Posted on 09/19/2020 9:37:57 AM PDT by Mariner
Wouldn’t it be nice if Democrats and Republicans could just agree that the fair and right course would be to not replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg until after the presidential inauguration in January? We could simply stick, for now, with the precedent established by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell when he refused to hold a vote on the nomination of Merrick Garland to replace Justice Antonin Scalia.
At the time, nearly nine months before the 2016 presidential election, he declared, “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.”
But just hours after the announcement of Ginsburg’s death on Friday, McConnell declared, “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”
There is little Democrats can do to stop Trump from nominating someone and the Republicans from confirming that person quickly, if that’s what they choose to do. Republicans hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate, and they have eliminated the use of the filibuster in Supreme Court nominations. So the hope must be that four Republican senators — perhaps those facing tight reelection races — will have the courage to stand up to their party and refuse to allow a confirmation to be rushed through.
That is probably a distant hope. So far, Senate Republicans have shown little inclination to stand up to Trump and McConnell, as was evident in their confirming Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, despite compelling testimony about an alleged sexual assault and perjury — and despite clear evidence that he lacked judicial temperament. Nor did Republicans demonstrate any independence or courage during the impeachment of Trump.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
That is probably a distant hope. So far, Senate Republicans have shown little inclination to stand up to Trump and McConnell, as was evident in their confirming Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, despite compelling testimony about an alleged sexual assault and perjury — and despite clear evidence that he lacked judicial temperament.
This statement shows how liberals live in a different world.
Compelling testimony about an alleged sexual assault? Inconsistent and at times incoherent testimony about what happened when two teenagers rolled around on a bed for 30 seconds 36 years previously, was compelling testimony?
Evidence that he lacked judicial temperment? Because he got visibly angry about the false allegations against him, means that he lacks judicial temperment? The liberals picked this fight, then when he responded as many of us would, then the liberals used that response against him?
As I said, liberals live in a different world, with their interpretations and conclusions drawn from these events.
“confirming Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, despite compelling testimony about an alleged sexual assault and perjury”
No bias there...
Chemerinsky, that champion of civil liberties, maintained a cowardly silence during the Duke lacrosse case when he was a law professor at Duke.
Eff him.
“We could simply stick, for now, with the precedent established by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell when he refused to hold a vote..”
From what I understand, that was not a precedent. There have been other instances where votes were not held in the senate for SC nominees.
Also, the line, “and they (Republicans) have eliminated the use of the filibuster in Supreme Court nominations” is a complete lie. That was established by dim Harry Reid.
Great point, but Dems don’t know the difference between apples and oranges...
Had the dude as a bar review instructor 25 years ago. Thought he was a creep then. Think he’s a creep now.
The law would have to be changed, which could only be done via a total control of the legislative and executive branches by a single party.
This vote will be an institutional, party vote.
All Republicans will fall in line or retire.
There is no other option for them.
"One way for Democrats to make clear they will not tolerate Republicans trying to fill this seat in advance of the election would be for them to pledge that, if they take the White House and Senate in November, they will increase the size of the Supreme Court to 13 justices."
That looks like one of the disguises used on “The Saint” movie.
A parody of himself.
There is so much wrong in that article. But it is a good example of the chum were are going to read over the next six months.
I think the time has come to define the SCOTUS constitutionally. I was ambivalent about filling the seat immediately. The need to have a full court going into an election changed my mind.
I think Trump is in a no win situation. Not doing it, would cost him the Senate. Doing it will mobilize the Dems to the point where I think he could lose some states.
So the conservative side benefits, long term, from a constitutionalist. And packing the court wouldn’t last long.
No other justice in history has become a popular icon in the way she did. She modeled for all of us in how to spend a life working to make society and individual lives better. We only can hope for a new justice in her mold.
Candace Owens :-)
Trump’s secret weapon is a recess appointment. Won’t be permanent but it will ensure a dominant SC should we need a ‘clean’ election day.
So this will be nothing new. Thanks for making the case for our side.
Janice Rogers Brown currently servers on the DC court of Appeals. She’s libertarian, and a black woman from California. It’s too bad she is 71 because I think she would be very difficult for the left to oppose, especially since their VP nominee is from California. She would be the first black woman in SCOTUS and has a very interesting and compelling story.
She is in her current position from George W. Bush, so that would probably help get RINOs on board too.
She would be a huge surprise name to put out there now as it would blow up the left’s narrative. Her age, at 71, makes it tough for those who want a younger jurist, but it would definitely be a think-outside-the-box announcement.
Has Bergoglio made her a Saint yet?
That’s why you have to tell them the way it’s going to be and then make sure they eat all the veggies on their plates.
Yes, court packing is so secret that they have been threatening to do it since 1937. What a let down... is that the best the LA Times has to offer. It is just a reminder to everyone of what they will do regardless, if they get the presidency and the Senate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.