What the GOP would gain by waiting to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Supreme Court seat (Barf Alert)

The Chicago Tribune ^ | September 19, 2020 | Steve Chapman

[PBRCat]

The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gives Republicans the chance to do the right thing. For a president up for reelection in just six weeks, the right thing to do would be to hold off.

It’s widely assumed that the president will soon announce a nominee and urge quick Senate action. But if Trump and his advisers are focused on his reelection, the shrewd choice would be to do the opposite.

What would he gain from this option? First, he would avoid a ferocious battle in the Senate that would most likely jeopardize several incumbent Republicans. Second, he would avoid branding himself and his party as the rankest of hypocrites. Instead, he would look almost statesmanlike.

He would also give his supporters — and particularly anti-abortion voters — a powerful motive to turn out on Election Day. Trump would avoid the risk of needlessly alienating those suburban women who are still undecided.

Some Republican senators must be praying to be spared a vote before Election Day. Given how Mitch McConnell quashed Merrick Garland’s nomination, leaving a vacancy unfilled for 14 months, those questions would be brutally hard to answer.

Trump also has to consider the possibility of a humiliating rejection of his nominee, something that would require the defection of just four GOP senators. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska had already said she would not vote to confirm a Supreme Court nominee before Inauguration Day. Can Trump count on Mitt Romney?

Several GOP incumbents on the ballot this year are trailing in the polls, including Susan Collins, Cory Gardner, Martha McSally and Thom Tillis. If Trump submits a nomination, will they really want to shackle themselves to a president who appears to be headed for defeat?

[NELSON111]

Please Chicago Tribune - gaslight me some more...

[Bayard]

#And then, after a radicalized WH or Congress — assuming some Dem wins — proceed to ignore all the SCOTUS rulings, how will we feel then?#

Oh so an unconstitutional action by the US Government found unconstitutional by the SCOTUS would suddenly face zero opposition from the people?

Write large the perfect justification for a constitutional crisis that will lead to conflict then. But I don’t see a Democratic win this election. Sorry.

[clearcarbon]

Were any SC positions filled during the first civil war?

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

I hope that you are right.

[drSteve78]

“F@@k no! Don’t want to poke the bear!” Says all of the chickenhearts.

Ram’s Dung, i say. Justice Amy Coney Barrett sounds just perfect, and timely.
Who hates winning yet?

[PBRCat]

For sure!

Isn’t it interesting how this helpful advice from the opposing party is almost exclusively a one way street? I cannot recall any conservatives being listened to when offering gratuitous advice to liberals and progressives.

[Blood of Tyrants]

You are assuming that the GOP keeps the Senate. What if they lose it? I’ll tell you what. We’re screwed. There is absolutely NO WAY that the Rats will EVER confirm the nomination of anyone even remotely conservative. Hope is not a plan.