When Democrats have POTUS, the House and 60 votes in the Senate (or elimination of filibuster and 51 votes), they can change the statute and do just that.
It's been done before.
There has to be a conservative black female somewhere in this country. This is a meatball pitch waiting for us to hit a grand slam. Why would we let the Dems off the hook. Make them vote down a black female to the supreme court and see where that gets them.
“...the fair and right course..”
Yeah, just ignore laws and the Constitution.
How hard will Dems scream if an 8 member court, short one clearly defined leftist, decides the outcome of the election because of mail ballot fraud or other irregularities?
Democrats can try but if they do, its a wash because we’re in civil war territory.
So what’s the secret weapon?
democrats play dirty all the time. Republicans should do what they want, and not give a darn about what the media or the democrats think. Just do it!
If the Democrats announce that, the Republicans should accommodate them and expand the court to 13 justices right now - before the November election.
And then fill all the new seats. Right now.
Despite what Biden claimed, Obama’s nominee was not brought up for a vote in 2016 because that was his last year in office, the year he nominated Garland, no president has had his nominee approved under that scenario with an opposition party controlling the Senate since the 1800’s and Republicans controlled the Senate in 2016.
This is not currently the case for Trump as the President and majority Senate are now of the same party. Therefore Trump gets his pick and Obama doesn’t! That’s how it works!!!
Not sure how Romney, Murky et al. think they can keep stabbing us in the back and have any future in the Republican party??
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.
"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."
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.
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.