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 ...
So what if the newly remade Supreme Court declares such Court packing unconstitutional? If a “right” to abortion can be found in a “prenumbra” and “emanation” so can a “right to a non-political Court.”
People also seem to forget that the left was ALREADY going to try to pack the court even if the GOP doesn’t fill this seat.
They’ve made clear that if they get both houses and the Presidency they are going to do all of the following:
1. Eliminate the filibuster completely.
2. Expand the Supreme Court to 13 and add 100 new federal judgeships.
3. Make Puerto Rico and Washington DC States so they will add 4 new hard left Senators.
4. Eliminate the electoral college.
This is already outlined, very clearly as their intention regardless of what the GOP does.
So this is an empty threat.
When Clinton was president, this idiot wrote a book about how the filibuster was unfair.
What fair or unfair to him is whether he gets his way.
We would need both.
Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh
(Roberts, Alito)
Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer
Only the Republicans can stop this ... or delay it to after Trump’s re-election. The GOP is the Democrat/Communist Party’s “secret weapon”; therefore, anything is possible.
I don’t see how considering a black nominee is “silly shit.” Politics is a game of strategy. Nominating a white male, for instance, would probably reduce the likelihood of Senate approval. I hope Trump nominates a solid conservative. black and/or female justice.
That is true but immaterial. The optics of them doing that to a black woman in the run-up to an election would be disastrous for the Dims. Let them do it it will cost them dearly
From the views section of her Wiki entry, "she also described government as a 'leviathan [that] will continue to lumber along, picking up ballast and momentum, crushing everything in its path.'"
Some of the speeches/articles I've found of hers, all from FreeRepublic links:
>>> There has to be a conservative black female somewhere in this country.
Candace Owens for SCOTUS!!!
Good idea, but the House is controlled by the other side. So this aint happening until after the inauguration, and only if Biden wins and the Rats take the Senate. But even if they do, the question is, will enough Democrats go along with it? If they take the Senate it will be by a razor thin margin and, believe it or not, there are a handful of Democrats who are moderate enough that they would likely balk at court packing. I think Mitch has concluded that talk of packing the court is an empty threat. Obviously its a calculated risk. He could be wrong. But I think he has decided that the odds are in his favor and it’s worth the risk.
Hewitt is a LOT of thin gs, but he isn’t a JEW! He says hes an Episcopal Catholic Evangelical......HUH?? Hes at least a Christian.
SOROS is an ANTI CHRISTIAN ATHEIST JEW.....at least that’s what my Jewish husband calls him.
If you can find a well qualified jurist that can rally the base and can preserve the Constitution, but who also can tick off boxes that will get people who may not consider voting for you to take a second look, that’s a win-win.
During the Clarence Thomas hearings, there was no cancel culture, Gen Z, Gen X or Millennials voting. There was no social media and most people did not really watch the TV for the Thomas hearings. That was theater for political junkies only back in the day. Voting down a Black woman today would be the death of the Dems in the current malaise.
Expand it to 15 and fill all the seats now. Because, if you expand it to 13, they will then go to 15. Stupid juvenile game.
C’mon, these are the Dems you’re talking about, remember during #metoo all women are to be believed? How did that work out with Tara Reade and others? Dems wouldn’t hesitate to smear a black female when it comes to SCOTUS and Roe v. Wade. And picking a black female just to pick a black female is disingenuous. Pick the best conservative traditionalist...
...the Republicans should accommodate them and expand the court to 13 justices right now - before the November election.
Very true. A political decision has to weigh many more factors today, and 24/7 rapid fire news cycle and social media echo chamber means any decision will be picked apart, criticized, discussed every which way nearly instantly.
Wow, the very first line of this betrays his ignorance.
That’s why my money is on Amy Coney Barrett here.
"In a long overdue action, the Senate changed its rules to eliminate the filibuster for presidential appointments to federal agencies and to federal court judgeships. Now a nominee will be able to be approved by a majority of the Senators. It’s about time the Senate did this.
...
Eliminating the filibuster will now benefit the Democrats. President Obama will be able to have his picks for the federal judiciary and federal agencies easily confirmed. But there will be a time when there is again a Republican president and a Republican Senate and they will then be the beneficiaries of this action. Only when the president and the Senate are of different political parties are there likely to be significant fights over nominations.
But this is as it should be. The Senate’s action was a long overdue step in the right direction. Next, the Senate should eliminate the filibuster entirely, including for legislation and nominations to the Supreme Court.
While this does not speak directly to this issue, it does illustrate his endorsement of Executive actions like this enlargement of the Supremes under the next Democratic Party Administration!
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.