RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg!

[Heimsveldi]

this is their chance, and they're not wrong to seize that

the problem is with what they're gonna do with it once they get what they want

They have 6 weeks..

Plenty of time

[Diahon]

this is their chance, and they're not wrong to seize that

the problem is with what they're gonna do with it once they get what they want

They have 6 weeks..

they have till next year, or black hole forbid, till 2025

forget norms, they all died when trump won

[Novus America]

this is their chance, and they're not wrong to seize that

the problem is with what they're gonna do with it once they get what they want

They have 6 weeks..

Technically they have until January. Although a lame duck president and lame duck senate pushing through a nominee would be controversial, it is can be done.

[The Black Forrest]

Well, keeping the Supreme Court all Republican is.
Many Liberal Politicians are saying that the proceeding of a new judge should and will be after the election.
The Republicans, on the other hand, want it rushed.

I feel this is just another thing democrats are trying to say so that they can always have their way. Because nowadays, many just can't let the other side get away with anything.
But please don't let this turn into an argument, somebody just died.

If the demos had their way, Kav would not have been placed.

[Kowani]

They have 6 weeks..

Technically they have until January. Although a lame duck president and lame duck senate pushing through a nominee would be controversial, it is can be done.

I feel like we'd see a major backlash if that happened.

[Diahon]

They have 6 weeks..

Technically they have until January. Although a lame duck president and lame duck senate pushing through a nominee would be controversial, it is can be done.

like they give a shit about controversy

this year alone proves controversy ain't enough to dislodge the unworthy from power, from trump on down

[Novus America]

Condolences to her friends and relatives, and may the Democrats be able to filibuster it so that the Republicans can't replace her until after the election year.

They cannot. The filibuster has been eliminated for judicial nominees. Besides the filibuster is just tradition, the Senate could eliminate it with just a simple majority. The Senate can change its own rules any time with a simple majority.

The only ones who can stop it are Republicans.

[Bombadil]

They have 6 weeks..

Technically they have until January. Although a lame duck president and lame duck senate pushing through a nominee would be controversial, it is can be done.

That assumes they maintain the senate..

[Salus Maior]

They might try to keep the nominee spot open, as incentive for reelecting Trump for those who want conservative justices.

[Diahon]

Technically they have until January. Although a lame duck president and lame duck senate pushing through a nominee would be controversial, it is can be done.

I feel like we'd see a major backlash if that happened.

isn't the pandemic a major backlash? aren't the protests a major backlash? and so on and so forth

the gop doesn't give a shit anymore

[Kowani]

Condolences to her friends and relatives, and may the Democrats be able to filibuster it so that the Republicans can't replace her until after the election year.

They cannot. The filibuster has been eliminated for judicial nominees. Besides the filibuster is just tradition, the Senate could eliminate it with just a simple majority. The Senate can change its own rules any time with a simple majority.

The only ones who can stop it are Republicans.

Technically, they could fight every senate committee and confirmation hearing to drag it out.

[Novus America]

Technically they have until January. Although a lame duck president and lame duck senate pushing through a nominee would be controversial, it is can be done.

I feel like we'd see a major backlash if that happened.

Sure there would be a major controversy, but those who already lost election would have nothing to lose, and many would have 4 to 6 years before they have to run again. It could happen. It might not either, but it is not outside the realm of possibility.

[The Black Forrest]

McConell issued a statement. https://twitter.com/Yamiche/status/1307 ... 73/photo/1

Couldn't even wait until her body was cold.

Impressive and emboldened to be such a liar.

[US-SSR]

Some thoughts:

1. If there were any prolife Republicans thinking of voting Biden, they are not any more. My guess is there would be precious few of those.

b. It's far from certain that McConnell can get 51 Senators (or 50 Senators and Pence) to vote for a replacement in what remains of the current Congress. Should that happen and Biden wins with a Democratic Senate, the first order of business in January 2021 will be expanding the Supreme Court and naming and confirming new Democratic Justices; the first being Merrick Garland. Should that not happen and Trump wins with a Democratic Senate, it will be awhile before there are nine Justices again.

[Heimsveldi]

McConell issued a statement. https://twitter.com/Yamiche/status/1307 ... 73/photo/1

Couldn't even wait until her body was cold.

Impressive and emboldened to be such a liar.

He's a politician of course he's a fucking liar.

[Novus America]

They cannot. The filibuster has been eliminated for judicial nominees. Besides the filibuster is just tradition, the Senate could eliminate it with just a simple majority. The Senate can change its own rules any time with a simple majority.

The only ones who can stop it are Republicans.

Technically, they could fight every senate committee and confirmation hearing to drag it out.

They could, but with a 50 votes the Republicans could still just end the hearings. If 50 Republicans vote for the nominee, it is over. Any delaying tactics by the Democrats require some level of Republican support, or at least inaction.

[The Black Forrest]

They might try to keep the nominee spot open, as incentive for reelecting Trump for those who want conservative justices.

Another 4 years of incompetence and graft for a conservative judge?

[US-SSR]

They might try to keep the nominee spot open, as incentive for reelecting Trump for those who want conservative justices.

Strikes me as wishful thinking on the part of Democrats. How many people would not vote for Trump or stay home if there were a Republican majority on the Supreme Court? Damn few I'm after thinking.

[The Black Forrest]

Technically, they could fight every senate committee and confirmation hearing to drag it out.

They could, by with a 50 votes the Republicans could still just end the hearings. If 50 Republicans vote for the nominee, it is over. Any delaying tactics by the Democrats require some level of Republican support, or at least inaction.

They may get it. Some republicans think long term. Is it worth to own the court to loose the house and the senate long term?

[Bombadil]

Impressive and emboldened to be such a liar.

He's a politician of course he's a fucking liar.

He's not lying per se here, what he's saying is the Senate makes the decision, whatever that decision is, they decided not to support in '16 and they're deciding to support now, that is it.

Of course, to US-SR's point that simply paves the way to the Democrats simply expanding the courts should they gain control of the Senate with a Democrat president.

The norms of US politics are shot through, but regardless it's going to be an ugly 6 weeks on top of an already ugly year, when will 2020 say '..and now for the finale!'

[Salus Maior]

They might try to keep the nominee spot open, as incentive for reelecting Trump for those who want conservative justices.

Another 4 years of incompetence and graft for a conservative judge?

Probably.

[The Black Forrest]

Another 4 years of incompetence and graft for a conservative judge?

Probably.

Well? If you want to invalidate the SCOTUS then let trump do it.

[Novus America]

They could, by with a 50 votes the Republicans could still just end the hearings. If 50 Republicans vote for the nominee, it is over. Any delaying tactics by the Democrats require some level of Republican support, or at least inaction.

They may get it. Some republicans think long term. Is it worth to own the court to loose the house and the senate long term?

They might, but I doubt it would really hurt them in 2022 or 2024. People pretty quickly forget.
The partisan lines are already pretty sharply drawn, I doubt this will flip many votes.

We will just have to see. I am not saying what will happen, just trying to to clear up that the Democrats cannot stop it without Republican support or at least inaction. Which they might, or might not get.

Of course if the Democrats win all three, house, senate and president they could vote to expand the court to say 13, although that would probably be even more controversial.
But many norms are out.

There are so many variables at this point it is hard to predict the outcome of this. Of course RBG should have retired a while back, but that is another matter. Had she retired in 2009 that would have made more sense.
But that is not what happened.

[Zurkerx]

RIP. I didn't agree with all her rulings, but she was exceptionally a bright woman and had quite the influence. She'll be missed.

[Diahon]

They could, by with a 50 votes the Republicans could still just end the hearings. If 50 Republicans vote for the nominee, it is over. Any delaying tactics by the Democrats require some level of Republican support, or at least inaction.

They may get it. Some republicans think long term. Is it worth to own the court to loose the house and the senate long term?

the courts are the one place where electoral accountability won't dislodge the unworthy, where the repercussions will be felt till the black hole sets up shop

shit's longterm as fuck, yo