McConnell’s wet dream is a wake-up call. If they’re willing to mess w/t U.S. Mail, they’ll push for this. Especially w/a Senate majority in jeopardy.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  39. A remarkable life. May she rest in peace.

    Because a pandemic and presidential election aren’t enough to deal with, now we have a vacant seat on the Court. It’s already an ugly season, it’s bound to get uglier.

    Note: When Scalia’s death was announced, I was in Palm Springs at a soiree of sorts. The group I was with were collectively shocked and saddened. However, there were also a lot of hard-left progressives who didn’t hold back at their glee, loudly saying something about their happiness at seeing the “pigf*cker rotting in hell.” I always remember that. How sad to not care one iota about the deceased having been someone’s beloved, someone’s parent, grandparent, sibling and so forth…

    Dana (292df6)

  40. Whatever we might all say about the political implications and whatever you think of her decisions as a judge, she was an amazing woman who fought hard to get the life she wanted and was more successful than any woman in her generation almost could’ve dreamed of being in her chosen field. Rest in peace, RBG.

    Nic (896fdf)

  41. It’s been a long time since this came up but Benjamin Harrison, having lost the 1892 election to Grover Cleveland, nominated and confirmed a seat as a lame duck. The Senate was also lame-duck GOP, having lost 9 seats and going to the Democrats.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  42. Harrison’s choice died 2 years later.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  43. Will Trump try to install someone before the new Senate comes in? Surely not, right? There just isn’t time. But I bet he tries.

    Yes. And he throws the Dems a bone: Merrick Garland.

    Dana (292df6)

  44. Thanks for 39, Dana.

    mg (8cbc69)

  45. @37. Never bet against yourself, Willard. It’s a win/win; can’t lose. The SCOTUS has always been a fair and stated trade off to neuter the modern ideological conservative movement. Once these dudes get the lifetime gig on the court they owe nothing to anybody.

    “A moment we have feared…” – Chris Hayes MSNBC

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  46. @40. Absolutely.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  47. He has already tossed him 2 bones with the two roberts wannabees.

    mg (8cbc69)

  48. Yes. And he throws the Dems a bone: Merrick Garland.

    U funny

    Dave (1bb933)

  49. I am interested though, in understanding why comity requires the GOP to forego their political opportunity. To recap, the last 20 years have seen nothing but raw power on either side in these battles, and most recently the most scurrilous and unfounded accusations being made.

    How can a party that was carrying water for the smear against Kavanaugh now going to talk about people having decency? How can a party that blocked literally dozens of qualified jurists from the lower courts, solely because they had the votes to mount a filibuster going to talk about decency?

    As for their willing accomplices in the I-HATE-TRUMP crew, I just have to wonder. Especially if a delay until next year will help Trump win, like it did in 2016.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  50. Lots of frowns on MSNBC.
    ______

    @43. Well, Dana, he put out that SCOTUS list just last week. Is Garland on it?

    Have Cruz and Cotton been reached for comment– or are they getting measured for robes?

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  51. What say you now, Never/Anti Trumpers? Who do you want to select the next Justice? Joe? Kamala? Or the Orange Man?

    Whoever I want to make the pick, I think I don’t want it to be you.

    Demosthenes (d867b3)

  52. Do Justices Thomas or Alito have a say in this?
    They should. They are the conservatives pair of stones.

    mg (8cbc69)

  53. Now for the political comment. Of course Trump will try to fill it and McConnell will bring it up. I don’t think we have any idea about what the Senators are going to do about it. There are too many of the Rs who are standing right on the cusp of being re-elected or not-re-elected and I don’t know how they will read the risk one way or another. My best guess is that they start the process, all the senators in danger either hug the nominee or equivocate and they actually vote in the lame duck. But even then, we’ve seen some, um, interesting takes from senators about to exit the senate, so it might be that Senators up for election now might or might not be any more eager to vote for the nominee after the election regardless of whether or not they get re-elected.

    Regardless I think it’s a mess and it isn’t a mess that will have much to do with the Democrats, who will have an absolutely and tightly united message. The R phonelines are going to be burning up with people talking a lot and not saying much while they try to get a read on what their colleagues think.

    Nic (896fdf)

  54. But, heck, maybe if the GOP show some common decency it will be returned when the Democrats are in power.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  55. Who wants to go through the Kavanaugh/Thomas/Bork treatment x1000?

    Welcome to the nomination nonsense Biden, probably more than anyone, helped create.

    beer ‘n pretzels (3d2d50)

  56. 39.

    How sad to not care one iota about the deceased having been someone’s beloved, someone’s parent, grandparent, sibling and so forth…
    Dana (292df6) — 9/18/2020 @ 5:34 pm

    As Scalia and RBG’s long friendship showed, the best people refuse to fall to the level of their worst admirers.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  57. I will make a daring prediction. We will soon hear, from both Trump and Biden, the most reasonable and reasoned statements either has made or will make in this election season.

    nk (1d9030)

  58. Do Justices Thomas or Alito have a say in this?

    They won’t utter a word. As it was in 2016, it will be only about how the Senate votes. Maybe McConnell will decide that waiting will help them hold the Senate, but I doubt it.

    It’s like the witness in the murder mystery who says “I saw who did it, but I’m not going to tell anyone!”, thinking it will enhance their longevity.

    McConnell needs to take this issue off the table, because the stakes are too high.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  59. Everybody standing behind Trump- who is still doing his live rally in MN– is wearing a mask.

    Don’t think anybody has told him RBG has passed yet.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  60. #57

    Why?

    Appalled (1a17de)

  61. RIP, Notorious RBG. And I guess Minnesota is still nice to a fault.

    urbanleftbehind (60d344)

  62. Trump should choose someone, preferably female, and challenge Biden to do the same. Then he should simply say “I will only nominate person X if I win the election.”

    And, if Biden refuses to name anyone by a given date, advance the nomination.

    Trump’s best play is to elevate this as a deciding issue.

    beer ‘n pretzels (496f5e)

  63. I am interested though, in understanding why comity requires the GOP to forego their political opportunity.

    I’d say it would expose McConnell and company as dishonest hypocrites. Not that anyone should have any illusions after the impeachment vote, but still.

    They justified their refusal to proceed with Garland in principled language, and now that the shoe is on the other foot, they’re going to announce that their principles have undergone a 180-degree reversal.

    Of course, the Garland move was a perfectly reasonable political power-play – they did it because they could. What will do damage is that they pretended they were being principled and now that expediency dictates otherwise, their principles are entirely fungible.

    Dave (1bb933)

  64. @54. Common decency????

    The GOP messed with the frigging mail.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  65. Or does whoever it is get confirmed, causing the Democrats — having ended the filibuster — to pass a court-packing plan in the spring?

    Let’s recap.

    Democrats filibuster most judges. GOP returns the favor. When the GOP is back in the nuke the filibuster on nominees.

    Democrats attempt to filibuster Supreme Court nominees for no reason other than they can. GOP nukes that filibuster, too.

    Democrats use Senate rules to slow-walk all nominees, demanding a week of debate on every single one. GOP changes rules and starts a confirmation assembly line.

    Democrats use baseless charges to smear nominee, GOP calls them on it and confirms. Nominee still smeared.

    Now, they threaten to “pack the court” when they have the votes (necessitating nuking the rest of the filibuster, but we know they will anyway). What happens then when the GOP is back in? I hope they come to their senses as otherwise this just gets out of hand. Frankly, I can see the existing Court declaring the size of the Court to be settled law and killing the attempt to pack it.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  66. They justified their refusal to proceed with Garland in principled language, and now that the shoe is on the other foot, they’re going to announce that their principles have undergone a 180-degree reversal.

    The shoe is on the same foot.

    The GOP controlled the Senate then as it does now.

    beer ‘n pretzels (496f5e)

  67. Oh dear, I misspelled cui bono.

    Dave (1bb933)

  68. The GOP messed with the frigging mail.

    No, the GOP attempted to deal with keeping the postal service out of bankruptcy. This had consequences of slowing the mail, and the Democrat spin on this is that it was all about them. But what isn’t?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  69. Shades of Diana; crowds out in front of the SCOTUS placing flowers.

    The Celebrity Culture rules.

    Reaganoptics.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  70. @68. No the GOP wants to kill the postal service and privatize it. Bone upon your Newt Gingrich.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  71. They justified their refusal to proceed with Garland in principled language, and now that the shoe is on the other foot, they’re going to announce that their principles have undergone a 180-degree reversal.

    No, the Democrats characterized it that way, and you drank the Kool-Aid. The GOP never made any bones about it — they had the votes, and their constituents said DON’T.

    Patterico was among them.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  72. No the GOP wants to kill the postal service and privatize it. Bone upon your Newt Gingrich.

    Well, you HAVE read your DNC fax.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  73. McConnell says there will be a vote on a Trump nominee.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  74. Shades of Diana; crowds out in front of the SCOTUS placing flowers.

    The same people were cheering when Scalia died. Now they lecture the GOP on decency.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  75. McConnell says there will be a vote on a Trump nominee.

    No kidding?!

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  76. When the GOP is back in the nuke the filibuster on nominees.

    My mistake. It was the Democrats who nuked it after the GOP returned the favor.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  77. BTW, I expect the Democrats to try to pack the Court even if the GOP lays off. And Roberts will let them.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  78. @62 Do you think that would benefit Trump? I think it could go either way. If he does that, maybe more Rs turn out for him, or maybe they get even madder at the obvious manipulation and more turn out for Biden. Any R that had planned to vote for Biden had already decided that a liberal replacement for RBG on the Supreme was an acceptable trade for getting rid of Trump. And it is even more likely to end up with a higher D turn out, because it’s the liberal end of the Ds that are less likely to turn out for love of Biden, but for a Supreme seat if it’s dangled in that way? It could energize them.

    Nic (896fdf)

  79. Outside all college areas – Minnesota is full of nice

    mg (8cbc69)

  80. Guess who has showed up t crack wise on RGB’s passing?

    Hillary Rodham Clinton on MSNBC: “I’m devastated.”

    “A feminist catastrophe you not becoming president.” – Rachel Maddow

    Yikes! Dykes!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  81. I think that Trump may refrain from a nomination, leaving the Court as a talking point. After all, it’s about Trump. If he nominates someone to make the Court 6-3, a number of people may decide Trump’s re-election is less important. After all, one of the FEW good points that even #NeverTrump sees is about judges. Eliminate that as an issue and Trump might lose in a landslide. It would remove my last remaining issue. A 6-3 court can resist Harris for long enough.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  82. @74. Reaganoptics.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  83. It will be a fight over the filibuster and the Democratic party is already on record as favoring the end of that courtesy. Several articles just this past week.

    https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/09/17/please-democrats-kill-the-filibuster/

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democratic-insiders-set-up-war-room-to-kill-the-filibuster/ar-BB18WWuh

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/abolishing-filibuster-may-be-job-one-for-a-democratic-senate/ar-BB18X41T

    So the GOP would certainly make noise in support of that idea over the next few weeks.

    pouncer (b0e023)

  84. I wonder if she had retired during the obama reign when they had complete control if it would have been better for the left?

    mg (8cbc69)

  85. “Well, Mitch McConnell only cares about power.” – Hillary Rodham Clinton MSNBC, 9/18/20

    ROFLMAO. Irony- where is thy sting.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  86. No, the Democrats characterized it that way, and you drank the Kool-Aid. The GOP never made any bones about it — they had the votes, and their constituents said DON’T.

    Watch Grassley and Graham’s remarks in this clip.

    Dave (1bb933)

  87. @78: Nic, you may be right actually.

    I now like the idea of nominating someone quickly and having the vote. The ensuing drama driven entirely by Dems heads exploding will 1) drive DontCallItWuhanFlu out of the headlines, and 2) give voters another glimpse at Dems being their absolute worst.

    McConnell should stretch it out as long as possible, if the Dems don’t do that themselves. All good for Trump.

    beer ‘n pretzels (496f5e)

  88. Whatever. They were talking to children.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  89. “Let’s go down fighting.” – HRC

    Well, then, she knows how this will end.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  90. I would be surprised if a vote happens before the election.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  91. I think that Trump may refrain from a nomination, leaving the Court as a talking point. After all, it’s about Trump.

    You may be right. He needs to make something happen in a short time to avoid defeat. After the nomination photo-op, a confirmation fight would take the spotlight off him.

    Really it’s the best of all possible worlds if Trump is defeated and the lame duck senate confirms a constitutionalist.

    Dave (1bb933)

  92. @90. Mconnell has alreadysaid tonight if a nominee is submitted there will be a vote. Any GOP senators who RINO out are toast.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  93. Voting for the party that celebrated the shootings of two L.A. Police Officers is the new rage. Enjoy a half dozen more liberals on the court.

    mg (8cbc69)

  94. RIP RBG.

    Fvck cancer!

    whembly (c30c83)

  95. @91. Even better if ice cream wasn’t fattening.
    _________

    HRC claims credit for ‘putting bug in her husband’s ear’ to nominate RGB.

    On today of all days. Now you know why dogs pee on fire hydrants.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  96. After a death on the Court a week earlier, Martin Van Buren (a Jacksonian Democrat) filled the seat in his last week in office, and the Senate confirmed, despite a change in parties to the anti-Jackson Whigs.

    John Marshall was nominated by John Adams (after John Jay declined) and confirmed by the Senate after Adams lost the election to Jefferson. Prior to that, but after the election, a number of judges were rushed through in the “Midnight Judges Act.”

    Imagine the US without John Marshall serving 34 years as Chief Justice.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  97. 74.

    The same people were cheering when Scalia died. Now they lecture the GOP on decency.
    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 9/18/2020 @ 6:03 pm

    Lol. I’d love to see you prove it was the same people. Look, that both sides have sub-human garbage who can be nutpicked to make their side look bad is as unremarkable as it is obvious. If you think it’s going to be long before people are saying atrocious things about RBG you’re kidding yourself. Let me know when Biden tells us RBG was murdered. Then we’ll have an equivalency worth talking about.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  98. Really it’s the best of all possible worlds if Trump is defeated and the lame duck senate confirms a constitutionalist.

    Yes.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  99. But a second question. The Court has been 9 justices for the last 150 years. Several attempts to change this have failed due to resistance to change. Is this now settled law? Or are the games of the early 19th Century doomed to return?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  100. Lol. I’d love to see you prove it was the same people.

    I don’t recall them laying flowers in front of the Court anyway.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  101. If you think it’s going to be long before people are saying atrocious things about RBG you’re kidding yourself.

    Well, I certainly would not say untrue things. I did think she was inflexible in her positions, and I could not follow her reasoning in many cases. That might be my myopia however.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  102. “She just died? Wow. I didn’t know that. What an amazing life…” – President Donald Trump 9/18/20

    Cruz on Fox: presses for a nomination next week and a vote. What size robe you wear, Tedtoo?
    ________

    Biden under pressure to release his own SCOTUS list. Still no statement from Biden campaign.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  103. I know the memorial services will be Wellstone-esque, but I pray for the safety of any NT, RINO or RelucTrump that shows up and gets accosted by some femi- or alphabet- loon.

    urbanleftbehind (60d344)

  104. Really it’s the best of all possible worlds if Trump is defeated and the lame duck senate confirms a constitutionalist.

    I also think it’s only going to work if he nominates someone who has wide respect, even from those who disagree.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  105. @100. Diana 101; Reaganoptics; Celebrity Culture.

    SCOTUS is now America’s Buckingham Palace.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  106. Cotton might be easier, he is running only against a libertarian, and Asa Hutchinson can do the Blago move or nominate a certain body-positive preacher’s daughter.

    urbanleftbehind (60d344)

  107. I don’t recall them laying flowers in front of the Court anyway.

    I doubt there would be throngs of weeping mourners laying flowers in front of Buckingham Palace if Prince Charles died in a car wreck either. That’s no reflection on those who loved Diana more.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  108. Joe making statement just off a plane ride: from Wilmington, DE.

    Not a Scranton boy tonight, eh, Joe? Claims honor of presiding over RBG’s confirmation hearing.

    Just like HRC- ‘how can I make this about me.’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  109. I also think it’s only going to work if he nominates someone who has wide respect, even from those who disagree.

    Bill Barr!

    Dave (1bb933)

  110. If republicans punt on putting roe vs wade out of business with right to lifer judge civil war in republican party and mitch mcdonnell kaput! If democrats allow right to lifer judge thru to court civil war in democrat party with biden and dnc establishment on the chopping block with AOC swinging the ax. Have fun as it will be time for fighting in the streets as the rolling stone song says!

    asset (efc8e6)

  111. BTW, before anyone brings it up, there are 2, MAYBE 3 votes on the Court to overturn Casey/Roe. But I think 2 (Alito and Thomas). I do not expect that to change in my lifetime.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  112. @107. You don’t know the British.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  113. I doubt there would be throngs of weeping mourners laying flowers in front of Buckingham Palace if Prince Charles died in a car wreck either.

    I’d be laying flowers in front of the repair shop.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  114. Damn, missed 110 by that much.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  115. The honorable Amy Coney Barrett would look good in RBG’s place.

    mg (8cbc69)

  116. Biden asked when he first heard of RGB’d passing–gives deer-in-headlights-stare… no response.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  117. Mg, ACB… that’s the safest bet.

    urbanleftbehind (60d344)

  118. But seriously, it’s hard to imagine anyone who would command broad bipartisan support.

    If Mitt were 20 years younger, and Trump didn’t hate him, maybe.

    Maybe make John Roberts an Associate Justice too, so he gets two votes…?

    :)

    Dave (1bb933)

  119. From Trump’s list:

    If a man: Paul Clement, James Ho or Christopher Landau. No one who has served in the Trump DoJ or is currently on the 9th Circuit, for different reasons.

    If a woman: Martha Pacold or Alison Jones Rushing. Same limitations.

    Amy Coney Barrett is not on Trump’s list.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  120. I’m guessing James Ho.

    James Ho is a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Prior to his appointment in 2018, Judge Ho was a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP and served as Solicitor General of Texas. Judge Ho clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court of the United States and Judge Jerry Smith of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. He received his B.A., with honors, from Stanford University and his J.D., with high honors, from the University of Chicago Law School.

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/additions-president-donald-j-trumps-supreme-court-list/

    Correction: The old list remains active, so Barrett is still a possibility, if 4 years older.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  121. Let them attack the Asian.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  122. From what I know of her, which isn’t that much, Barrett sounds like she’d make a good Supreme.

    Dave (1bb933)

  123. If a woman: Amy Coney Barrett, 47.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  124. This is really great from Christopher Scalia.

    Dana (292df6)

  125. Schumer:

    “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

    Those are McConnell’s exact words from 2016…

    Dave (1bb933)

  126. Trump’s first remarks:

    “She just died? Wow. I didn’t know that. She led an amazing life. What else can you say? she was an amazing woman, whether you agree or not. She was an amazing woman who led an amazing life.”

    Dana (292df6)

  127. @123. I know we aren’t supposed to consider this, and far be it from me to personally really object on this basis:P, but there are a lot of Catholics on the Court right now. Do you think it’s a good balance to add another?

    Nic (896fdf)

  128. “She just died? Wow. I didn’t know that. She led an amazing life. What else can you say? she was an amazing woman, whether you agree or not. She was an amazing woman who led an amazing life.” Dana (292df6) — 9/18/2020 @ 7:31 pm

    I can’t remember any Democrat politician say anything nice about Scalia when he passed – at least nothing off-the-cuff like Trump just did. Maybe Trump is showing a bit of humanity…

    Hoi Polloi (dc4124)

  129. Those are McConnell’s exact words from 2016…

    Too bad those words don’t quite make sense in 2020. In 2016:

    1) we knew we were going to have a new president
    2) the person who said those words was majority leader

    beer ‘n pretzels (4bef1a)

  130. Not a lawyer like most here, but question: if the SCOTUS stays at 8 justices and we have another Bush v. Gore, what happens if there is a 4-4 tie?

    Hoi Polloi (dc4124)

  131. I can’t remember any Democrat politician say anything nice about Scalia when he passed – at least nothing off-the-cuff like Trump just did.
    Hoi Polloi (dc4124) — 9/18/2020 @ 7:48 pm

    Barack Obama:

    For almost 30 years, Justice Antonin “Nino” Scalia was a larger-than-life presence on the bench — a brilliant legal mind with an energetic style, incisive wit, and colorful opinions.

    He influenced a generation of judges, lawyers, and students, and profoundly shaped the legal landscape. He will no doubt be remembered as one of the most consequential judges and thinkers to serve on the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia dedicated his life to the cornerstone of our democracy: The rule of law. Tonight, we honor his extraordinary service to our nation and remember one of the towering legal figures of our time.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  132. Obama’s statement on Scalia began:

    For almost 30 years, Justice Antonin “Nino” Scalia was a larger-than-life presence on the bench — a brilliant legal mind with an energetic style, incisive wit, and colorful opinions.

    He influenced a generation of judges, lawyers, and students, and profoundly shaped the legal landscape. He will no doubt be remembered as one of the most consequential judges and thinkers to serve on the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia dedicated his life to the cornerstone of our democracy: The rule of law. Tonight, we honor his extraordinary service to our nation and remember one of the towering legal figures of our time.

    Dave (1bb933)

  133. The last circuit decision stays.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  134. @130: IANAL, but I believe the lower court ruling would hold.

    beer ‘n pretzels (4bef1a)

  135. …if the SCOTUS stays at 8 justices and we have another Bush v. Gore, what happens if there is a 4-4 tie?

    Then Nancy Pelosi will have to resign her seat, because come January 20 (assuming the Democrats hold the House) she would be the Acting President, pending an outcome of any court cases involving electoral votes.

    Demosthenes (7fae81)

  136. what happens if there is a 4-4 tie?

    The lower court’s ruling stands.

    Dave (1bb933)

  137. Actually, no. Scratch what I just said. Bolivar is right…because there would have to be a lower court decision in place for the Supreme Court to consider.

    Demosthenes (7fae81)

  138. @132. C’mon, Davey– you’re a no-Trump Biden boy. No conservative justice for you. Trump bad; Biden good. Court don’t matter.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  139. No Trump. No SCOTUS.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  140. In 2000, it came from the 11th circuit, but theyll probably piling cases from a number of them.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  141. @132: That statement by Obama sounds so bland and perfunctory, like it was pre-written by years with a fill in the blank for any justice’s name. Typical Obama.

    beer ‘n pretzels (4bef1a)

  142. Ted Cruz 2016:

    “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”

    Ted Cruz today:

    “I believe that the president should next week nominee a successor to the court, and I think it is critical that the Senate takes up and confirms that successor before Election Day … this nomination is why Donald Trump was elected.”

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  143. Interesting that this ‘news’ was such a “surprise” too.

    Why was her decline and terminal illness kept on the QT from the public?

    It seems irresponsible– if not selfishl motivated.

    If she was so ill she really should have resigned weeks ago. That she did not would seem to nullify any ‘final decree’ she may have dictated.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  144. @143. Beards are powerful.

    Have you ever seen Good Spock versus Bad Spock in Star Trek? 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  145. Then Nancy Pelosi will have to resign her seat, because come January 20 (assuming the Democrats hold the House) she would be the Acting President, pending an outcome of any court cases involving electoral votes.

    Regardless of anything else that happens, by the wording of the Constitution itself, Congress WILL meet to count the electoral votes on the appointed day in January, and by law, any disputed electoral votes will be resolved by votes of Congress. If nobody wins a majority of electoral votes, a contingent election will choose the president with each state having one vote.

    I don’t think the courts can intervene in that process, and I don’t see how Pelosi would ever become Acting President.

    The courts could theoretically prevent a state’s election results from being certified, but that just makes a contingent election more likely by reducing the number of electoral votes in play.

    Dave (1bb933)

  146. 142.

    That statement by Obama sounds so bland and perfunctory, like it was pre-written by years with a fill in the blank for any justice’s name. Typical Obama.
    beer ‘n pretzels (4bef1a) — 9/18/2020 @ 8:05 pm

    I understand that a president speaking in complete, coherent sentences sounds bland and perfunctory to your ears. Don’t worry, whoever wins this election, you won’t have that to worry about for at least another four years.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  147. @146. This won’t matter to you, Davey. Biden’s gonna win.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  148. Rest in peace. She and Justice Scalia can enjoy opera together in the hereafter.

    JVW (ee64e4)

  149. By the way, in that regard re: opera, here’t what Christoper Scalia had to say about the passing of Justice Ginsburg:

    https://twitter.com/cjscalia/status/1307107069237981185

    Make sure to read through to the third tweet.

    JVW (ee64e4)

  150. You’re going to see those Lincoln Project-George-Will-National-Review-Never-Trump-Rodents, who so easily and vocally betrayed their so-called-principles and their party loyalty, to back Biden simply because they found themselves on the bottom of the deck and no longer relevant, try to rationalize why they now must back Trump to get their conservative SCOTUS because Trump– well, isn’t that bad… and we can get our dream SCOTUS for a generation.

    Or they could stand on principle, stand by their words and leave the SCOTUS fate to Biden-Harris.

    Nah.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  151. …and by law, any disputed electoral votes will be resolved by votes of Congress.

    And if Congress does not, or cannot, make a decision? From what I just read, that’s a possibility, and what happens after that is unclear — as in, there are conflicting legal opinions.

    Demosthenes (7fae81)

  152. Have you ever seen Good Spock versus Bad Spock in Star Trek?

    That’s a VanDyke beard which obviously signifies evil. If alternate Spock had an ear-to-ear beard he would have been acknowledged as a chill Vulcan, the kind you want on your side for a Trivial Pursuit game.

    JVW (ee64e4)

  153. @153. LOL That’s one way to rationalize Two-Faced-Tedtoo. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  154. That was funny, biden and coherent.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  155. Biden’s recent statement is that the voters should pick the president and the president should pick the justice for the senate to consider. He even added let me be clear and let there be no doubt.

    Sounds like Biden is in favor of Trump getting on with things.

    Honestly, how hard was it for him to get this right? There have to be people in the back room saying “yes, I put ‘next’ on the notes and yes, I told him to say ‘next’ when we were winding him up”.

    frosty (f27e97)

  156. Mirror universe trek were the ids of their respective characters, recall the vulcans had a less serene age till the time of surak. Consider the major ship faring kingdoms spain uk portugal who was peaceful.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  157. In the past, the prospect of a contingent election has favored the GOP, and it still does, at least slightly.

    Right now the Republicans have a majority in 26 House delegations, and the Democrats control 23. Pennsylvania is evenly divided. Several states are within one seat of being tied. And 26 votes are required. Votes must be cast for the top electoral vote recipients, so there is no way to compromise on some third candidate. They keep voting until someone gets 26.

    This is how Pelosi could become Acting President – if Trump or Biden can’t muster 26 House delegations in a contingent election.

    The Senate votes to choose the VP, and if the Democrats win the Senate, Harris could be elected Vice President while Trump is elected Preside nt…

    Now that’s entertainment!

    Dave (1bb933)

  158. The Senate is gone. So, if I am in GOP leadership, I take my shot ASAP. What will be fun is how Dem senators who pretend to be moderate (Like Jones in Alabama) will not be held to the same standards of outrage for allowing process and politicization to reject a perfectly qualified nominee. Alllll the Dem protestationa about how wrong it was for McConnell to not give BHO’s nominee a vote will not now be held against them as they argue the diametrically opposite position now.

    I also want to know how many lies we were told about RBG’s deteriorating condition. Were SCOTUS protocols as to physical presence in the handling of certain business modified because she was too ill? If so, it is outrageous this was not communicated.

    I hope she was accepted into God’s Kingdom. Yet, her hubris in refusing to step down when she became mortally infirm is an outrage and not to be commended. If the quote attributed to her by her granddaughter as to a death bed wish that the resident not have her replacement confirmed is true, it is prima facie evidence of her wrongheaded approach to the judiciary.

    Ed from SFV (f64387)

  159. Riddled w/cancer, Ginsburg really should have resigned in the Obama Administration and let him fill her spot. It’s difficult to excuse the rationalization of believing HRC was going to win and then the first woman president would fill her spot. It seems a bit self-centered, too, if not egocentric, to have just hung on– then quill a death-bed decree wanting her spot filled after the election. Seems as if s was beginning to believe her ‘Notorious RGB’ press clippings.

    The scenes out in front o the SCOTUS tonight reinforce this. Such is the poison of the ‘Celebrity Culture’ we’ve created.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  160. 158. You’re a Biden Man, Davey. No-Trump-You.

    Trying to pretzel your way out of that in this– now THAT’S entertainment.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  161. Mirror, Mirror was one of the five best Trek episodes of all time. In no particular order:

    The Menagerie (two parts, but let’s count it as one)
    The City on the Edge of Forever
    Amok Time
    Space Seed
    Mirror, Mirror

    JVW (ee64e4)

  162. When it was called the cage, city probably doesnt work under asimov rules but it was one of ellisons best.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  163. @162. The Trouble With Tribbles is tops w/me. Second favorite: The Doomsday Machine… William Windom at his very best.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  164. Ed from SFV (f64387) — 9/18/2020 @ 8:40 pm

    I half expect her staff to announce later tonight or tomorrow that in fact there is no need to replace her since she’s settled in to the afterlife and is able to communicate with them.

    frosty (f27e97)

  165. And with respect to the thread:

    I think the right thing is to delay this until the next Congress and (should it come to that) President. If Trump loses in November and the GOP takes the Senate, it will be the all-time gangsta move if Cocaine Mitch pushes through a new Justice in the dead time. Gangsta and shit. Start building monuments to him that will later be torn down. Word.

    Of course, Biden and the new Democrat majority might respond by expanding the size of the Court. Good times, good times.

    JVW (ee64e4)

  166. Tribbles was a generally lighthearted was that dave gerrold?

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  167. @162. Sometimes when the The Doomsday Machine is broadcast- some stations run edited versions, trimming out the second or two racist slur Windom throws at Nimoy– which for the era when it was originally aired, had impact.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  168. @162. The Trouble With Tribbles is tops w/me.

    Oh come one: just a wee bit cheesy? It’s like saying that the Ewoks are the best part of Return of the Jedi.

    Though, to give your argument its due, I love watching Scotty fight the Klingons.

    JVW (ee64e4)

  169. No you need a full bench, for reasons spelled out before. Unless you want ‘human sacrifice’ (already done for 47 years) dogs and cats living together.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  170. @167. Yes. The writing was stellar [pun intended.] The whole episode really flows nicely.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  171. How about the way kirk reacts to scotty describing when he started the fight.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  172. @169. No, it’s good one- flows well, has great humorous lines threaded w/a serious situation. OTOH Doomsday Machine was just a great spaceship to spaceship episode. Loved watching a starship explode. As kids, we all had those AMT Enterprise models and every one took one of them and burned/scarred one up to look like Decker’s Constellation.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  173. TNG > TOS

    Hate speech. Your words are violence.

    JVW (ee64e4)

  174. @172. It’s a tight script. No hiccups. It flows perfectly.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  175. Tribbles was a generally lighthearted was that dave gerrold?

    Yeah, and then Gerrold wrote a really good book about the history of the show.
    Tribbles is in the top ten, but not the top five.

    JVW (ee64e4)

  176. How about the way kirk reacts to scotty describing when he started the fight.

    Commander Montgomery Scott’s best episode, and I don’t want people to think that I don’t love it. But not quite top five.

    Damn, this should have been a separate post, I suppose. Didn’t know (but should have guessed) there were this many Trekkers on the site.

    JVW (ee64e4)

  177. From the impending demise of civilization in the wake of RBG’s passing to … Tribbles. In only 180 posts…

    Dave (1bb933)

  178. @178. Well, it’s more or less the Flash Gordon/Buck Rogers of their times give the problems of the era. What did Roddenberry call it– Wagon Train to the stars? If you’ve ever seen Wagon Train- it fits.

    The Star Wars series is just a little too “religious” for my tastes.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  179. JVW (ee64e4) — 9/18/2020 @ 9:05 pm

    Damn, this should have been a separate post, I suppose. Didn’t know (but should have guessed) there were this many Trekkers on the site.

    Speaking of things getting ugly! Especially if there’s more of that TNG > TOS stuff lurking.

    frosty (f27e97)

  180. @179. Escapism, Dave.

    Should tell you a lot: e-n-t-e-r-t-a-i-n-m-e-n-.t

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  181. Ginsburg handled her responsibilies with shocking alacrity.

    It was horatio hornblower in space.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  182. @188. HH in space.

    I’ll give you that.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  183. ^183.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  184. It’s like saying that the Ewoks are the best part of Return of the Jedi.
    JVW (ee64e4) — 9/18/2020 @ 8:54 pm

    There is no best part of Return of the Jedi unless we’re comparing to Episodes 1-3.

    And yes, TNG > TOS, though Shatner singing Rocket Man > the whole franchise.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  185. Oh those mini-skirts. Seem a perfectly normal uniform to conduct business… in 1968.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  186. From the impending demise of civilization in the wake of RBG’s passing to … Tribbles. In only 180 posts…

    It went Tribble before it went Godwin, which is even more remarkable.

    Paul Montagu (1fbb64)

  187. The opening arc from jabbas palace to getting off world (which recycles elements of the cantina) which might be the senate democrat caucus.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  188. Come on we can wax apocalyptic later. The dems always put up nominees that can be as left as possible and republicas foolishly go along the reverse is not true.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  189. UPDATE x2:

    LOLOLOL

    Patterico (115b1f)

  190. Both gorsuch and kavanaugh proved dissapoinments this term, the first being scalias preferred replacement.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  191. @179. Relax, Dave. I know you’r a never-Trump Biden man, but…

    “I’ve seen the future. It’s a bald-headed man from New York!” -David Howard [Albert Brooks] ‘Lost In America’ 1985

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  192. ‘That was then this is now’ worked for Lindsey through impeachment.

    “Let’s go to the videotape…” – Warner Wolf

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  193. Both gorsuch and kavanaugh proved dissapoinments this term, the first being scalias preferred replacement.

    True; Gorsuch’s supposed “textualism” interpreting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as protecting transsexuals was most definitely not What Scalia Would Have Done.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  194. And yes, TNG > TOS, though Shatner singing Rocket Man > the whole franchise.

    Pfft.

    Leonard Nimoy singing The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins > all universes.

    Dave (1bb933)

  195. You are absolutely right about Lindsey Graham, P. But remember his very pointed words during the Kavanaugh hearings:

    This is the most unethical sham since I have been in politics.

    [. . .]

    Boy you all want power; God, I hope you never get it.

    It will be super interesting to see if he has been so radicalized that he decides that confirming a Trump appointee is more important that being consistent, should it come to that. This promises to be an absolutely fascinating few months. Imagine this crazy scenario: what it Trump wins reelection yet the Democrats capture the Senate? Do we have a dead-time confirmation with all of the outgoing GOP Senators voting “yes”?

    JVW (ee64e4)

  196. There is no best part of Return of the Jedi

    Carrie Fisher in her slave-girl outfit would like a word with you.

    And she looks pretty pissed off too.

    Dave (1bb933)

  197. There is a whole train of decisions, not only any immediate election arbitration

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  198. If amy barrett gets chosen, we’ll see more of that civility wont we.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  199. @200. They’ve gamed this out. They’ll present our Captain w/several courses of action, he’ll go w/his gut and drop the dye marker.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  200. They’ve gamed this out. They’ll present our Captain w/several courses of action, he’ll go w/his gut and drop the dye marker.

    Judge Judy it is then.

    JVW (ee64e4)

  201. And James Tiberius Kirk is forever my captain.

    JVW (ee64e4)

  202. Graham is running 6 points behind Trump in SC and is even with his Democratic opponent in a poll released this week.

    Blocking a Supreme Court nominee would be political suicide.

    Dave (1bb933)

  203. Anyone who dared remake wrath of khan deserves those ceti alpha 6 brainslugs.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  204. Especially considering he’s chair of the Judiciary Committee.

    Dave (1bb933)

  205. Bolivar di griz (7404b5) — 9/18/2020 @ 9:47 pm

    we’ll see more of that civility wont we

    There’s no option where we see more civility. Of course, there’s still enough Charlie Brown R’s that will fall for the football trick to prove me wrong. So, there’s only a few options for civility in a small window of time.

    frosty (f27e97)

  206. @202. Can she stand the pay cut? 😉

    Always amused by Shatner’s Kirk- especially when he waxes Yankee Doodle in certain episodes.

    He’s Canadian by birth.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  207. Leonard Nimoy singing The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins > all universes.
    Dave (1bb933) — 9/18/2020 @ 9:37 pm

    OK, that was legit terrifying.

    But more impressive than this? I think not.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  208. And if that doesn’t quench your morbid curiosity, you can try your intestinal fortitude with this.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  209. A Twitter wag points out that if McSally loses (again) her victorious Dem opponent could be seated as early as November 30, since it’s a special election.

    That would leave Cocaine Mitch with only 52 senators for any confirmation vote in December.

    Dave (1bb933)

  210. Anyone who dared remake wrath of khan deserves those ceti alpha 6 brainslugs.

    Yes! We’re all supposed to view Benedict Cumberbatch as the second coming of Sir John Gielgud, but he truly sucked in the role of Khan. At least these days no ofay like him would have been allowed to play a person of color, so score one for the crybullies.

    JVW (ee64e4)

  211. lurker (d8c5bc) — 9/18/2020 @ 10:37 pm

    Why am I suspicious one of links will take me to a Hasselhoff music video?

    frosty (f27e97)

  212. JVW (ee64e4) — 9/18/2020 @ 10:44 pm

    It’s not a good idea to even pretend the Kelvin timeline is Trek. It’s like meth. One hit and you’re done. Soon you’ll be talking about the new Picard, losing your teeth, and living under a cardboard box.

    frosty (f27e97)

  213. Why am I suspicious one of links will take me to a Hasselhoff music video?
    frosty (f27e97) — 9/18/2020 @ 10:44 pm

    Hasselhoff? Why do you insult me? I’m an aesthete. A connoisseur.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  214. @215 So Rick Astley then?

    Nic (896fdf)

  215. I am really amazed at the near childlike attitude that some folks are taking. The Democrats have used every possible method to thwart first W then Trump in appointing judges. They filibustered (and the GOOP wrung its colelctive hands). Then when the GOP tried the exact same tactic, the Dems cried foul and nuked the filibuster (which the GOP didn’t do because comity).

    Then Scalia died right before the election, and the GOP controlled the Senate they did something remarkable — they acted like the controlled the Senate. I’m just guessing mind you, but maybe they had had enough of the Democrat’s posturing. I wish they had been more honest about it, but we ALL knew exactly what was going on (except for the children again). Our host was completely and utterly on board with that, too.

    And then, whaddaya know, Trump wins and the GOP fills Scalia’s seat and then Kennedy’s seat, and the Democrats were upset that they failed to turn the Court 6-3 liberal. Tough sh1t. That’s the rules they chose. You can’t play hardball for a decade then come complain that the other side doe, too.

    Then, unable to filibuster they tried foot-dragging, insisting that each and every nominee (3rd assistant under secretary of education on up) get 30 hours of debate AFTER cloture had been voted. After a few months of this the GOP changed the rules and started confirming more quickly — JUST like the Democrats had done with Obama.

    Now, the whine is for the GOP to forego their majority “because” (that’s really their main reason: “because”). Suck it. That’s not how they play in power and until they get their noses rubbed in it, they will continue to play that way.

    They threaten to “pack the court” but I doubt they will. That way lies madness with no clear end.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  216. what happens if there is a 4-4 tie?

    Roberts and Breyer duel at dawn.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  217. Instead though we got “I, Mudd” in real life. Except that Harcourt Fenton Mudd had higher standards and better ethics than Trump.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  218. I’m reminded how, when the Senate was 51-50 GOP, the Committees were split pretty evenly. When Jeffords defected and the Dems took over 51-49, they gave themselves solid majorities on every committee. Comity is dead, the Democrats killed it and it will be dead until the Democrats make amends.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  219. Just had an earthquake.

    Patterico (1b7516)

  220. The Declaration of Independence lists the colonists’ complaints or accusations against the Crown.

    The Federalist Papers include the arguments on how to form a new government.

    The Constitution establishes a new democratic-republic government, without a royal leader, with a separation of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial branches.

    The Bill of Rights ensures the rights of individual citizens.

    Interestingly, the Constitution, which structures the government, is almost all about limitations on the legislative and executive branches. The articles are all responses to the complaints against the Crown in the Declaration; it’s all about limiting legislative and executive authority.

    Only one paragraph addresses the judiciary. That one paragraph merely establishes a Supreme Court, which requires only one justice to rule on cases, and grants Congress the authority to establish lower courts.

    The Supreme Court does not hear every case. It grants appeals from lower courts, but it only hears the cases it chooses. If the Supreme Court chooses not to hear a case, the lower court ruling stands.

    So, the real battle is over the lower courts, the appointed justices, which are solely under the authority of the legislature.

    I could go on about the need for legal and judicial reform, but I won’t bother. Who cares who sits on the Supreme Court? I don’t. I have never voted for a politician based on what judge he or she would appoint. Just like the Framers, I don’t think much about the judiciary.

    That said, Ruth Bader Ginsberg was a remarkable lady. I disagreed with her politics, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t respect her, as a woman. May she rest in peace.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  221. @220 You realize that the Dems think the exact same thing about the Republicans. People involved in political tribalism are just going to keep playing the eye for an eye game until everyone is blind (or maybe we are already at that point, hm?)

    Nic (896fdf)

  222. So Rick Astley then?
    Nic (896fdf) — 9/18/2020 @ 11:09 pm

    Don’t be a luddy-duddy. Don’t be a mooncalf. Don’t be a jabbernowl. You’re not those, are you?

    Just watch the damn video.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  223. @217.Yes, the whine is hypocrisy. To adults, it’s called hard ball politics. But these judges never fail to disappoint the ideologues that steer them into these lifetime gigs. Once confirmed, they owe nothing to anybody. There are exceptions, of course, but they are few. The immediate concern is reversing Roe/Wade. But the court always seems to find a way around these issues and maintain rights to Americans, not curtail them. Overturning that w/a conservative court could cost the GOP, in time, the Senate, House and the WH for decades. ‘Hell hath no fury, etc., etc.’ Look how the ‘Southern Strategy’ shifted the landscape for decades. That’s why ‘originalists’ rigidly clinging to a document quilled over 250 years ago are wrong-headed. The document was drafted for the living-a ‘Living Comstitution’- and to interpret it through the mind’s eye of the long dead to apply to today’s society – a world unimagined by those long dead souls- is a fool’s errand. It’s as silly as insisting the sun did stand still in another ancient document. But if you are an ‘originalist’ at heart – feed the horses, slop the pigs, empty your chamber pot and be sure the slaves are up at dawn to pick your cotton. Then be down at the harbor by noon to watch a fleet of square-riggers, flying the Union Jack, drop anchor. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  224. Hope you and the family are safe, Patteerico.

    mg (8cbc69)

  225. If this was poker, Trump should be all in.
    Expose the rinos for what they are. No conservative would block Amy Coney Barrett, unless they were a commie pos.
    RBG only had 1 black work for her in all those years on the bench.

    mg (8cbc69)

  226. How many early voters are second guessing?
    Always vote on election day.

    mg (8cbc69)

  227. “ Attn GOP: Senate has confirmed 17 #SCOTUS justices in presidential election years. #DoYourJob”

    — Chuck Schumer; February 22, 2016 6:14 PM

    I rarely agree with Schumer, but in this case I agree.

    Tanny O'Haley (8a06bc)

  228. Since this has turned into a sci-fi open thread (actually, the conversation is a lot like at a real wake, kudos, you guys), it took the weasels at Marvel 47 issues, but they finally did go and abbreviate Spider-Man/Deadpool as SM/DP.

    nk (1d9030)

  229. Re: TNG>TOS

    Oh please! The first season of TNG (I called it “The Next Degradation” while it aired) was barely watchable. Now, I find the first season of TNG entirely unwatchable as entertainment; its only value, now, is as a contrast to the rest of the franchise.

    felipe (023cc9)

  230. And I know what the litmus test for the new Justice will be, for both Trump and Biden: “Does not scare white people.”

    nk (1d9030)

  231. “[W]e believe that Catholic judges …are morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty. This means that they can neither themselves sentence criminals to death nor enforce jury recommendations of death.”

    — Amy Coney Barrett

    Since I believe in the legality of the death penalty I would want someone else to be nominated.

    Tanny O'Haley (8a06bc)

  232. “Things were better under the Empire” in Star Wars, too, felipe. None of the seq/prequels and spinoffs were anywhere near as good. Like Weird Al Yankovic predicted:

    I know Darth Vader really has you annoyed,
    But if you kill him now, you’ll be unemployed.

    It didn’t turn out that way literally, but Darth Vader voiced by James Earl Jones was the real Star Wars, and all that followed mere shadows.

    nk (1d9030)

  233. The first season of TNG … was barely watchable.

    I don’t disagree.

    But still, TNG > TOS.

    Resistance is futile.

    Dave (1bb933)

  234. felipe (023cc9) — 9/19/2020 @ 6:23 am

    TOS = OG Trek
    TNG = old marxists Trek
    DS9 = MTGA Trek aka OG Trek with better FX
    VOY = TNG but the ladies get a turn
    ENT = erased from history
    Kelvin = millennial Trek
    Discovery/Picard = neo-marxist Trek

    frosty (f27e97)

  235. Leonard Nimoy singing The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins > all universes.
    Dave (1bb933) — 9/18/2020 @ 9:37 pm

    BTW, last night I forwarded this to my brother, a Star Trek TOS fan of such venerable cohort that he once circulated a petition among his grade school classmates demanding that CBS keep the series on the air in 1969. Here’s what he just e-mailed me back:

    “I’m sure that [Nimoy]’s glad that he is dead and doesn’t have to live this down any longer.”

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  236. If we’re LOL’ing quotes from Senators, please include this one:

    Chuck Schumer
    @senatorschumer

    ATTN GOP: Senate has confirmed 17 #SCOTUS Justices in Presidential election years. #doyourjob

    https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/1307201403299835906?s=20
    _

    harkin (536957)

  237. @125

    Schumer:

    “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

    Those are McConnell’s exact words from 2016…

    Dave (1bb933) — 9/18/2020 @ 7:31 pm

    Both of you are leaving out the most important context…and that is only the case when the Senate and the Whitehouse are held by opposing party.

    whembly (c30c83)

  238. @191 Patterico (115b1f) — 9/18/2020 @ 9:26 pm

    I think that’s out the window due to the aftermath of the Kavanaugh hearing.

    Besides, politically, Graham needs to push this for his electoral chances.

    whembly (c30c83)

  239. 237. Shatner on the other hand (not unlike Trump) is well known for being so incapable of shame that his scenery chewing talk-vocals reached stupefying levels of inanity Nimoy could only dream of.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  240. Carrie Lukas
    @carrielukas
    ·
    I’ll add on RBG: If reports of her “last wish” are true, then she had a fundamental misunderstanding of her role. She didn’t own her seat — merely had the privilege of filling it for many, many years — and had no business telling the political branches how it should be filled.

    _

    I still remember the look on Gergen’s face when Scott Brown informed him that the seat in the Senate he wished to fill was not ‘Ted Kennedy’s seat’, but The People’s seat.
    _

    harkin (536957)

  241. Steven Rattner
    @SteveRattner

    Harry Reid will go down in history for having handed the court to conservatives when he took the first step toward eliminating the 60 vote requirement for confirmation.
    __ _

    Donald J. Trump
    @realDonaldTrump

    Thank you Harry!
    __ _

    harkin (536957)

  242. Both of you are leaving out the most important context…and that is only the case when the Senate and the Whitehouse are held by opposing party.
    whembly (c30c83) — 9/19/2020 @ 7:00 am

    I see Trump World apologists repeating this talking point all over the Internet. The problem is, McConnell never mentioned the significance of opposing parties in 2016. Nor in 1992 did Biden, whose hypothetical speculation they call a “rule” and purport to rely on as a basis for principled consistency.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  243. It’s traditional to identify a seat by the departing occupant. On the Illinois judicial ballot it’s “John D. O’Sullivan Vacancy”, for example. You’ll also hear it in your neighborhood: “Who bought the DiAngelo house?”

    nk (1d9030)

  244. Both of you are leaving out the most important context…and that is only the case when the Senate and the Whitehouse are held by opposing party.

    If “the American people should have a voice” when there is a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year, I don’t see how the details of the political landscape matter. That’s just situational ethics. A principle is supposed to be a principle.

    To me, the most important context is that Garland was nominated nine months before the election, and Ginsburg’s replacement will be nominated six weeks before the election. Nine months is much longer than the usual time required to confirm a nominee, and six weeks is rather less.

    To be clear, I was fine with the decision to ratf*ck Garland. But they should have called that naked power move what it was.

    Dave (1bb933)

  245. But they should have called that naked power move what it was.

    You probably call honey “the partially digested regurgitations of hymenoptera”, too.

    nk (1d9030)

  246. nk (1d9030) — 9/19/2020 @ 7:18 am

    It’s traditional to identify a seat by the departing occupant.

    It’s not tradition for the departing occupant to name their successor like it’s a monarchy. It’s also not something in the Constitution nor is RGB’s attempt at scheduling the selection process from beyond the grave.

    This RBG dying wish garbage should be rejected. That it’s taken seriously, and doesn’t undermine her integrity, is part of the larger problem we’ve got with the political process.

    frosty (f27e97)

  247. And they should also not be shocked when naked power moves prompt retaliation in kind,

    Dave (1bb933)

  248. Reza Aslan
    @rezaaslan

    If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire f**king thing down.
    __ _

    Woke Auditor
    @marctheflom

    Riots in major cities? I wonder what that will be like
    __ _

    harkin (536957)

  249. @220 You realize that the Dems think the exact same thing about the Republicans. People involved in political tribalism are just going to keep playing the eye for an eye game until everyone is blind (or maybe we are already at that point, hm?)

    Yes, but the Democrats are wrong. In each of these tit for tat things, the original tat was Harry Reid’s doing.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  250. Ted Cruz is right that, not only would a 4-4 tie make another Bush v Gore case into a crisis, but the existence of a 4-4 split might encourage legal challenges to the election, along with forum shopping.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  251. @244

    The problem is, McConnell never mentioned the significance of opposing parties in 2016

    Yes… he did and I remember him making that point on one of his Senate floor speech (I’ll see if I can find it). Furthermore, he even said that had Democrats had control of the Senate, they would’ve seated Garland.

    whembly (c30c83)

  252. Dave (1bb933) — 9/19/2020 @ 7:28 am

    To be clear, I was fine with the decision to ratf*ck Garland. But they should have called that naked power move what it was.

    I don’t see any reason to call it a “naked” or “power” move. It’s them doing their job. POTUS isn’t given free reign to fill a SCOTUS seat. I didn’t want BO filling the seat and I wanted my representatives in the senate to keep that from happening. Citing comity and procedure and tradition as things that should override actual constitutional requirements is just trying to convince senators to not do their job in the hope that the mix of senators will change to your liking.

    frosty (f27e97)

  253. Like a 5-4 pro-Trump split on the Supreme Court is not going to encourage the Orange to sue to overturn the election even if he loses every state.

    nk (1d9030)

  254. I see Trump World apologists repeating this talking point all over the Internet. The problem is, McConnell never mentioned the significance of opposing parties in 2016.

    When did this become a Trump-NotTrump issue. You can despise Trump (as I do) and be disinclined to vote for him (as I am) and STILL want a more conservative Supreme Court.

    As I have pointed out before, nominating and confirming a justice before the election harms Trump. It removes the SC issue from the minds of many who otherwise would vote for him in the binary-choice world. Allowing them to vote for Bugs Bunny with a clear conscience.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  255. Like a 5-4 pro-Trump split on the Supreme Court is not going to encourage the Orange to sue to overturn the election even if he loses every state.o

    I have more faith in the Court than that.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  256. But they should have called that naked power move what it was.

    When the mealy-mouthed were mealy-mouthed, were you confused as to the real reason?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  257. Dave (1bb933) — 9/19/2020 @ 7:34 am

    And they should also not be shocked when naked power moves prompt retaliation in kind,

    Anyone shocked by anything the D’s will do hasn’t been paying attention. The only shocking thing is that you think retaliation is a fig leaf or that they need fig leafs at all.

    frosty (f27e97)

  258. Furthermore, he even said that had Democrats had control of the Senate, they would’ve seated Garland.

    Considering that they wanted the Republicans to do it, of course they would. And I wouldn’t take the press’ choice of quotes to be an accurate redition of what was actually said.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  259. And they should also not be shocked when naked power moves prompt retaliation in kind,

    In kind, no. But that’s not what they are threatening. They are threatening Sampson-in-the-temple.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  260. I don’t see any reason to call it a “naked” or “power” move. It’s them doing their job. POTUS isn’t given free reign to fill a SCOTUS seat. I didn’t want BO filling the seat and I wanted my representatives in the senate to keep that from happening. Citing comity and procedure and tradition as things that should override actual constitutional requirements is just trying to convince senators to not do their job in the hope that the mix of senators will change to your liking.

    And if Democratic senators “do their job” by packing the court next year, you’ll just look forward to packing it even tighter when the GOP eventually gets back in the driver’s seat?

    The reason for following precedent is to avoid this spiral of “anything goes” escalation.

    Dave (1bb933)

  261. What’s really going to happen is that the 33 Senators up for re-election, Republican and Democrat together, are going to huddle and anxiously whisper among themselves, “What’s the best thing to do to keep our jobs?”

    nk (1d9030)

  262. The reason for following precedent is to avoid this spiral of “anything goes” escalation.
    Dave (1bb933) — 9/19/2020 @ 7:59 am

    This. I care less about the ideology of the next justice than I do about normalizing a Hobbesian race to the bottom.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  263. And they should also not be shocked when naked power moves prompt retaliation in kind,

    Borking
    high tech lynching
    Nuclear Option
    Biden rule
    Feinstein & Blasey Ford

    All GOP inventions, eh?

    beer ‘n pretzels (1ddeea)

  264. And if Democratic senators “do their job” by packing the court next year

    History shows that whether the Dems resort to this or not has absolutely nothing to do with Republicans engaging in naked power moves or playing nice.

    beer ‘n pretzels (1ddeea)

  265. Dave (1bb933) — 9/19/2020 @ 7:59 am

    And if Democratic senators “do their job” by packing the court next year

    The number of SCOTUS seats isn’t fixed by the constitution. This is just one in a long list of reasons to not vote D. Elections matter. The only reason D’s won’t pack the court when they get a chance is if they get to replace RBG and keep it packed at the current count. This is the basic lie that keeps being told. The court is already packed. The threat is keep the court leaning liberal or it will be packed until it leans liberal.

    The reason for following precedent is to avoid this spiral of “anything goes” escalation.

    Is this a joke? A clever pun on precedent? Anyone who believes the D’s will be bound by precedent either isn’t paying attention or is lying. There isn’t any precedent about the timing. There have been cases were lame duck POTUS and senators filled the seat.

    frosty (f27e97)

  266. The reason for following precedent is to avoid this spiral of “anything goes” escalation.

    What was the last time that the Democrats avoided nuking precedent here, to further their raw political advantage? At several points the GOP did exactly as you suggest, only to get kicked in the nuts as soon as the Democrats could.

    I agree that comity and precedent are a good thing, but the history here is one side has attempted restraint and the other side has AT EVERY POINT chosen bare knuckles. And they threaten it again.

    But you seem to take court-packing as a valid threat, when it would itself overturn 150 years of stability in the institution. I would look to the Supreme Court to defend itself as an institution, and declare that 9 is the number, and the number is 9.

    As far as precedent is concerned, show me ONE example of a death or resignation occurring just before or just after a presidential election, where the same party controls the WH and the Senate and they refrained from filling the seat. I can (and have) shown three where they did not.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  267. Trump should simply ask Biden to make a commitment on the court packing scheme and make it an election issue. I doubt it will be wildly popular with independents.

    beer ‘n pretzels (1ddeea)

  268. 256. ROFLMAO. The crawl back has begun. You and George Will should do lunch.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  269. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 9/19/2020 @ 8:25 am

    But you seem to take court-packing as a valid threat, when it would itself overturn 150 years of stability in the institution.

    This is the out and proud lie. Court packing isn’t a threat. It’s the plan for keeping the court leaning liberal.

    It’s also interesting that if Trump were the person the D’s have labeled him and the senate R’s were the boot-licking sycophants they’re claimed to be why haven’t they already packed the court conservative? What’s stopping them now other than comity and precedent?

    For that matter why not come out this afternoon and say he’s conferred with senate R’s and decided the number should be 11 but he’ll need to be re-elected along with a slew of senators to make it happen?

    frosty (f27e97)

  270. @271. He doesn’t give a damn which way the court leans. Only which move best advantages his base and fleeing ideologues to ‘come home’ to the party, hold their noses and vote for him. The guy has had good luck at bad times all his life.

    Trunp Luck is in the air, kids.

    Buy that lottery ticket.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  271. Will Republican donors give more to Trump if Trump fills this vacancy before the election and the Senate confirms, or will they give more if the Senate cannot get 51 votes so the vacancy is still there in November?

    My guess is Trumps will nominate someone now to show he will fight, but the Senate may not be able to get 51 votes … and Trump may be fine with that since he can motivate donors and criticize sitting GOP Senators for not supporting him. If the Senate does confirm a nominee, the support and money may still come but IMO not as much since the urgency is gone and the support/donations will come from gratitude. Gratitude is not as motivating.

    DRJ (aede82)

  272. Mitch McConnell, Man of Principle.
    Ted Cruz, Giant of the Senate:

    “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”
    –March 2016

    Cory Gardner, Concerned About Timing:

    “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”
    –February 2016

    John Cornyn, McConnell’s Boy:

    “I believe the American people deserve to have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice, and the best way to ensure that happens is to have the Senate consider a nomination made by the next President.
    Confirming a new Supreme Court Justice during a presidential election year for a vacancy arising that same year is not common in our nation’s history; the last time it happened was in 1932. And it has been almost 130 years since a presidential election year nominee was confirmed for a vacancy arising the same year under divided government as we have today.
    In 1992, while serving as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and with a Republican in the White House, Vice President Joe Biden said his committee should “seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings” on any potential nominees until the campaign season was over.”
    –March 2016

    Lindsey Graham, no additional quotes necessary.
    Marco Rubio, Man of Intellectual Consistency:

    “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term — I would say that if it was a Republican president .”–March 2016

    Jim Inhofe, Man Who Falls In Line.

    “It makes the current presidential election all that more important as not only are the next four years in play, but an entire generation of Americans will be impacted by the balance of the court and its rulings. Sens. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid have all made statements that the Senate does not have to confirm presidential nominations in an election year. I will oppose this nomination as I firmly believe we must let the people decide the Supreme Court’s future.”
    –March 2016

    Chuck Grassley, Old Man:

    “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”
    –March 2016

    Joni Ernst, Man:

    “We will see what the people say this fall and our next president, regardless of party, will be making that nomination.”
    –February 2016

    Thom Tillis, Girl:

    “Vice President Biden’s remarks may have been voiced in 1992, but they are entirely applicable to 2016. The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”
    –February 2016

    David Perdue, Province of Georgia:

    “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”
    –February 2016

    Tim Scott, Man Who Also Falls In Line:

    Saddened by Justice Scalia’s passing. The next President must nominate successor that upholds constitution, founding principles.
    –February 2016

    Ron Johnson (R-Moscow):

    “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”
    –February 2016

    Pat Toomey:

    “The next Court appointment should be made by the newly-elected president.”
    –February 2016

    Richard Burr, Opportunistic Investor:

    “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”
    –February 2016

    Roy Blunt:

    “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”
    –February 2016

    John Hoeven, Quiet Senator From ND:

    “There is 80 years of precedent for not nominating and confirming a new justice of the Supreme Court in the final year of a president’s term so that people can have a say in this very important decision.”
    –February 2016

    Rob Portman:

    “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”
    –February 2016

    My GOP. We all stand on the shoulders of giants. However, I do credit Senator Lee for his honesty and consistency. It’s as if he actually looked ahead and considered a moment like this.

    “The Senate also acts and the Senate speaks when it chooses not to hold hearings or votes, because that’s the same result as voting the person down,” he said. “This is the Senate’s prerogative. . . . The Senate is a political body. And it’s put into the appointment process for a reason.”
    Citing court decisions on abortion and same-sex marriage, Lee added: “With that politicization of the Supreme Court . . . it shouldn’t be surprising to us that the Senate has chosen to exercise its power and let the next president fill this vacancy.”

    Paul Montagu (1fbb64)

  273. It’s also interesting that if Trump were the person the D’s have labeled him and the senate R’s were the boot-licking sycophants they’re claimed to be why haven’t they already packed the court conservative? What’s stopping them now other than comity and precedent?

    Errm … he totally wasted his first term, when he had both the House and the Senate, in order to 1) give his rich jerkoff friends a yuuuge tax cut and 2) purge the House and Senate Republicans who did not fawn on his orange ass?
    Incompetent?
    Vindictive?
    Narcissist?
    Got the job but did not know how to do it?
    All of the above?

    nk (1d9030)

  274. I hope the GOP Sentors are careful with their campaign stops. There are crazy people out there.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  275. Paul, are you confident that those quotes are complete and in context? That the same person did not make a fuller statement during the same period? Did you believe these were their actual reasons at the time?

    The liberals are going to be making their own case here. No reason for you to carry water for them. Or does your hatred for Trump blind you to the realities?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  276. @274:

    “confirm Garland, and confirm him now!” — Every last Democrat.

    Only small children believe a politician’s justification for what they want to do.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  277. @246 Large numbers of people in this thread who suddenly don’t realize there was gambling in that establishment. Surely McConnell is an honorable man who would never make a naked power grab!!111!!

    @251 and they will tell you that McConnell was the originator and he started it by his unprecedented refusal to confirm any judges.

    Nic (896fdf)

  278. But maybe I;m wrong, Paul. Find me a quote from a Democrat Senator, circa 2016, which indicates that they would have put off confirming Garland. Bet you I can find the same exact list demanding that the Senate act (and today, those same Senators are arguing the other side. These people are lawyers, after all).

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  279. @251 and they will tell you that McConnell was the originator and he started it by his unprecedented refusal to confirm any judges.

    Only those that were born after 2008.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  280. B-b-b-but, Covid?!

    The Beast needs fed.

    Ginsburg is a banquet.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  281. that salt exemption still rankles, doesn’t it, that was paul ryan’s doing,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  282. As far as precedent and the Senate, here is a good analysis of what has happened and why.

    https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2013/11/23/harry-reid-nuclear-option/

    Note figure 1. Comity was enforced with the filibuster, and its elimination has proved divisive.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  283. As far as whose fault? Even The Atlantic puts the blame squarely on Harry Reid.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  284. and they will tell you that McConnell was the originator and he started it by his unprecedented refusal to confirm any judges.

    Yeah, they will tell you that and they’d be flat wrong. But, does that matter? To Dems, no.

    Slightly more judges confirmed under eight years of Obama compared to eight years of Bush. That’s just a fact.

    beer ‘n pretzels (a52731)

  285. Paul, are you confident that those quotes are complete and in context?

    Yes, every one, but I can’t produce more than four links. In 2016 and today, this was all nothing more than about power politics.
    I actually have more respect now for Senator Lee, for calling it what it was back then. I didn’t object so much to what McConnell did in 2016 because he warned Majority Leader Reid that he would regret triggering the nuclear option; it wasn’t out of any pretense of principle.

    Paul Montagu (1fbb64)

  286. the one who suborned perjury, is now the no. 2 challenger, harris, (of course miss ford wasn’t pursued because reasons) and then you have biden, whose obstructionism was so legendary that christopher buckley satirized him as ‘dexter mitchell,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  287. We keep this up, tit for tat and open threats of worse, and it won’t be long before we have tanks in the streets. Harry Reid should have been shut down the moment he started filibustering judges. Dropping 3 Democrats off every committee would have ended that post haste. Now we are here, and naked power has ruled for some time. Now the party that championed naked power is arguing that it not be used against them. It’s on THEM to dial it down, right after they win in November.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  288. they have made it clear, they want to dissolve the constitution, and the protections of ‘negative liberties’

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  289. @281 Only if that’s your viewpoint. If it’s not your viewpoint, you think something else. Frex, one might look at Bill Frist’s theory on filibuster and judges in 2005. You just like to think the Rs are better when they aren’t any better.

    Everyone has spent the last 2 decades going I WILL TAKE MORE POWER FOR US!! It wasn’t good enough to use the MORE POWER that the last guys move granted them, they had to advance the I WANT MORE POWER agenda each time. McConnell wanted MORE POWER over judicial nominees, so he pressed the filibuster far more than was usual in the past. The Dems wanted MORE POWER to get their nominees confirmed, so they eliminated the filibuster on lower court judges. Then McConnell wanted MORE POWER and refused to even bring up the President’s nomination, which was unprecedented at that point. Then he wanted MORE POWER to get the R. nominee for the Supreme court passed so he stepped things up yet again and eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court justices. I wouldn’t be surprised if whoever wins the Senate in August wants MORE POWER and decides to return the filibuster to an earlier state or eliminate it all together.

    Why is this a problem? It isn’t, after all, illegal. It doesn’t look like a problem with your (general, not specific your) guys are currently the ones with MORE POWER, but this is short sighted. Your (general your) guys aren’t always going to be in power. The other guys will use the same rules (and worse, as seen above) to do things you absolutely object to and to keep stepping up the power of the government.

    You (specific you this time) are supporting a reduction in forced governmental restrain and an increase in governmental power because it fits your revenge narrative.

    Nic (896fdf)

  290. no, they have been for increasing control of the economy through single payer, cap and trade, the suppression of the right of speech religion and assembly, not freedom of worship, the replacement of the latter by the state, the boston fed, the hockey stick, and neil ferguson’s spaghetti graphs were all means to that goal

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  291. #277 —

    Did you believe these were their actual reasons at the time?

    In other words, they didn’t really mean what they said in those statements? Are you admitting that they were all (except for Lee and McConnell) trying to wrap up reasons of power — “We’re doing this because we can” — in the language of democratic principle?

    IOW, we should understand that they were all being as cynical as they are now showing themselves to be.

    Or does your hatred for Trump blind you to the realities?

    How does this come down to “hatred for Trump”? This is about the “principled” posture that numerous GOP senators were taking when Obama was president, and the starkly different position they are taking now. Does your love for Trump blind you to that reality?

    Radegunda (e1ea47)

  292. The reason for following precedent is to avoid this spiral of “anything goes” escalation.

    Dave (1bb933) — 9/19/2020 @ 7:59 am

    I’ll be sure to tell Charlie Brown that Lucy will let him kick the football this time.

    Regarding court packing, FDR tried that and it didn’t work.

    Tanny O'Haley (8a06bc)

  293. Find me a quote from a Democrat Senator, circa 2016, which indicates that they would have put off confirming Garland.

    It doesn’t matter what Democrats say, Kevin. They were powerless on Garland and they are powerless in the face of McConnell (and 49 other Republican Senators) in blocking the confirmation of Ms. Ginsburg’s replacement.
    We already knew the Democrats were the Party of Hypocrisy when Reid led the nuking of the filibuster almost seven years ago, which was eight years after he declared the filibuster a sancrosanct part of the Senate and that removing the filibuster was “un-American” (which I wrote about here: theforvm *dot* org/its-great-be-seahawk-fan-round). This episode will only fully demonstrate that the GOP is not one scintilla less hypocritical.

    Paul Montagu (1fbb64)

  294. it did work, it ensured he would have a rubber stamp for his new deal,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  295. Nic (896fdf) — 9/19/2020 @ 9:49 am

    You (specific you this time) are supporting a reduction in forced governmental restrain and an increase in governmental power because it fits your revenge narrative.

    I’m supporting the idea that the current group of elected representatives do what we elected them to do. Picking a SCOTUS isn’t less restraint and more power. It’s exactly what they are supposed to do.

    You (specific you) are gaslighting by claiming there’s something wrong with them doing their job.

    You just like to think the Rs are better when they aren’t any better.

    Better? They’re chumps who get played and don’t have the backbone to take Senator Lee’s position. The senate didn’t confirm Garland. Everything else is empty words from politicians who can’t shut their pie holes.

    frosty (f27e97)

  296. But maybe I;m wrong, Paul. Find me a quote from a Democrat Senator, circa 2016, which indicates that they would have put off confirming Garland.
    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 9/19/2020 @ 9:18 am

    As Paul suggests, you’re implying a false equivalence. The Democrats didn’t have a chance to set any precedents in 2016. The Republicans did. There’s no marker from 2016 against which to measure the Dems consistency or hypocrisy. Only the Republicans laid down a marker to be judged against.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  297. exactly, they are paid to take the tough votes, thats their job, it isn’t to bloviate,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  298. @301 These power grabs might, in the short term, benefit the party in power, but in the long term all they do is increase the power of the government. Maybe they are good in the moment for the Dems or good in the moment for the Rs, but they are bad for the people in general. And if someone thinks an escalation of power grabs is good for the people of the United States in general, I have doubts about the balance of their commitment to their tribe vs their commitment to government restrain.

    If you are saying that I don’t think the Senate should have the right to vote on a replacement for RBG, you are wrong, I think they have the perfect right to do so. I also would think they should do so if the Dems were in control of the Senate and Trump was president. Of course, I also think they should have voted on Garland because my position isn’t “It’s fine when my guys do it. No really, all fine. WHY ARE THE OTHER GUYS DOING IT!! NO FAIR!! NOT FINE!!”

    “Picking a SCOTUS isn’t less restraint and more power…”

    Eliminating a way that the minority can block a majority move is less restraint and more power for the government. Reid did it in eliminating the filibuster on lower court judges, McConnell did it when he eliminated the filibuster on Supreme Court justices. Dirty hands for both of them.

    Nic (896fdf)

  299. 302.

    To be clear, Kevin, if the Republicans had allowed a vote on Garland in 2016, they’d have standing now to accuse the Democrats of hypocrisy for demanding Trump not get to nominate RBG’s replacement. They didn’t, so not allowing a vote is the precedent hypocrisy gets measured against.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  300. That’s not how they play in power and until they get their noses rubbed in it, they will continue to play that way.

    Oh, the Democrats are about to get their noses rubbed in it, hard.

    Soon after, they will be in charge. And they will remember.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  301. I say all this as a disinterested observer. This controversy really brings home to me that I have indeed left the Republican party emotionally. I don’t feel the sense of being on either side’s team. I have no desire to advocate for or against a vote. Whatever will happen will happen. I’ll simply note the hypocrisy (which exists on both sides, although the Democrats do have the “we’re just playing by their rules!” justification so familiar to Trump fans) and I will note that the ruthlessness with which Republicans act will be returned threefold when Democrats are in power.

    That won’t make me happy or sad. And I recognize that the Democrats would behave the same way if the tables were turned. I’m just an observer, watching the country beclown itself.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  302. Nic (896fdf) — 9/19/2020 @ 10:28 am

    I also think they should have voted on Garland because my position isn’t “It’s fine when my guys do it. No really, all fine. WHY ARE THE OTHER GUYS DOING IT!! NO FAIR!! NOT FINE!!”

    By making this about a floor vote that’s exactly what you are doing. Your basic claim is that it isn’t fair for them to not vote then and vote now. This is just complaining about how the senate exercises its prerogative. Lee is correct. It’s the position senate R’s should have taken at the time.

    Eliminating a way that the minority can block a majority move is less restraint and more power for the government.

    Agreed. But that’s the situation we’re in. Do you want the R’s to pretend the filibuster is back in place just the one time? Like a final romp with an ex before parting ways? Because that’s what letting the minority delay on this is. It’s giving them a filibuster that they get to just phone in.

    frosty (f27e97)

  303. the Democrats do have the “we’re just playing by their rules!” justification

    No. They don’t. Unless “the rules” are now made by comments various politicians made into microphones.

    The actual rules are that POTUS nominates and the Senate confirms. There are no “rules” about election years. There are only promises, opinions, and wishes.

    frosty (f27e97)

  304. @308 How? I think it’s fair for them to vote now, I don’t think it was fair for them to not vote then. And nobody can go back and change the past, but claiming clean hands for McConnell in his past decision is silly. It was a dirty powergrab, no matter how much people might pretend it wasn’t.

    “Do you want the Rs to pretend…”

    Nope. I just want people to stop acting holier than thou about it.

    The Dems are not going to walk back the filibuster on Supreme Court justices when it is their turn either, because they will figure that the Rs will just eliminate it again when it’s their turn (and they’d probably be right). If any of this gets walked back, it will be a slow move over probably the next 20 years, just like it took 20 years to get where we are, and it would have to start with the Dems not escalating to remove the filibuster all together, followed by the Rs putting the Supreme Court filibuster back in place. etc, etc. Because neither side can or will just trust the other side to do the right thing, and they’d all be correct in not just trusting.

    Nic (896fdf)

  305. Yes, let’s pack the court. The SC should have 99 judges, directly elected, just like any other legislative body — which it has become by its own doing. That would end the nonsense.

    beer ‘n pretzels (cfe23d)

  306. @310

    How? I think it’s fair for them to vote now,

    Then I misunderstood your position and would like to retract my comments to you.

    frosty (f27e97)

  307. @312 Fair enough. 😀

    Nic (896fdf)

  308. I’ll take this opportunity to put in a plug for my pet Supreme Court reform:

    Every four years, the newly-elected or re-elected president appoints one justice. They name the justice they will appoint ahead of time and the electors vote for the president and the justice. There is no confirmation vote – the election is the confirmation vote.

    If there would be more than nine justices, the longest-serving justice is retired.

    Then the longest-serving sitting justice becomes Chief Justice.

    If vacancies occur during a presidential term, they are not filled, unless there would be fewer than three remaining justices.

    Dave (1bb933)

  309. I’ll take this opportunity to put in a plug for my pet Supreme Court reform:

    Not bad, but you’d have to change the Constitution. I prefer restoring the filibuster on all appointments.

    Paul Montagu (1fbb64)

  310. @307: I’ll gauge disinterest for when there’s a pivotal case before the court and the new justice casts the deciding vote.

    beer ‘n pretzels (d5d6d5)

  311. Patterico,

    If you don’t mind me saying, your #307 makes me very sad. But I understand it.

    The problem is we have to live in this beclowned country. We are letting a lot of our forefathers and foremothers down and there will be consequences.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  312. @317. It separates the wheat from the chaff.

    Did ‘Rockefeller Republicans’ abandon their party when conservatives ascended?

    Nope. It’s no fun being near the bottom of the deck for a few decades, is it.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  313. why the filibuster is a procedural thing, it’s not in the constitution as we’ve been reminded, but there has never been an ideological party determine to dynamite all the institutions, to achieve full hegemony, hence the transition integrity project,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  314. manchin on the other hand, think it’s important to vote, I know frog and scorpion time,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  315. @Dave

    Here’s where McConnell stated it:
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?405143-1/senate-republicans-legislative-agenda

    What’s the way forward? And as you all know, I have the view and expressed it early on that the next president should make this nomination. The — that certainly is supported by precedent. You’d have to go back to 1888 when Grover Cleveland was in the White House to find the last time a Senate of a different party from the president confirmed a nominee for the Supreme Court in an election year.

    In 1988, Justice Kennedy in early ’88 was confirmed, but that was a vacancy created six months before that to which Bork was nominated and subsequently defeated; [Douglas] Ginsburg was nominated and subsequently withdrew. The vacancy had existed for quite some time prior to the presidential election.

    So the question is: Who should make the decision? And my view, and I can now confidently say the view shared by virtually everybody in my conference, is that the nomination should be made by the president the people elect in the election that’s underway right now. In fact, we’ve had three of them already in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. There’s one going on today in Nevada. The election is well underway. So, I believe the overwhelming view of the Republican Conference of the Senate, in the Senate, is that this nomination should not be filled, this vacancy should not be filled by this lame-duck president.

    That was the view of Joe Biden when he was chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 1992. Chuck Schumer who I assume will be my counterpart next year had the view that you shouldn’t fill a vacancy in the last 18 months going into a presidential election year. And certainly that was Senator Reid’s view as well in a different era.

    We know what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot. We know what would happen. A nominee of a Republican president would not be confirmed by a Democratic Senate when the vacancy was created in a presidential election year. That’s a fact.

    whembly (c30c83)

  316. Saw this thought on the internet. Ginsburg was born in 1933. That means she was 83 when Obama left office in 2016. She could have retired at, say, 80 (when I believe she already had cancer), and Obama could have nominated another liberal who was 30 plus years younger. She hung on, and now will likely be replaced by someone far more conservative.

    Bored Lawyer (7b72ec)

  317. the ruthlessness with which Republicans act will be returned threefold when Democrats are in power.

    The word “returned” implies a cause and effect. Don’t think so. The Democrats will be ruthless when they get into power regardless of what the Republicans do now.

    If Mitch McConnell said, “You know what, I am going to stand by principle and not confirm whomever Trump nominates, unless he is re-elected. We’ll take it up after January 20.” Would the Democrats behave differently, assuming they come into power then?

    Answer: No. So there is no downside for McConnell.

    (Not convinced that the Trumps and the Rs are going to lose, but that’s another story.)

    Bored Lawyer (7b72ec)

  318. If the late Justice Ginsburg, may she rest in peace, thought that way, she would not have been on the Supreme Court in the first place. People who seek power over the lives, liberty, and property of other people, are not going to relinquish it for such trifling things as a couple of planks of a political party’s platform.

    nk (1d9030)

  319. My 325 was to Bored Lawyer’s 323.

    nk (1d9030)

  320. @326

    Not completely clear what you are saying. Clinton nominated her in 1933 at age 60. In 2013, when Obama was president, she was 80 and starting to get seriously sick. That would have been the time to retire. 20 years on SCOTUS is a very respectable showing, especially after her prior career as a lawyer and the an appellate judge.

    Instead, she hung on to power, as you say. So now, in all likelihood, she will be replaced by a president she openly despised.

    Bored Lawyer (7b72ec)

  321. Sorry, meant to write 1993 at age 60. She was born in 1933.

    Bored Lawyer (7b72ec)

  322. A broad cross-section of Florida Republicans, from acolytes of President Trump to former top aides to Jeb Bush, lined up over the weekend behind Barbara Lagoa, propelling the federal judge and Miami-born daughter of Cuban exiles to the top of the shortlist of potential replacements for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

    Is it just me, or does the prospect of a justice being appointed to “put a state in play” seem, um, less than one would expect from Trump?

    Hopefully that Bush advisor isn’t named Sununu.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  323. Selflessness is not the principal characteristic of the ruling class. Think of Francisco Franco, or Leonid Brezhnev, or Queen Elizabeth, or Trump already making noises about a third term. They’ve got power and position and only Charon is going to pry it out of their cold dead fingers.

    nk (1d9030)

  324. Then the longest-serving sitting justice becomes Chief Justice.

    Not every justice can run things. Souter? Sotomayor? Blackmun?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  325. Never heard of Barbara Lagoa. But if she is a conservative Hispanic, expect her to be smeared.

    Bored Lawyer (7b72ec)

  326. Queen Elizabeth doesn’t rule her kids, let along the nation.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  327. Kevin @ 329. At least Eisenhower made sure that Earl Warren tucked California into his cleavage in advance.

    nk (1d9030)

  328. The SC should have 99 judges, directly elected, just like any other legislative body

    I want to see the SC justice debates.

    “I promise to make health care a RIGHT!”
    “I promise to put GOD back in the public schools.”
    “I promise to get rid of guns!”
    “I promise to get rid of taxes!”
    “Hail Hydra!”

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  329. At least Eisenhower made sure that Earl Warren tucked California into his cleavage in advance.

    Yeah, well it’s not like Warren was going to not get confirmed. He came very close to winning both parties primaries in 1942.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  330. Did you know that there are like zero hits for “RBG Hitler”, where that’s not true for Scalia.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  331. Haven’t followed all the comments, but here what I think.

    She was an amazing woman and I’m sorry she’s dead.

    Trump’s reaction when he heard was the most human and presidential thing I’ve seen from him to date.

    Everyone that’s passionate about filling this seat has already made up their mind and this doesn’t really change much. There might be a few on the far left that will be more motivated to vote biden, but I expect they mostly live in states he was going to win anyway.

    The appeal to principle on the part of the GOP aren’t persuasive. This really seems to be a case of “We have the power and we want to do this so we will.” I expect that’s how the Dem’s will view it. If they win in Nov and Trump fills this seat I expect dems to feel justified to use whatever powers they have without thought of fairness or precedent . Some on the left wanted to do this anyway, Biden wasn’t one of them.

    I want McConnel to bargin away this appointment. In exchange for assurances not to eliminate the filibuster, not to increase the size of the SC, and not to push to make DC or PR states if the Dems win he should agree to let the winner of the 2020 election make this nomination. I think Trump’s best move for the election is to pick a great nominee announce it. This will remind all the GOP inclined voters who can’t stand his corruption and incompetence, what he does bring to the table.

    Trump loves exercising power over others and has a very short time horizon, so I expect him to nominate someone asap.

    I’m interested in seeing polls to see how this affects the race, if at all.

    Finally, it really is a share she died. I know she was sick and I hope she’s in a better place.

    Time123 (f5cf77)

  332. No how about trying to destroy and pervert institutions like faith and family, like scorpions thats what progressives do and some on the right go along.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  333. We’re talking about Trump. It will all be “What’s in it for me?”

    No how about trying to destroy and pervert institutions like faith and family, like scorpions thats what progressives do and some on the right go along.

    You know what Trump would say to that? He has already said it: “Can you believe that sh!t? Can you believe that people believe that sh!t?”

    nk (1d9030)

  334. What ginsburg and dotty younger sister have wrought.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  335. Not every justice can run things. Souter? Sotomayor? Blackmun?

    I think you’re being silly. These are all very smart people. And they will have had decades of experience on the court before being asked to run things.

    If the country can (cross fingers…) survive four years with Donald Trump as President, I’m not too worried about the Chief Justice.

    Dave (1bb933)

  336. This was not mentioned on The 6:30 pm TV news. Seeing the papers the next day surprised me. Many public figures conceal their true nearness to death. We had been led to believe it was not so close. I wonder if something about the treatment brought it closer.

    Sammy Finkelman (7c54bd)

  337. Trump is to faith and family what Dracula is to vegetarianism.

    nk (1d9030)

  338. You didnt believe her rigorous crossfit routine sammeh.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  339. I think you’re being silly. These are all very smart people

    Souter couldn’t even manage his own opinions. Read some.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  340. If the country can (cross fingers…) survive four years with Donald Trump as President,

    I’d settle for 1 year.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  341. I wonder if something about the treatment brought it closer.

    No, it was a reccurance of pancreatic cancer, which is supposed to kill you the first time. Death comes slowly, then all at once.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  342. I say all this as a disinterested observer. This controversy really brings home to me that I have indeed left the Republican party emotionally. I don’t feel the sense of being on either side’s team. I have no desire to advocate for or against a vote.

    This surprises me. How can a “principled conservative” have no opinion regarding a more conservative or more liberal court? How can you care so deeply about day to day shenanigans of corrupt politicians (birm), but not care about the Court that is the foundation of American law? What happens here MATTERS.

    But you opt out? Now?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  343. The New York times in her obituary made absolutely no mention of religion, * as they never do except in cases where the person;s religion was an important factor in her career, or in a book they wrote.

    This despite the fact that hee mother died the day before her high school graduation. They mentioned she could not attend, and her classmates brought many medals to her house but didn’t give any explanation – most likely it was that she was sitting shiva. (it could also be they held the funeral that day)

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/18/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-dead.html

    Celia Bader…had high ambitions for her daughter but did not live to see them fulfilled. She was found to have cervical cancer when Ruth was a freshman at James Madison High School, and she died at the age of 47 in 1950, on the day before her daughter’s high school graduation. After the graduation ceremony that Ruth was unable to attend, her teachers brought her many medals and awards to the house.

    ___

    / The story mentions that she was the Brooklyn-born daughter of Russian Jews, but that is in order to contrast her origins with Sandra Day O’Connor and it is there only as ancestry.

    with ahead of what is probably the pre-written obituary.

    Sammy Finkelman (7c54bd)

  344. More to the point, if I thought this was a party thing — as you seem to — I’d not care very much. I don’t give a crap who wins a given Senate seat and BESIDES THE SUPREME COURT I don’t care a whole lot who wins the election, given what a terrible choice we have.

    But I would feel a F of a lot better about Biden winning with 6-3 right-of-center on the Court.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  345. We have a terrible ruling class. Congress sucks and both presidential candidates suck harder. But let me have one institution that has a foot in the sea of sanity.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  346. 348/ Since the location where a cancer originates is not really what distinguishes one cancer from another, it might be the treatment (a particular chemotherapy used for pancreatic cancer maybe) that brought about her somewhat sudden death – also doctors have away of killing cancer patients with morphine, ignoring the damage to the liver that cancer causes.

    Sammy Finkelman (7c54bd)

  347. Biden wasn’t one of them.

    Biden will veto it, then they’ll remove him and Kamala will sign it and before I die there will be 23 justices and 13 new amendments.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  348. Time123 (f5cf77) — 9/20/2020 @ 7:11 pm

    If they win in Nov and Trump fills this seat I expect dems to feel justified to use whatever powers they have without thought of fairness or precedent

    I would expect the Democrats to abolish the filibuster for legislation (which they seem about set to do anyway) and add two more seats to the Supreme Court and fill them with judicial liberals.

    No more than two, because some Democrats will oppose that. Bernie Sanders has warned that if they pack the court the Republicans could pack it too when and if they gain a majority in Congress and the presidency and pretty soon we’ll have 17 Supreme Court justices if not more.

    Two would be just enough to break even and maintain the current balance on the court, It would go from 5-4 conservative to 6-5 conservative. (One Biden nominee counters the Trump nominee and the other replaces Ginsberg. A 5-4 majority becomes 6-3 and then 6-5 in the spring, only it is a little bit more solid than the previous 5-4, and you might get an outstanding jurist on the bench although Trump may not be heading there.)

    If so, Trump and the Republicans lose nothing by not waiting. If he waits and he wins and the Republicans retain control of the Senate, it would be a 6-3 majority; if he loses and Democrats gain control of the Senate, the two extra justices would just bring things to the point where they would be with the letting Biden fill the Ginsberg seat.

    If he tries and fails it does not affect things too much, and if he doesn’t try there is still a risk of court packing – this time with the Biden getting to name 3 or even more Supreme Court justices. Paradoxically, having a politically justifiable reason to pack the court would limit the scale of the packing. They’d feel that adding 4 or 6 justices would carry with it too much a possibility of retaliation, and a loss of seats in Congress.

    In short: They are more likely to pack the court if a Trump nominee goes through but also more likely to limit their packing to only 2 new members of the court. Which would match the number of appeals court circuits, not counting DC. Giving another reason to stop at 11 justices.

    Sammy Finkelman (7c54bd)

  349. It’s the parties. The old farts hang on too long.

    Everybody from Gingrich to Pelosi; from Schumer to McConnell; both Clintons, all Bush’s…

    For God’s sake I have a copy of Life magazine from June.,1969 kept for the story on Apollo 10– and there’s a damned essay in it by Hillary Rodham.

    The Brits do it better. Quick elections and expunge the defeated. Hell, they ‘fired’ Churchill.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  350. I want McConnell to bargain away this appointment. In exchange for assurances not to eliminate the filibuster, not to increase the size of the SC, and not to push to make DC or PR states if the Dems win he should agree to let the winner of the 2020 election make this nomination.

    How could you negotiate that? The Democrats anyway wouldn’t even pretend to agree to that.

    He could agree to not trying to block, and not to oppose the addition of two more justices to the court if the Dems win control of the Senate and Biden wins if the Dems don’t overturn the filibuster rule but such an agreement is not likely to last. And DC will probably be admitted as a state toward the end of 2021. It won’t cement Democratic control of the Senate. McConnell will need 52 Republican Senators instead of 51 (minus one if the vice president is a Republican)

    Sammy Finkelman (7c54bd)

  351. I think Trump’s best move for the election is to pick a great nominee.

    His best move is to name a great nominee and to have the Democrats attempt to smear that nominee with improbable and patently bogus personal charges a la Kavanaugh right at the point when the nomination is about to get out of committee.

    It might not save Trump but might save several vulnerable Republican senators and Republican control of the Senate.

    But naming a woman is not the way to get the Democrats to make patently false personal charges. Sexual charges probably won;t fly.

    But Bored Lawyer says:

    Never heard of Barbara Lagoa.

    She’s a Cuban American from Florida who was one of a dozen or so mostly pro bono lawyers who worked on the Elián González case on behalf of his Miami relatives.

    She was an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, working in the Civil, Major Crimes, and Appellate Section during the Bush 43 administration and was appointed to various Florida courts by Governors Jeb Bush (in June 2006) and and Ron DeSantis (in January 2019)

    But if she is a conservative Hispanic, expect her to be smeared.

    So maybe there’s hope.

    Mitch Mcconnell anyway is heading toward holding hearings and voting her (whatever female nominee Trump picks) out of committee before the election. Barbara Lagoa does not need much investigation; she was confrimed as a federal appeals court judge on the 11th circuit last November by a vote of 80=15 (and earlier 18-4 in committee) so if they wanted to make a case against her on other than pure ideological grounds they’d have to come up with a smear that came out of nowhere.

    And that’s just what the doctor ordered.

    Sammy Finkelman (7c54bd)

  352. I would expect the Democrats to abolish the filibuster for legislation (which they seem about set to do anyway) and add two more seats to the Supreme Court and fill them with judicial liberals.

    No more than two, because some Democrats will oppose that. Bernie Sanders has warned that if they pack the court the Republicans could pack it too when and if they gain a majority in Congress and the presidency and pretty soon we’ll have 17 Supreme Court justices if not more.

    Why would “two” not be as great an affront as “five”. Either one would result in the Democrats losing both houses of Congress at the midterms because it would be seen as an affront to the Constitution, and it would DESTROY the integrity of the Court. It would rightly be seen as an unprecedented attack on the independent judiciary. Even the THREATS right now will cost them votes in the center.

    And if they did add 2 seats, why would the GOP not add 4 when they had the chance? Or start to impeach judges if they had the chance?

    There has to be a place this stops, and right now the Rubicon is in front of the Democrats (again). What the GOP is attempting is normal, prescedented, and proper. Packing the Court (by adding one justice) was last done during the Civil War, as a wartime expedient to get rid of the majority that thought Dredd Scott was a good idea. It is not a normal thing, and it has not been done for 150 years. I could well see Roberts and his court viewing it as unconstitutional (and who cares what anyone else thinks).

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  353. For God’s sake I have a copy of Life magazine from June.,1969 kept for the story on Apollo 10– and there’s a damned essay in it by Hillary Rodham.

    So, she was carrying water for the Illuminati even back then.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  354. I want McConnel to bargin away this appointment. In exchange for assurances not to eliminate the filibuster, not to increase the size of the SC, and not to push to make DC or PR states if the Dems win he should agree to let the winner of the 2020 election make this nomination.

    How long does this promise last? What other crazy-ass impossible, lose-them-the-next-election thing do they have to promise not to do, too? How about Trump cuts them a deal: If they let him make this nomination he promises not to round up all the illegals?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  355. Hillary Clinton, one of the Democratic presidential candidates, released a statement via Twitter on Saturday that mourned the death of Justice Antonin Scalia and slammed Republican presidential candidates and senators who had called for his seat on the court to remain vacant until 2017.

    “My thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of Justice Scalia as they mourn his sudden passing,” the statement said. “I did not hold Justice Scalia’s views, but he was a dedicated public servant who brought energy and passion to the bench.”

    “The Republicans in the Senate and on the campaign trail who are calling for Justice Scalia’s seat to remain vacant dishonor our Constitution,” she continued. “The Senate has a constitutional responsibility here that it cannot abdicate for partisan political reasons.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/live/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dies-at-79/clinton-slams-republican-argument-for-delayed-scalia-succession/

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  356. I want McConnel to bargin away this appointment. In exchange for assurances

    Time123, Prime Minister Chamberlain on line 3, long distance from Munich.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  357. And get ready for lots more states. 4 in Texas (3 red, one blue), 5 in CA (2-2-1), 3 in NY (1-2), 2 in Illinois, 3 in FL …

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  358. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 9/20/2020 @ 11:28 pm

    Why would “two” not be as great an affront as “five”.

    Because Trump would have a=named a Supreme Court justice in rhe lame duck session of Congress. This could be portrayed as unfair – at least according to the words of Mitch McConnell in 2016.

    Two new justices would just make up for that, restoring the situation to what it would have been had Trump deferred and let the next president (Biden in this scenario) name the replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsberg: A one vote majority in favor of the conservatives with Chief Justice John Roberts being the swing vote. 5-4 would go to 6-5. The conservatives gain one while the liberals lose one and gain two. That’s like each side gaining one.

    But more than two would not be seen as merely countering what Trump did..

    This resembles the United States in the 1803 to 1848 – they always would try to balance the number of slave states and the number of free states.

    And if they did add 2 seats, why would the GOP not add 4 when they had the chance? Or start to impeach judges if they had the chance?

    Because this could be seen as as countering a somewhat illegitimate move by the Republicans – they said so themselves in 2016, and then it was February and now it is September – and because there could be an argument for 11 justices.

    Packing the Court (by adding one justice) was last done during the Civil War, as a wartime expedient to get rid of the majority that thought Dred Scott was a good idea.

    I think they added three (got it up from 7 to 10) and then reduced the number by 1, leaving it at the current 9, and there were other issues, like legal tender, But I need to study the timing of the increase and decrease and the political reasons

    I’m a little wrong: It was actually 1837 when it was raised from 7.

    https://www.history.com/news/7-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-u-s-supreme-court

    The U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should make up the court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices. In 1807, Congress increased the number of justices to seven; in 1837, the number was bumped up to nine; and in 1863, it rose to 10. In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court. Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, where it has stood ever since. In 1937, in an effort to create a court more friendly to his New Deal programs, President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to convince Congress to pass legislation that would allow a new justice to be added to the court—for a total of up to 15 members—for every justice over 70 who opted not to retire. Congress didn’t go for FDR’s plan.

    Sammy Finkelman (7c54bd)

  359. DCSCA (797bc0) — 9/20/2020 @ 10:40 pm

    The Brits do it better. Quick elections and expunge the defeated. Hell, they ‘fired’ Churchill.

    Churchill came back in 1951. He was Prime Minister for the accession and the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. He retired at age 80, on April 5, 1955.

    Sammy Finkelman (7c54bd)

  360. attlee hung around long enough to saddle the uk with the national health service, which impaired britain’s growth for three generations,

    hillary was with the panther’s even then, when she was at yale law, do we ever get them out of our hair,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  361. and biden has been in office, as long as i’ve been alive,

    https://dailycaller.com/2020/09/20/marc-short-jake-tapper-supreme-court-confirmation-senate/

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  362. There has to be a place this stops, and right now the Rubicon is in front of the Democrats (again). What the GOP is attempting is normal, prescedented, and proper. Packing the Court (by adding one justice) was last done during the Civil War, as a wartime expedient to get rid of the majority that thought Dredd Scott was a good idea. It is not a normal thing, and it has not been done for 150 years. I could well see Roberts and his court viewing it as unconstitutional (and who cares what anyone else thinks).

    Partisans always have a reason why their action is normal, prescendented and proper. Apparent escalations aren’t escalations, but a justified response to the other side’s violation of norms or fairness. Any suggestion of working with the other side to de-escalate the situation and establish an agreed upon framework of norms by refraining from using power, is dismissed as appeasement to an unprincipled enemy who cares only about power, will certainly betray the deal, and would never themselves refrain from using power.

    Partisans don’t care about our system of government, they just want their team to win. So they lie to themselves until they can’t imagine how anyone reasonable would see the actions of their side as unfair.

    This POV is a big part of what’s making our country worse over time.

    We use norms a lot more then black letter law.

    The constitution doesn’t mention a filibuster. But we’ve had one for years. It limits the expansion of government and increases the power of the minority. The constitution doesn’t say you can’t appoint a SCJ 7 weeks before a presidential election that you’re currently losing. The constitution doesn’t say you can’t make a city into it’s own state and give it 2 senate seats. Or make a distant, impoverished territory that doesn’t speak the main language into a state. It says the congress establishes the size of the SC, not that there will be 9.

    Mitch needs to use this moment, where he has the power to do something abnormal and, given recent context, unfair, to re-affirm some of the norms we’ve been operating under. Save the filibuster, maintain the courts at 9 justices, etc. Because if he doesn’t I’m sure the Dems will find a tat for this tit. Even if Biden doesn’t want to the pressure from his party will be immense, and our country will get that much worse.

    Time123 (dba73f)

  363. And get ready for lots more states. 4 in Texas (3 red, one blue), 5 in CA (2-2-1), 3 in NY (1-2), 2 in Illinois, 3 in FL …

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 9/20/2020 @ 11:46 pm

    Probably what they’ll try. But it’s harder to split up existing states than it is to make new ones. New ones are just an act of congress. Splitting a state takes that, plus the state legislature, plus a plan that the legislature will pass. Look at those blue parts of Texas and figure how many jobs and taxes are in them. Now think about what the budgets for those three red states will look like.

    Time123 (dba73f)

  364. Anything that minimizes red states and empowers blue states will be. Game.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  365. When you all put it like that, I can see how much Putin might care about how Ginsburg’s replacement plays out. After all, that’s why the USSR planted Trump. To destroy as much of America as possible.

    nk (1d9030)

  366. OT: why is everyone saying DC could be turned into a state by legislation?

    I thought it was explicitly stated in the Constitution. Wouldn’t that take a constitution amendment?

    whembly (c30c83)

  367. As if they care about anything than raw power.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  368. That was the last guy who allowe
    D ukraine to be taken, and gave them rations and medical supplies.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  369. whembly —

    The boundaries of the District of Columbia are not set by the Constitution. Arlington VA was originally part of DC (until the 1820s or so). Just adjust the boundaries and mission accomplished.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  370. Time123 (dba73f) — 9/21/2020 @ 6:48 am

    Any suggestion of working with the other side to de-escalate the situation and establish an agreed upon framework of norms by refraining from using power, is dismissed as appeasement to an unprincipled enemy who cares only about power, will certainly betray the deal, and would never themselves refrain from using power.

    You say this as if everyone has forgotten recent history. As if this is some sort of alternate-reality. And by refraining from using power you mean not nominating a SCOTUS replacement. Something until Friday evening was considered a normal thing for a POTUS to do when there was a vacancy.

    Partisans don’t care about our system of government, they just want their team to win. So they lie to themselves until they can’t imagine how anyone reasonable would see the actions of their side as unfair.

    Who do you think is lying to themselves? We’ve now got blue-checkmarks D’s openly calling for violence and BLM/A has been busy doing just that for a couple of months while blaming Trump and “the right”. If the situation were reversed and the D’s had the senate and the WH with an election pending do you think they would wait until after the election? Especially, if, as you say, they were losing? We already have proof that they wouldn’t even when they thought they were going to win. RBG and Biden both agreed with nominating a SCOTUS before the election in 2016 and then changed their tune in 2020. So, what decides the precedent?

    What happened to the norms during the Russia probe, impeachment, or the Kavanaugh hearing? They were thrown away because it was more important to get Trump. There’s already talk of another round of impeachment, at the end of a term, to “slow down the SCOTUS nomination”. The D’s are now admitting that nothing is off the table but this has been true for a while. The D’s reaction to Trump since 2016 is that there are no norms because norms like elections are how we got Trump. Every discussion of restoring norms involves the D’s getting what they want in exchange for a promise to not do something worse later and the R’s are partisan for not agreeing.

    There is no use telling R’s they need to restore norms given the recent history and D’s saying they intend to flush them when they get back in power. The Blazing Saddles strategy of the D’s putting a gun to their head (everyone’s head really) and demanding to be put back in power would be laughable if this weren’t real life.

    frosty (f27e97)

  371. Because if he doesn’t I’m sure the Dems will find a tat for this tit.

    The Ginsburg nomination was approved 96 to 3, almost ten years after Borking became a verb and four years after Thomas’s high tech lynching.

    One party has been giving the middle finger to norms, never waiting for a tat, and it’s that party that needs to re-establish norms. That they never will is not a reason for the other party to unilaterally disarm again.

    beer ‘n pretzels (d6c4fd)

  372. @377 ah… okay. They could change the boundries to include NOVA, so that it’d ensure that the DC “state” would forevermore be a Democrat state.

    Although, that would also make the leftover VA more likely Republican.

    whembly (c30c83)

  373. Succintly succintly put.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  374. If Obama or Dubya showed up at my door right now and asked me to lend them $20 I would be reasonably sure I’d get it back, but not so with Trump or Pelosi.

    These days I think it would be dumb to make any deal one party to another. That’s the way it is. No way the democrats ever honor a thing they promise McConnell or Trump today. Trump supporters may not accept it, but this is why W was more effective.

    A Supreme Court appointment is perhaps the most powerful thing a president does. The GOP made clear in 2016 that a late appointment breaks the concept of democracy and that they would honor this claim in the future. They didn’t mean it and it’s shameful and embarrassing.

    But Trump has the power today, might as well use it, because this isn’t a minor thing to hand over in the interest of comity that isn’t coming. If the appointment is awful, the voters get to say something about it, and the next president gets to act accordingly, perhaps the legislature doesn’t act on it (a lot of Senators are up for re-election, a lot of them are tired of Trump).

    Tactically, after Trump has screwed up his handling of a pandemic with sickening results, and I could list the other scandals of the year, why wouldn’t Trump change the subject to another Kavanaugh-like episode that will probably benefit him?

    Dustin (4237e0)

  375. I was thinking that it may not be long before any vacancy where the other party controls the senate goes unfulfilled, no matter when in the president’s term it occurs.

    If the only principle is “anything we have the votes to do should be done, because the other side would do it,” why would you ever confirm the minority party’s nominee?

    Dave (1bb933)

  376. RE: Admission of extra state

    Two times a portion of a state was split off to make another state, the first time in 1820, as part of the Missouri Compromise. Missouri was admitted as a slave state, and in compensation, Maine was split off from Massachusetts (with which it was not contiguous, being separated by New Hampshire.

    The second time was after the election of Abraham Lincoln when Republicans began slowly adding states.

    First, of course, was Kansas in 1861. Admitted as a free state. That settled that. (even before that, Minnesota and Oregon had been admitted as free states in 1858 and 1859. Southern politicians could see the handwriting was on the wall.)

    Then in 1863, West Virginia was carved out of Virginia. Virginia had officially seceded and was in no position to object. It consisted of mountain counties that were pro Union and had seceded from the state. This was not the way other states, like Louisiana, that were partially under the control of pro Union people were handled. In those cases they started to establish a state government for the entire state.

    I saw a Bicentennial Minute in 1976 where they made the mistake of thinking it West Virginia was not a state til then. That’s what happens when your only source is charts and tables and you don’t even wonder why some place so far to the east only became a state in 1863.

    The, in 1864, to do a little bit help Lincoln win re-election, Nevada was admitted as a state. Maybe some people thought they;d made a mistake in making California so big. Nevada was called the great Pocket Borough in the 20th century. Now Nevada, helped by its ability to make different laws than other sates has grown in population and now actually has more people in it than West Virginia!

    Nebraska in 1867 was more or less normal. Colorado was admitted into the Union in 1876, perhaps for its 3 Electoral votes, (every new states starts with only one member of the House of Representatives, until the next Census) which were the last Electors ever picked by a state legislature.

    In general I think new states didn;t get added unless the incumbents felt they would gain, but they did often enough

    In 1889 and 1890, with the election of the Benjamin Harrison Administration, (which was elected only because of the Electoral College) five six new states were added: Dakota on November 2, 1889 (which was split into North Dakota and South Dakota. President Benjamin Harrison deliberately shuffled the papers before he signed them so nobody would be able to say which was the 39th and which was the 40th state. This kind of thing I think had no legal significance but was important to some people) then Montana on November on November 8, Washington on November 11 and then Idaho and Wyoming on July 3 and July 10, 1890 respectively. I need to check but that one week delay might have cased Wyoming to wait one year for its star in the U.S flag because I think it is based on the number of sates on the previous July 4.

    he Republican Party didn’t get so many Senators because some were populists.

    Utah had to wait until 1896 because it was Mormon and the issue of polygamy

    https://ilovehistory.utah.gov/topics/statehood/index.html

    Oklahoma became a state only in 1907 because a lot it was formerly Indian territory. Statehood is when Jim Crow came to Oklahoma by the way.

    Arizona was split off from New Mexico in 1863 (intended as a free territory – southerners had earlier wanted to admit New Mexico as a slave state.)

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico_Territory

    But they were not admitted as states until January and February 1912 (New Mexico first) I don’t know what held it u for nearly 50 years – maybe too many Democrats (southerners) there. That completed the 48 states of the Continental United States.

    Alaska and Hawaii were made into states in 1958 and 1959. Alaska was expected to be Democratic and Hawaii Republican. Within 10 or 15 years both states had reversed themselves. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi likes now to point this out when the idea of making DC into a state is criticized as being done for partisan advantage.

    By the way, in the latest twist, DC will still be the abbreviation, but instead of standing to Disrrict of Columbia, it would stand for Douglass Commonwealth. Douglass (for Frederick Douglas) as the name and Commonwealth like Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. Or maybe not.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statehood_movement_in_the_District_of_Columbia

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  377. Frosty & BeerAndPretzels, As i wrote before

    Apparent escalations aren’t escalations, but a justified response to the other side’s violation of norms or fairness.

    Time123 (dba73f)

  378. Dustin wrote

    But Trump has the power today, might as well use it, because this isn’t a minor thing to hand over in the interest of comity that isn’t coming. If the appointment is awful, the voters get to say something about it, and the next president gets to act accordingly, perhaps the legislature doesn’t act on it (a lot of Senators are up for re-election, a lot of them are tired of Trump).

    Tactically, after Trump has screwed up his handling of a pandemic with sickening results, and I could list the other scandals of the year, why wouldn’t Trump change the subject to another Kavanaugh-like episode that will probably benefit him?

    I think you’re right, but I want to see some poling. There’s a good chance that the people really motivated by this are already decided. I wonder if the best ‘move’ for Trump is to pick a good nominee and wait until after the election to put it forward. Doing so allows him to claim the moral high ground, keep leans republican voters interested, and he can still push it forward in the lame duck sessions. If they confirm a replacement before the election the need Trump less, and it will further motivate the Dem base.

    I also agree here that the principle at state is “We have the power and want to do this.” Which isn’t a good principle if you like limited government.

    Time123 (dba73f)

  379. I was thinking that it may not be long before any vacancy where the other party controls the senate goes unfulfilled, no matter when in the president’s term it occurs.

    If the only principle is “anything we have the votes to do should be done, because the other side would do it,” why would you ever confirm the minority party’s nominee?

    Dave (1bb933) — 9/21/2020 @ 8:43 am

    We’ve been heading in this direction. It’s a common complaint of the party that lacks the Senate that the Senate is holding up the process. I’ve heard Pelosi and Biden complain about that.

    While the GOP is being hypocritical, of course the democrats are too, and we can just flip the script on all procedural matters every few years. I wouldn’t be surprised if one side’s speech writers reviewed the opposite’s arguments so they didn’t miss any good ones. They really are clown shows.

    The only solution is to reduce how central the federal government is in everything we do. It shouldn’t really be that often the Supreme Court changes my life, even rarer for the president to change it, but these days they are more important than my local government is.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  380. I also agree here that the principle at state is “We have the power and want to do this.” Which isn’t a good principle if you like limited government.

    Time123 (dba73f) — 9/21/2020 @ 8:53 am

    I agree. It’s actually awful.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  381. whembly (c30c83) — 9/21/2020 @ 7:39 am

    why is everyone saying DC could be turned into a state by legislation? I thought it was explicitly stated in the Constitution. Wouldn’t that take a constitution amendment?

    The constitution gives Congress the right to establish such a district, with the limitation that it cannot be bigger than 10 square miles, but it doesn;t require it. In fact, one was not created till after the constitution went into effect (obviously) wars andit took till 1800 to set up shop there. The fderal government started in New Yirk, but quickly moved to Philadelphia, which in many ways was the first capital of the United States.

    Besides which, they would retain the district, only make it much smaller, limiting it mostly or entirely to non-residential federal buildngs and parks. The Capitol, the white House and the mall would stay in it, I presume. Oh wait, wait a second, wouldn’t that give a few dozen people maybe even 3 Electoral votes in preeidential elections becauseof the 23rd amendment? I suppose they could just fail to give it a government which could appoint Electors – otherwise, if somebody set up an elections people could camp out there in the fall of leap years and maybe get a third choice into the Electoral College!

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  382. If the only principle is “anything we have the votes to do should be done, because the other side would do it,” why would you ever confirm the minority party’s nominee?

    You’re late to the party, Dave. What do you think Borking means?

    Borking gave us Justice Kennedy instead, so it worked. It also can be argued the expectation of Borking gave us Souter as well.

    beer ‘n pretzels (cd0a6e)

  383. #390, I figure the Dems will stack the court, and add new states to keep the stacked court longer. Then the GOP will do the same thing when they get the chance in the future.

    Time123 (653992)

  384. Coming in 2024? Thousands of people, of different political views, descend on Washington and register to vote before the deadline of October 9, camping out within the confines of the remaining vestige of the District of Columbia. None of them, to be legal voters can vote in their old place of residence.

    It will be most easy for residents of Douglass Commonwealth, Northern Virginia, and parts of Maryland within the Beltway.

    They may not actually have to camp out for more than 30 days – they could vote by absentee ballot, ad sleep in their own bed, and maybe won;t even have to retain a reserved space on the sidewalk, the Lincoln Memorial, the street, or the steps of the Capitol. Just so long as that’s their legal residence and they have a Post Office Box or something so they can get mail.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  385. Time123 wants to pay ransom for a hostage the kidnappers already executed.

    beer ‘n pretzels (7f2992)

  386. the objective is to wipe out the opposition, so you there will be no retaliation,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  387. 302. Come to think of it, Donald Trump could do this now, and it would be much easier because you have the whole current territory of the District of Columbia to choose from. He could put a couple of hnndred of his supporters, or even a thousand or two up at his hotel (legal self campaign contribution) or at other locations in Washington. But, on the other hand, because there are so many regular voters in the current District of Columbia he’d have to get about 100,000 of his people to re-register to vote in DC in order to outpoll the regular residents – and he’d only get a measly 3 Electoral votes. And he’d also need to be careful that one of them are from Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan or Wisconsin.

    This tactic is most useful for someone, or could be in a vastly shrunken District of Columbia, (provided somebody set up an election process) to someone who was just hoping to get into the Electoral College n the hopes that, in the event of almost perfect tie, the House would pick him or her asa compromise candidate.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  388. Time123 (dba73f) — 9/21/2020 @ 8:48 am

    As i wrote before
    Apparent escalations aren’t escalations, but a justified response to the other side’s violation of norms or fairness.

    Yes, and I wrote who do you think is lying to themselves?

    There are two things going on here pretending to be one. The first is a straightforward issue about how SCOTUS seats are filled. The second is using the terms “norm” and “fairness” to describe the attempt to make a deal concerning the SCOTUS seat.

    For the first, I’m not saying this is a justified response to the other side’s violation of norms or fairness. I’m saying that the norm is for a sitting POTUS to nominate a SCOTUS replacement and the senate considering it. It doesn’t need justification, it was the position of everyone until 2016, and it was the position of everyone in 2016. The only issue in 2016 is what “advise and consent” means. It is only an issue now because Trump and because RBG.

    For the second, my comments about violations of norms and fairness are directed at everyone now climbing on their soapbox trying to make a deal after the last four years. How do you make a deal with someone about “norms and fairness” when they’ve got a long history of ignoring them and are now saying they will ignore them in the future? Let’s cover that again, how do you make a deal with someone who has and is currently telling you they will break the deal as soon as they can? The D’s are currently trying to convince the R’s to delay filling the seat in exchange for D’s not doing a bunch of stuff, some of which would amount to committing political suicide.

    frosty (f27e97)

  389. 387. Dave (1bb933) — 9/21/2020 @ 8:43 am

    I was thinking that it may not be long before any vacancy where the other party controls the senate goes unfulfilled, no matter when in the president’s term it occurs.

    We might be there already. It hasn’t actually happened since 1991.

    In New Jersey, vacancies remained for years. In New Jersey they need to be renominated.

    https://newjerseyglobe.com/judiciary/n-j-supreme-court-the-christie-court.

    Wallace’s seat remained vacant for six years until Christie and Sweeney final struck a deal in 2016.

    Christie withdrew Bauman, a Republican, and instead nominated Walter Timpone, a 66-year-old Democrat with ties to both parties.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  390. The term “Borking” implies that Bork was deserving of a Supreme Court seat. His actions during the “saturday night massacre” showed that he was not.

    Davethulhu (c5e21e)

  391. Trump intends to name a nominee on Friday, or possibly Saturday, even if Ruth Bader Ginsberg has not yet been buried in Arlington National Cemetery (is she eligible as the widow of a veteran of the peacetime 1950’s Army?)

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  392. Davethulhu (c5e21e) — 9/21/2020 @ 9:45 am

    The term “Borking” implies that Bork was deserving of a Supreme Court seat. His actions during the “saturday night massacre” showed that he was not.

    Then it should have been enough for a senator to say they were voting no because of that.

    There will be people who read this, agree with it, and then deny that there is any sort of ends justify the means thinking going on.

    frosty (f27e97)

  393. au contraire, ruckelhaus and richardson should have been barred from further employment, to serve the agenda of an agrieved passed over bureaucrat, mark felt, who had no qualms about domestic surveillance,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  394. For the first, I’m not saying this is a justified response to the other side’s violation of norms or fairness. I’m saying that the norm is for a sitting POTUS to nominate a SCOTUS replacement and the senate considering it. It doesn’t need justification, it was the position of everyone until 2016, and it was the position of everyone in 2016. The only issue in 2016 is what “advise and consent” means. It is only an issue now because Trump and because RBG.

    When I heard that the GOP was refusing to hold hearings and vote on Garland I was surprised. That seemed abnormal to me to refuse to hold hearings and a vote. I agree that it was within their legal power. At the time the justification given was that the upcoming election. But that was clearly just a pre-text.

    For the second, my comments about violations of norms and fairness are directed at everyone now climbing on their soapbox trying to make a deal after the last four years. How do you make a deal with someone about “norms and fairness” when they’ve got a long history of ignoring them and are now saying they will ignore them in the future? Let’s cover that again, how do you make a deal with someone who has and is currently telling you they will break the deal as soon as they can? The D’s are currently trying to convince the R’s to delay filling the seat in exchange for D’s not doing a bunch of stuff, some of which would amount to committing political suicide.

    Not entirely sure I understand what you’re getting at here. It sounds like you’re saying that the no deal can be struck because the dems are an unprincipled enemy who cares only about power, will certainly betray the deal, and would never themselves refrain from using power.

    It also seems like you’re saying the Dems lack leverage because it would be bad for them politically to violate norms around court stacking. Could be True, not really sure.

    Time123 (dba73f)

  395. The term “Borking” implies that Bork was deserving of a Supreme Court seat. His actions during the “saturday night massacre” showed that he was not.

    Maybe then you can explain why he was confirmed for a DC Circuit Court appointment by a unanimous Senate in the early ‘80s, just five years prior.

    The reason was his blockbuster video rental choices, because the Blasey Ford approach wasn’t refined yet.

    beer ‘n pretzels (011a17)

  396. “Maybe then you can explain why he was confirmed for a DC Circuit Court appointment by a unanimous Senate in the early ‘80s, just five years prior.”

    Because the circuit court isn’t the supreme court.

    Davethulhu (c5e21e)

  397. the actual soviet tool ted ‘the swimmer’ kennedy, was the architect of that sordid affair, and biden was his renfield,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  398. @405

    Because the circuit court isn’t the supreme court.

    Davethulhu (c5e21e) — 9/21/2020 @ 10:15 am

    Well true. But, the circuit court isn’t some low hanging fruit.

    SCOTUS only hears hundreds of cases. Circuit court hears THOUSANDS.

    Having “your judges” in the circuit court is meaningful.

    It’s why Reid nuked the filibuster for circuit court under Obama.

    whembly (c30c83)

  399. “Well true. But, the circuit court isn’t some low hanging fruit.”

    The detailed answer almost certainly involves politics that have been lost to the mists of time.

    Davethulhu (c5e21e)

  400. I think Bork explained his firing of Cox by saying he didn’t want the whole Department of Justice to be unable to function.

    (and actually also I think it was that he hadn’t promised not to)

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  401. Time123 (dba73f) — 9/21/2020 @ 10:01 am

    At the time the justification given was that the upcoming election. But that was clearly just a pre-text.

    There was no pre-text. The R’s didn’t want BO to name another SCOTUS and the senate didn’t confirm it. What would have been the purpose of a hearing and vote when the outcome was set? You’re getting on a soapbox because they didn’t go through a useless process and have a floor vote for no?

    Not entirely sure I understand what you’re getting at here.

    Well, there are a couple of options. One of the reasons politicians are elected is to name SCOTUS judges. Why strike a deal to not do that at all? Oh, I remember strike a deal or D’s burn everything down.

    It sounds like you’re saying that the no deal can be struck because the dems are an unprincipled enemy who cares only about power, will certainly betray the deal, and would never themselves refrain from using power.

    You are using words that I wouldn’t use. I’m not calling anyone an enemy. But the D’s have said they wouldn’t make the very deal they are now demanding, i.e. they wanted to name a SCOTUS at the end of a POTUS term with an election coming up. They wanted to do it even though they were a minority in the Senate. They R’s said they didn’t want to do that. Now the R’s want to name a SCOTUS and the D’s don’t want to do it. The D’s are now saying the exact same situation applies (with the exception of the pesky minority/majority thing) and calling the other side hypocrites while ignoring their own hypocrisy. So, unprincipled isn’t unreasonable. I noticed you aren’t claiming the D’s would make the deal they are currently demanding from the R’s. Do you think they would or do you agree that the D’s are unprincipled?

    There is no reason to make a deal with someone who has and is currently saying they will break the deal. There is also no reason to make a deal on these terms.

    It also seems like you’re saying the Dems lack leverage because it would be bad for them politically to violate norms around court stacking.

    I’m saying this is why it’s a bad deal. They want the R’s to do something now against their political interests that will favor the D’s in exchange for not doing something in the future that would harm both sides. It’s yea ole classic mafia shakedown, i.e. give the D’s what they want and we get to keep some nice things until the D’s change their minds.

    frosty (f27e97)

  402. Well i say they are, they abetted the soviets during the cold war at home and the criminals abroad now they protect the terrorists and libel the troops

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  403. “I think Bork explained his firing of Cox by saying he didn’t want the whole Department of Justice to be unable to function.”

    Well, that and Nixon promised him a supreme court seat.

    Davethulhu (c5e21e)

  404. There was no pre-text. The R’s didn’t want BO to name another SCOTUS and the senate didn’t confirm it. What would have been the purpose of a hearing and vote when the outcome was set? You’re getting on a soapbox because they didn’t go through a useless process and have a floor vote for no?

    I think we’re agreeing. The GOP had the votes to do what they wanted and they did it. I expect the Dems to use this same principle when they gain power. My assumption they will use this regarding the size of the supreme court, despite the fact that several leaders in their party (e.g. Biden) have been clear that they think it’s a bad idea.

    Time123 (653992)

  405. I expect the Dems to use this same principle when they gain power.

    Yep, no doubt, since they’ve used that principle for 30+ years.

    beer ‘n pretzels (9c3e31)

  406. @414, I don’t think they have. I don’t think either party has. I think both parties have been restraining themselves based on norms, past practice, and the assumption that those norms will be used going forward. I think both parties have been pushing at those norms and I think it’s been happening more and more. I think refusing to hold hearings or a vote on garland was a signifigant escalation. I think pushing through a replacement for RGB will be another. I’m not sure what the Dem response will be, but I expect it to be court packing. I don’t think either party is the blameless victim.

    Time123 (dba73f)

  407. Time123 (dba73f) — 9/21/2020 @ 10:01 am

    When I heard that the GOP was refusing to hold hearings and vote on Garland I was surprised. That seemed abnormal to me to refuse to hold hearings and a vote.

    You could think they could simply vote the nomination down. And a vote is actually all Obama felt he could ask for.

    But perhaps McConnell wanted to make things easier for a few of his members, and he could have been afraid he would lose a few,if it was someone like Merrick Garland.

    And then that would be the first nomination to fail on a floor vote where the opposition gave no other reason for opposing the nomination other than judicial philosophy. Most Senators don’t seem to want to be quite open about it.

    Are they worried it is too close to voting yes or no based on particular cases?

    (Democrats are more open about that, but they talk as if judges should have a free hand and then what kind of people their judicial candidates like.)
    o
    .

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  408. I think refusing to hold hearings or a vote on garland was a signifigant escalation. I think pushing through a replacement for RGB will be another.

    No mention of the filibuster change by Reid, no mention of Borking or high tech lynching or Blasey Ford. If you don’t think those were significant escalations, then certainly your position makes total sense.

    beer ‘n pretzels (ee1554)

  409. 415. Time123 (dba73f) — 9/21/2020 @ 11:43 am

    I’m not sure what the Dem response will be, but I expect it to be court packing.

    But I don’t think they want to bring up that up, except in odd corners, before the election, because the idea that this is irreversible would motivate their voters perhaps by angering them..

    And the idea that they would do it if they controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency would motivate Republicans and could cause some of the people running for election or re-election to commit themselves on that score in a a negative way.

    And there is pushback for this, and since it might turn out not to be possible for them to pack the court, whether just a little or a lot, they can figure why bring it up?

    Of course, Chris Wallace could force the issue.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  410. If you don’t think those were significant escalations, then certainly your position makes total sense.

    He didn’t say that. You whatabouted him.

    He said refusing to have a hearing on Garland was an escalation. Obviously that is correct, and a big reason why folks would be sore to see everyone flip flop today.

    He doesn’t have to list every time the democrats have tried to shoot down a GOP nomination in a hearing for his point that refusing to have the hearings at all is a big deal. Obama was elected, had the power to nominate a justice, and the GOP did not advise and consent, but rather just waited because they claimed such a late nomination should be handled after the election. Now that we’re going to have an even later nomination probably get a hearing, that’s more aggressive than Anita Hill or Blasey Ford saying what they have to say in a hearing.

    This is why Patterico is so exasperated. If both sides start from the conclusion that what their side wants is obviously what should happen, and just gathers decades of reasons for it, we’re not having a conversation.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  411. @419 It may seem like an escalation… there’s actual precedent for McConnell to refuse a hearing for Garland.

    This is literal exercises of political power. Tit for tat.

    However, it’s indisputable that it’s the Democrats who leading the escalation game, and it’s Republican responding in kind.

    So, the question becomes: When one party escalation, what should the other party do?

    whembly (c30c83)

  412. Time123 (653992) — 9/21/2020 @ 11:21 am

    I think we’re agreeing. The GOP had the votes to do what they wanted and they did it. I expect the Dems to use this same principle when they gain power.

    Yes, to a degree. Having the votes and voting is called democracy. Being the POTUS and doing what the Constitution says POTUS does is called normal. Using procedure to your advantage is called using procedure to your advantage. It’s not unfair, unprincipled, or evil. Based on where this argument is going I’m expecting to find out that I really should be trying to figure out how to pay more taxes.

    My assumption they will use this regarding the size of the supreme court, despite the fact that several leaders in their party (e.g. Biden) have been clear that they think it’s a bad idea.

    Deciding that you don’t like this and planning revenge is fine. It’s expected. But don’t cloak it in principles. We’ve abused that excuse enough for the last 4 years. I don’t see this as a tit-for-tat. She died in Trump’s term. If the D’s had the majority we wouldn’t be having this discussion because they’d have already removed him “because they can” with no principles required. If the people vote in clowns that will do this it’s also called democracy. If that’s something that concerns you stop voting for clowns and telling the R’s they have to be the adults who pick up the slack.

    beer ‘n pretzels (9c3e31) — 9/21/2020 @ 11:27 am

    Yep, no doubt, since they’ve used that principle for 30+ years.

    Nope. I expect the D’s to do it when they can because it’s been done for as long as the US Congress has been voting.

    frosty (f27e97)

  413. @417, as I said. Both sides have been escalating for years.

    Time123 (8caea5)

  414. @421, ok. Next step will be more judges when they have the votes. It’s legal, guess that’s where we’re at.

    Time123 (8caea5)

  415. @420, All partisan Dems disagree with you. All partisan republicans agree with you.

    Time123 (8caea5)

  416. @419 It may seem like an escalation… there’s actual precedent for McConnell to refuse a hearing for Garland.

    There’s always an argument. But put the shoe on the other foot… and there’s also always an argument. It seemed like an escalation because not having a hearing at all is indeed an escalation from centuries of hearings, with only extraordinary examples where there wasn’t.

    You’re right it was an exercise of power. The Senate isn’t obligated to advise and consent. They can just procedurally jack it up.

    it’s the Democrats who leading the escalation game, and it’s Republican responding in kind.

    I am tired of this kind of argument, that their team is bad because they are bad, so our team does what we do too. That’s what Time123 is on about. It may be naive to not play this tit for tat, but it’s also naive to justify making things worse because the other side made things worse.

    Ideally, the federal government’s role in our lives is reduced so we don’t get so desperate about it. That is not what Trump has accomplished, not what Bush accomplished, probably not what Reagan accomplished.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  417. @424

    @420, All partisan Dems disagree with you. All republicans agree with you.

    Time123 (8caea5) — 9/21/2020 @ 1:29 pm

    FIFY.

    Seriously though…

    What did Republicans do prior to Borking that warranted it?

    What did Republicans do that warranted Thomas’ high tech lynching?

    Did we all forget the wheeling and dealing GWB had to go through to get some of his judges approved? Frankly, that whole ordeal seems normal than the crap we’re seeing now.

    What about (not whatabouting here!) Harry Reid nuking the filibuster for Judges/Circuit Judges? Just because GOP wouldn’t give their approval doesn’t mean the nukage was the only way. Obama could’ve “moderated” is picks a bit, or negotiated a 2 for one trade sort of things.

    Then, consider Gorsuch… why did McConnell nuke the filibuster? Because he wanted to?

    Cherry on top: The whole Kavanaugh hearing…what did Republicans do that warranted that insanity?

    whembly (c30c83)

  418. Whembly the one thing I’m sure of is if I look up whatever GOP actions the Dems used for justification for Bork (saturday night massacre?) i’d be told that it’s OK because of something else. I’m not trying to argue that The GOP/DEMS started it. I’m saying that at some point and agreement on norms needs to happen. This seems like a good time for the GOP to do so, since their argument in 16 is at odd with their argument now. Unless the principle really is “we have the power.”

    Which is a principle that gives us 1 or 2 new states and a 17 justice Supreme court. Both outcomes I think are terrible.

    Time123 (306531)

  419. Time123 (8caea5) — 9/21/2020 @ 1:14 pm

    @421, ok. Next step will be more judges when they have the votes. It’s legal, guess that’s where we’re at.

    That’s where we’ve always been. Always a couple of votes from the ledge. The ledge hasn’t moved and no one is pushing D’s over it. They’re running towards it convinced they’d rather jump than live in an America where they have to compromise.

    It’s not that hard to stop voting for clowns whose version of democracy involves burning it all down if they don’t get what they want. Take a step back and ask yourself what’s the worst that comes from Trump getting another SCOTUS pick.

    frosty (f27e97)

  420. Frosty, I’m not arguing they should do this. I’m arguing they will, because that’s how the game is played now. Someone needs to change the game in some way to break the cycel of tit for tat. After the GOP does this I’m going to argue that the dems should agree to not pack the courts in exchange for something. We already know that they’ll say.

    Time123 (ca85c9)

  421. Time123 (306531) — 9/21/2020 @ 2:11 pm

    I’m saying that at some point and agreement on norms needs to happen. This seems like a good time for the GOP to do so, since their argument in 16 is at odd with their argument now. Unless the principle really is “we have the power.”

    Well, it’s a day that ends in y. It’s always a good time for the R’s to give in to the D’s. Why isn’t this a good time for the D’s to try sticking to their previous story? They were good with filling a SCOTUS seat in ’16.

    frosty (f27e97)

  422. Time123 (ca85c9) — 9/21/2020 @ 2:39 pm

    After the GOP does this I’m going to argue that the dems should agree to not pack the courts in exchange for something. We already know that they’ll say.

    It would be good for everyone that more people did this. Enough to convince the D’s to return to something akin to normal. The alternatives are all bad.

    frosty (f27e97)

  423. Well, it’s a day that ends in y. It’s always a good time for the R’s to give in to the D’s. Why isn’t this a good time for the D’s to try sticking to their previous story? They were good with filling a SCOTUS seat in ’16.

    I don’t know that is as persuasive as you seem to think it is.

    Time123 (ca85c9)

  424. Time123 (ca85c9) — 9/21/2020 @ 2:55 pm

    I don’t know that is as persuasive as you seem to think it is.

    Exactly. I don’t think it’s persuasive at all. You don’t either. That is the point. It’s sarcasm. There is never a day when D’s are expected to do something against their interests. Principles and compromise only go one way. Tribalism is bad when R’s do it and what D’s are doing isn’t tribalism. All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.

    frosty (f27e97)

  425. What dumb thing to say.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  426. There is never a day when D’s are expected to do something against their interests. Principles and compromise only go one way.

    That’s because you have a much better memory of the grievances partisan media use to agitate you, and you easily forget about what didn’t happen.

    The Democrats had enough votes to filibuster Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts and Alito…did they?

    Dave (1bb933)

  427. No Trump.

    nk (1d9030)

  428. you just need eight or twelve more years failmerican greatness to appreciate president donald mr nk

    Dave (1bb933)

  429. Dave (1bb933) — 9/21/2020 @ 4:44 pm

    That’s because you have a much better memory of the grievances partisan media use to agitate you

    So, you’re criticizing me for having a memory and paying attention? I guess it makes the gaslighting a little harder.

    The Democrats had enough votes to filibuster Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts and Alito…did they?

    D’s have shown sanity in the past. How does that change things now? In addition to threats of future violence and destruction you want extra credit for a few examples of being reasonable in the past?

    I still haven’t seen any actual reasoning behind why a POTUS shouldn’t nominate someone for SCOTUS during his term other than we really really don’t want Trump replacing RBG.

    frosty (f27e97)

  430. @438 Do you understand that every time they escalate to let the majority get things done more easily without the consent of the minority that it isn’t a win for the Rs or a win for the Ds? It’s a win for Big government. They fool you by making you think it’s a win for your tribe, but the Ds will have equally this power when their time comes to escalate things so that it looks like a win for their tribe, when really all they are doing is gathering more and more and more and more power into their own hands and tribalists let them do it because they think their guy has won this round. No, both governmental entities win from this in the long run. You know who loses? Us. We lose. All of us. Democrats, Republicans, non-party affiliated. They are just stealing marbles from eachother and we keep handing them ours because we want to help our tribe out, but all the stolen marbles go into the same hidden bin somewhere that they share and we don’t get any.

    Nic (896fdf)

  431. The Democrats had enough votes to filibuster Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts and Alito…did they?

    Next Dave will remind us all those times Democrats could’ve smeared a nominee with false eleventh hour allegations, but chose not to.

    beer ‘n pretzels (d6c4fd)

  432. Nic (896fdf) — 9/21/2020 @ 5:27 pm

    Yes. And I’ve complained about every erosion of the filibuster. I’m in favor of putting back the original version. The first erosion was just letting senators filibuster without holding the floor and that was abused. But I don’t hear anyone asking for it back. They’re just asking for a mulligan and complaining about how the other side is just mean meanies for not giving them one.

    frosty (f27e97)

  433. Sorry for the OT, but I thought you might find this more interesting than Star Trek: https://www.thedailybeast.com/redstate-covid-troll-streiff-is-actually-bill-crews-and-he-actually-works-for-dr-anthony-fauci

    nk (1d9030)

  434. Since he was more on point, on many topice i doubt he worked for fauci who has been wrong since 1986.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  435. @442 So basically he spent the last 16 years of his life lying to most of the people who saw on a day to day basis and breaking the trust any of them thought they might have with a coworker and then trashing them over and over and over again in public. He may have partisan cred, but how could anyone believe, after this, that he has any kind of ethics, morality, or honor?

    Nic (896fdf)

  436. I still haven’t seen any actual reasoning behind why a POTUS shouldn’t nominate someone for SCOTUS during his term other than we really really don’t want Trump replacing RBG.

    That isn’t my point, although it may be someone else’s.

    My point is that stonewalling Garland was OK, and railroading the Dems on RBG’s replacement would be OK, but doing *both* is the equivalent of going nuclear and declaring that anything goes.

    You will claim that it’s all the Democrats’ fault, but in reality it is a major escalation, and it is the GOP who is doing it.

    Dave (1bb933)

  437. Before we had cameras in Congress, they used to do this in a week or so.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  438. So, the question becomes: When one party escalation, what should the other party do?

    Back down and hope they don’t want too much next time?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  439. What did Republicans do prior to Borking that warranted it?

    The filibustered Abe Fortas in his bid for Chief. This was in part due to serious ethics concerns, particularly his habit of being LBJ’s spy at the Supreme Court. Also, he took money in shady deals. But still the Dems looked for payback.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  440. Frosty, I’m not arguing they should do this. I’m arguing they will, because that’s how the game is played now. Someone needs to change the game in some way to break the cycel of tit for tat.

    OK, how about this: The Supreme Court rules 6-3 that packing the court for political advantage is unconstitutional. I can make a better case for that than has been made for abortion.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  441. My point is that stonewalling Garland was OK, and railroading the Dems on RBG’s replacement would be OK, but doing *both* is the equivalent of going nuclear and declaring that anything goes.

    Why? You assert this but why? What norm of behavior is violated? All the things have been done before. No change is made to Senate rules to accomplish it. The President is WELL within his rights to send someone up, just like Obama did. The Senate is independent. Poor President Tyler (“His Accidency”) had TWO seats he couldn’t fill, when his own party held the Senate.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  442. My bottom line is this: Let the Democrats try to pack the Court, accuse them of attacking the independent judiciary and destabilizing the Supreme Court. Then sue when they try and see what Roberts does.

    If they persistt, use it to beat the doors off them in 2022, without Trump making things hard, with the election a “referendum on court packing.” Then impeach the two justices.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  443. But you will NOT stop this behavior by giving in, any more than you stop a child’s tantrums by giving them candy. Sanity has to come from their end.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  444. The Democrats had enough votes to filibuster Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts and Alito…did they?

    It wasn’t until Reid showed them that they thought the public would stand for it. And when Reagan was president they were right. After the 2000 election they decided to act up and nobody opposed them. Why would giving in again work better this time?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  445. Now you know why the Founding Fathers avoided any reference to political parties on their second try w/t Constitution after befouling themselves w/t Articles of Confederation. They just didn’t know how to manage dealing with a crate full of snakes. That hasn’t changed. These two major political parties suck so very much.

    … and Putin smiled.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  446. My point is that stonewalling Garland was OK, and railroading the Dems on RBG’s replacement would be OK, but doing *both* is the equivalent of going nuclear and declaring that anything goes.

    Why? You assert this but why? What norm of behavior is violated? All the things have been done before. No change is made to Senate rules to accomplish it. The President is WELL within his rights to send someone up, just like Obama did. The Senate is independent. Poor President Tyler (“His Accidency”) had TWO seats he couldn’t fill, when his own party held the Senate.

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 9/21/2020 @ 11:50 pm

    In 2016 the GOP said that we shouldn’t let the president fill the seat in an election year.
    In 2020 the GOP says that we should let the president fill the seat in an election year.

    They didn’t say “We have the votes to do what we want, so we will.”

    Your political strategy might work. I doubt it. Someone needs to plan things out for longer then just the next move and with more of a goal than just their immediate political advantage. It’s clear that GOP won’t. I doubt that the DEMs will either. Because of people who care only about their political team and not our country our country is made worse.

    Time123 (235fc4)

  447. One more day of Trump in the White House is worse than 50 years of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez on the Supreme Court as far as I’m concerned. Let’s not lose sight of the forest for the trees. That toilet needs to be flushed!

    nk (1d9030)

  448. It would have taken 50 years for the colonels to complete their business, seriously this extra from glee need not be taken seriously.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  449. Snorfle. Maybe in a place whose only contributions to Western culture are syphilis and the etymology of “cannibal”. Not in Greece. In 3,000 years, only the Romans and the Ottomans have managed to impose a tyranny which lasted for any appreciable length of time in Greece.

    nk (1d9030)

  450. Well the papandreous linger for three generations like a fungus, they were enabled by kgb outlets like ethnos.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  451. @455

    In 2016 the GOP said that we shouldn’t let the president fill the seat in an election year.
    In 2020 the GOP says that we should let the president fill the seat in an election year.

    They didn’t say “We have the votes to do what we want, so we will.”

    Your political strategy might work. I doubt it. Someone needs to plan things out for longer then just the next move and with more of a goal than just their immediate political advantage. It’s clear that GOP won’t. I doubt that the DEMs will either. Because of people who care only about their political team and not our country our country is made worse.

    Time123 (235fc4) — 9/22/2020 @ 5:33 am

    That only works if everyone understood that this happened:

    In 2016 the GOP said that we shouldn’t let the president fill the seat in an election year.
    In 2020 the GOP says that we should let the president fill the seat in an election year.

    This is gaslighting and the Democrats (and media, BIRM™) trying very hard to ignore the context.

    McConnell (and many of the GOP) stated numerous times that when Senate and Whitehouse are held by different parties, it was a rare occurrence to fill the SCOTUS seat.

    It’s a raw political rationale…but a rationale still and their actions is supported by history.

    whembly (c30c83)

  452. Not in Greece. In 3,000 years, only the Romans and the Ottomans have managed to impose a tyranny which lasted for any appreciable length of time in Greece.

    Of course, if you put the two together, they account for about 2,000 of those 3,000 years…

    Silly yogurt-maker.

    Dave (1bb933)

  453. This is gaslighting and the Democrats (and media, BIRM™) trying very hard to ignore the context.

    McConnell (and many of the GOP) stated numerous times that when Senate and Whitehouse are held by different parties, it was a rare occurrence to fill the SCOTUS seat.

    It’s a raw political rationale…but a rationale still and their actions is supported by history.

    whembly (c30c83) — 9/22/2020 @ 7:05 am

    If you think this looks like a principled position you’re dreaming. It’s power politics plain and simple. The response will be more power politics. Stop trying to pretend your teams actions are just & fair & reasonable and start planning out how you’ll deal with the inevitable response of their naked use of power.

    Time123 (235fc4)

  454. Be=ret stephens in the New York Times today has an op-ed piece in the form of an open letter to Mitt Romney n which he lists all the reasons (to prove he knows them) why the nomination of a new justice by President Trump shuld be oushed through but says it shouldn’t be done because they shouldn’t followq thw Democratic Party into the gutter and to confirm now is not in accord with notions of democratic accountability and limited government. (are the Republicans moving, by and large, for judicial modifcations of law? Aside from maybe trying to overturn the Affordability Care Act on the basis that repeling the individual mandate spoiled the law I don’t see it much.)

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/opinion/mitt-romney-supreme-court-nominee.html

    … It isn’t hard to guess what you’re hearing from most of your fellow Republicans as they try to persuade you to cast a vote for President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee before the election. In a nutshell, it’s this: “The Democrats didn’t play by the rules in the past, and you’d be a fool to think they will play by them in the future. So why should we not fill a seat that’s constitutionally ours to have?”

    It’s bad advice. Bad for the country. Bad for the party. Bad for you.

    Lest you think I don’t get the argument, let me rehearse it. There used to be a bipartisan tradition of confirming well-qualified nominees for the court. Democrats trashed it with their trashing of Robert Bork. There used to be a bipartisan tradition of approving well-qualified nominees for lower courts. Democrats trashed it by filibustering George W. Bush’s appellate court nominees. There used to be a bipartisan tradition of respecting the filibuster. Democrats trashed it by blowing up the filibuster in 2013. There used to be a tradition of the Judiciary Committee treating nominees with a sense of fairness. Democrats trashed it when they used uncorroborated allegations to try to block and besmirch Brett Kavanaugh.

    In short, whatever sin is involved in moving forward on Trump’s next nominee this close to a presidential election, it’s a venial one compared with what the other side has done, and may still do.

    Nor, I imagine, is that everything your caucus colleagues are telling you. The left, they say, is engaged in a full-scale attack on traditional American values, from freedom of speech to the presumption of innocence to the right to bear arms to the need to enforce our immigration laws to the broader concept of law and order. These things are too important to hazard on a bare 5-4 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, especially now that John Roberts has succumbed to the lure of being the swing vote. A 6-3 majority might be the only sure defense against this cultural revolution for a generation to come.

    So I get the analysis. And I agree that Democrats have a lot to answer for, the Kavanaugh circus in particular.

    But the questions you might helpfully ask yourself are these: When did any person or party ever get clean by following another into the gutter? And if decades of Democratic transgressions against Senate norms are bad, how are those norms improved by Republican transgressions against them?

    One answer you might hear to this is that it’s no sin for a president to exercise his constitutional right to nominate a judge at any point in his tenure or for the Senate to vote on the nomination. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s confirmation process, after all, took a grand total of some 50 days.

    Yet it was Republicans who unilaterally changed the norms in 2016 to block Merrick Garland’s nomination to fill Antonin Scalia’s seat. And people like Lindsey Graham promised they would live by the new norms, even if it was politically inconvenient. It’s a promise Graham is reneging on, but has a moral obligation to honor.

    You have to wonder if he felt that he’d risk his job or act cordiality or they maybe wouldn’t even print his column, or another one, if he didn’t come down in the end as for voting down this nomination, even if it is a very good one.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  455. 449. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 9/21/2020 @ 11:47 pm

    The Supreme Court rules 6-3 that packing the court for political advantage is unconstitutional.

    I don;t think they could do that, but maywe they could ask any new justices to recuse themselves from controversial cases for four years. But one of the liberal justices would have to agree. (they’d make it work by always voting not to take up such cases and requiring 7 votes to take up a matter.)

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  456. @462

    If you think this looks like a principled position you’re dreaming. It’s power politics plain and simple. The response will be more power politics. Stop trying to pretend your teams actions are just & fair & reasonable and start planning out how you’ll deal with the inevitable response of their naked use of power.

    Time123 (235fc4) — 9/22/2020 @ 7:59 am

    I don’t disagree. Its ALWAYS been power politics.

    But, the context does matter Time123. That’s all I’m saying.

    OF COURSE Democrats didn’t like it. When Republicans were in the minority, they didn’t like it either.

    Both sides are justified in whatever they do because, as you said, it’s an exercise of power. It sucks.

    It is a vicious cycle. I think this is worsened when Democrats nuked the filibuster for appointees/judicial/appellete positions. Just as when Republican riposted with nuking the filibuster for SCOTUS.

    They’ve crossed the Rubicon and it’s only a matter of when, not if, the filibuster will be nuked for legislative bills.

    That’s a shame as the Senate was designed to be more judicious than the sturms and drangs out of the House.

    SO… again… I ask this: when one side ups the ante, what should the other party do? Turn the cheek and unilaterally disarm?

    Or respond in kind and hope that the proverbial sword of damocles on both sides keeps the extreme reactions from both sides from taking hold?

    I will say that, for the most part, Democrats are to blame for these breakdowns. That doesn’t mean Republicans don’t share some of the blame, but by-and-large the fault are when Democrat refusing to negotiate.

    Guy Benson does a great job in breaking this down:
    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2020/09/21/analysis-the-supreme-court-vacancy-n2576511

    whembly (c30c83)

  457. The naked power politics has been getting worse over time. I think laying the bulk of the fault on one party is short sighted. I don’t want to try and debate it, because i don’t think that will go anywhere. I just ask you to consider that Dem-Whembly, your goatee wearing doppelganger has an inverted list of how the GOP primarily caused this.

    I don’t have a solution. The side that has a short term advantage (today that’s the GOP) needs to bargain away some of that in exchange for longer term concessions. I don’t expect they will do that.

    Time123 (457a1d)

  458. @466

    I don’t have a solution. The side that has a short term advantage (today that’s the GOP) needs to bargain away some of that in exchange for longer term concessions. I don’t expect they will do that.

    Time123 (457a1d) — 9/22/2020 @ 10:03 am

    What and how would any concession be enforced.

    Remember, the current Congress cannot tie the hands of future Congress without passing laws. Even then, the future Congress can easily undo it.

    Frankly, ANY concession need to be a high bar, such as a constitutional amendment.

    Any stomach for that?

    whembly (c30c83)

  459. 460. whembly (c30c83) — 9/22/2020 @ 7:05 am

    cConnell (and many of the GOP) stated numerous times that when Senate and Whitehouse are held by different parties, it was a rare occurrence to fill the SCOTUS seat.

    That;s what they said now. This is a new principle – McConnell didn’t add the clause:

    “When do these words apply? (that a Supreme Court nominee shouldn’t be voted on close to a presidential election?) When the senate and the president are of different political parties.”

    This now amended principle works both with 2016 and 2020.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  460. whembly (c30c83) — 9/22/2020 @ 9:44 am

    I think this is worsened when Democrats nuked the filibuster for appointees/judicial/appellete positions. Just as when Republican riposted with nuking the filibuster for SCOTUS.

    It all started when – the filibuster thing dd – when the Democrats started applying the filibuster routinely to judicial nominations. And also the Senate made using the filibuster easy – no need for anyone to actually make a speech for 16 hours.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  461. Sammy. McConnell stated this over and over again on day one. Take notice of the dates:
    https://www.republicanleader.senate.gov/newsroom/research/get-the-facts-what-leader-mcconnell-actually-said-in-2016

    Get The Facts: What Leader McConnell Actually Said In 2016
    Leader McConnell Consistently Explained That A Senate Controlled By The Party Opposite That Of The President Hasn’t Filled A Supreme Court Vacancy In A Presidential Election Year For Over A Century
    February 22, 2016
    Very first Senate floor remarks following the death of Justice Scalia:

    SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY): “Of course it’s within the president’s authority to nominate a successor even in this very rare circumstance — remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago … ” (Sen. McConnell, Remarks, 2/22/2016)

    February 23, 2016:
    Very first McConnell press availability following the death of Justice Scalia:

    SEN. McCONNELL: “You did have to go back to 1888, when Grover Cleveland was president, to find the last time a vacancy created in a presidentially elected year was approved by a Senate of a different party. I think you all understand where we are.” (Sen. McConnell, Press Conference, 2/23/2016)

    Republican Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee: “It is necessary to go even further back — to 1888 — to find an election-year nominee who was nominated and confirmed under divided government, as we have now.” (Republican Senate Judiciary Committee Members, Letter to Sen. McConnell, 2/23/2016)

    March 1, 2016:

    SEN. McCONNELL: “[Y]ou’d have to go back to 1888 when Grover Cleveland was in the White House to find the last time a vacancy created in a presidential year was confirmed by the party opposite the occupant of the White House.” (Sen. McConnell, Press Conference, 3/01/2016)

    March 20, 2016:

    SEN. McCONNELL: “You have to go back to 1888 when Grover Cleveland was in the White House to find the last time when a vacancy was created in a presidential year, a Senate controlled [by the] party opposite the president confirmed.” (Fox’s “Fox News Sunday,” 3/20/2016)

    SEN. McCONNELL: “You have to go back to Grover Cleveland in 1888 to find the last time a presidential appointment was confirmed by a Senate of the opposite party when the vacancy occurred in a presidential year.” (NBC’s “Meet the Press,” 3/20/2016)

    March 22, 2016:

    SEN. McCONNELL: “You’d have to go back to 1888, you do remember Grover Cleveland, right, to find the last time a vacancy created in the Supreme Court in a presidential year was confirmed by a Senate of a different party than the president.” ([Louisville] Courier Journal, 3/22/2016)

    April 5, 2016:

    SEN. McCONNELL: “You’d have to go all the way back to 1888 with Grover Cleveland, a Democrat in the White House, to find the last time a Senate of the opposite party confirmed a nominee to a vacancy on the Supreme Court occurring in a presidential year.” (The Hugh Hewitt Show, 4/05/2016)

    November 9, 2016:

    SEN. McCONNELL: “You’d have to go back to 1888 to find the last time a vacancy on the Supreme Court in the middle of a presidential election year was confirmed by the Senate of the opposite party of the President.” (Sen. McConnell, Press Conference, 11/09/2016)

    February 5, 2017:

    SEN. McCONNELL: “You would have to go back to the Grover Cleveland administration in 1888 to find the last time a Supreme Court vacancy in the middle of a presidential election year was confirmed by the Senate of an opposite party. Joe Biden said in 1992, a presidential election year, had a vacancy existed, they would not have filled it.” (CNN’s “State of the Union,” 2/05/2017)

    October 6, 2018:

    SEN. McCONNELL: “Now look, let’s talk about 2016. I’m glad you brought it up. You’d have to go back to 1888 – 1888 – to find the last time a Senate controlled by a different party than the president filled a vacancy created during a presidential election year. I knew full well based upon what Joe Biden had volunteered in 1992 and Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid had volunteered in 2007 that who controls the Senate when you have a vacancy that close to the election makes a big difference. It’s not a doubt in anybody’s mind here that I’m sure that if the shoe was on the other foot in 2016 and there had been a Republican president making a nomination to a Democratic Senate it wouldn’t have been filled. So we’ll see what it looks like in 2020. First, do we have a vacancy? Second, who is in charge of the Senate?” (Sen. McConnell, Press Conference, 10/06/2018)

    October 7, 2018:

    SEN. McCONNELL: “The Senate is not broken. We didn’t attack Merrick Garland’s background and try to destroy him. We didn’t go on a search and destroy mission. We simply followed the tradition in America, which is if you have a … Senate of a different party than the president, you don’t fill a vacancy created in the presidential year. That went all the way back to 1888. … So what we did was follow tradition. (Fox’s “Fox News Sunday,” 10/07/2018)

    SEPTEMBER 3, 2019:

    HUGH HEWITT: “However, you’ve said you will fill a SCOTUS vacancy if one occurs in an election year this year, and he said that’s hypocritical. And I said no, it’s not. Senator McConnell said last, when the vacancy occurred, that the Senate is a majoritarian institution that Harry Reid created when it comes to nominations. The majority didn’t want to fill that vacancy in 2016. The majority would want to fill a vacancy in 2020. Is that a fair characterization of your position?”
    SEN. McCONNELL: “Absolutely. You’re absolutely correct. In fact, you have to go back to [the] 1880s to find the last time a Senate of a different party from the president filled a Supreme Court vacancy created in the middle of a presidential election. That was entirely the precedent. That was confirmed again by Joe Biden in ’92, by Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer in 2007. There were not vacancies existing at the time, but that was the time when the other party controlled the Senate. There was a Republican in the White House. They were quite forthcoming about that.” (The Hugh Hewitt Show, 9/3/2019)

    DECEMBER 18, 2019:

    HUGH HEWITT: “Let me give an early Christmas present to everyone who is listening. If there is a vacancy by, retirement or any other reason in the year coming up, and I believe it is your position you will fill it, because the majority is in the hands of the party of the President. Am I right?”
    SEN. McCONNELL: “You are entirely correct, and people chose to kind of misinterpret what I said in 2016. You had to go back to the 1880s to find the last time a Supreme Court vacancy occurring in the middle of a presidential election year was confirmed by a Senate of a different party than the president. So yes, we would certainly confirm a new justice if we had that opportunity. And we’re going to continue, obviously, to fill the Circuit and district court vacancies as they occur right up until the end of next year.” (The Hugh Hewitt Show, 12/18/2019)

    FEBRUARY 13, 2020:

    FOX NEWS’ BRETT BAIER: “If the Supreme Court seat were to open up before the November election, would you hold that seat open like you did for Merrick Garland, that rule, to let voters decide which presidential candidate should pick the next justice?”
    SEN. McCONNELL: “Let me remind you what I said in 2016. I said, you’d have to go back to the 1880s to find the last time a vacancy on the Supreme Court, occurring during a presidential election year was confirmed by a Senate of a different party than the president. That was the situation in 2016. That would not be the situation in 2020. I’m not aware of any vacancy, but if you’re asking me a hypothetical about -”
    BAIER: “I am.”
    SEN. McCONNELL: “– whether this Republican Senate would confirm a member of the Supreme Court to a vacancy they created this year –”
    BAIER: “Before November.” MCCONNELL: “Yes. We would fill it.”
    BAIER: “And wouldn’t you hear howls –”
    SEN. MCCONNELL: “I would, but I’d also remind everybody what I just told you, which is the Senate is in the same — of the same party as the president of the United States. And in that situation we would confirm.”
    BAIER: “Will there be any judicial vacancies left unfilled?”
    SEN. MCCONNELL: “I hope not.” (Fox News, 2/13/2020)

    MARCH 31, 2020:

    HUGH HEWITT: “Now Senator, I’ve never done an interview with you without bringing up judges. So you’ve got a 5th Circuit nominee yesterday. When the Senate comes back, will you be acting on judges? And part two, have you heard anything about any retirements from the Supreme Court?”
    SEN. McCONNELL: “I’ve heard nothing about any retirements at the Supreme Court, but of course, we will go back to judges. You know, Hugh, you and I have talked about this before. My motto for the rest of the year is leave no vacancy behind.” (The Hugh Hewitt Show, 3/31/2020)

    https://www.republicanleader.senate.gov/newsroom/remarks/the-american-people-should-have-a-voice-in-the-selection-of-the-next-supreme-court-justice

    02.22.16
    The American People Should Have a Voice in the Selection of the Next Supreme Court Justice
    WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor today regarding the Supreme Court’s vacancy:

    “I recently joined my good friend from Iowa, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, in writing an opinion piece.

    “We expressed our joint view that the death of Justice Scalia represented a significant loss for our country and that, while finding the right person to take the seat he occupied will clearly be a monumental task, it’s one we think the American people are more than equipped to tackle.

    “Some disagree and would rather the Senate simply push through yet another lifetime appointment from a president who’s on his way out the door.

    “Of course it’s within the president’s authority to nominate a successor even in this very rare circumstance — remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago — but we also know that Article II, Section II of the Constitution grants the Senate the right to withhold its consent, as it deems necessary.

    “It’s clear that concern over confirming Supreme Court nominations made near the end of a presidential term is not new. Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and I believe that it is today the American people who are best-positioned to help make this important decision — rather than a lame-duck president whose priorities and policies they just rejected in the most-recent national election.”

    whembly (c30c83)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.4265 secs.