Associate Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died. She had a very distinguish life and a distinguished Supreme Court career. Requiescat in pace.
Does anyone seriously believe that President Trump will not appoint and that the Senate Republicans will not attempt to confirm her replacement? I have no idea what effect this will have on the election.
The Republicans don’t have the votes to confirm anyone until after Jan 20 (if Trump and Senate Republicans still hold power).
So it’s all posturing right now.
Let’s see how Trump / Biden / McConnell / Schumer posture.
My first reaction when my wife told me about this, was that I hope they don’t burn down our neighborhood. Not that I think our neighborhood is in any way culpable, but I see riots raging when Trump nominates a replacement and the Senate shows the fix is in (I don’t know that they have to vote before the election).
Trump does not have a choice but to make a nomination; there is a large part of his base that does not like or trust him, but will vote for him for the judicial nominees. That pretty much forces the Senate to take a position and the optimal outcome is probably a candidate that can get 50 votes while allowing a few Republicans in contested elections to show independence.
@Curious, why don’t the Republicans have the votes until January 20th?
I remember the nomination of Marrick Garland and it didn’t play well on Capitol Hill or in the election. So I think restraint is the better play — but we will see.
One thing that should give Republican Senators pause, if Democrats win the trifecta in November and see an inappropriate attempt to confirm a nominee; the Democrats would kill the filibuster and expand the judiciary — stripping the Republicans of any power.
OK, the restraint is a political one. I just wasn’t sure whether I was missing some rule.
2020, what a year…and still over three months to go.
Won’t happen. Game it out. Which is worse? Appointing a new associate justice, losing the White House and Senate in the November election, and having the Democrats “pack the court”? Or not appointing a new associate justice, losing the White House and Senate in the November election, and having the Democrats “pack the court”?
IMO the only way it could happen is if Mitch McConnell saw refraining from confirming a new associate justice between now and November as key to holding onto his own seat. The opposite is more likely. The same train of thought holds true for Trump.
Update
In thinking this through I believe there are ways the Democrats could induce Majority Leader McConnell not to confirm. I just can’t imagine their doing any of them. I think they’re more likely to take their chances.
I think the purpose of such threats isn’t to sway McConnell, but to sway a couple more GOP Senators to deny McConnell the votes he needs. There are already 2 GoP Senators who’ve say they won’t support a vote on any nominee until after the election.
I don’t know enough about the Senate to know if there are others who could be picked off with this strategy, however.
May she rest in piece.
And if we must, I’ve already seen headcounts. Murkowski is no. Collins gets a pass for a no so that she might win, because if Romney Tillis go yes McConnel has the votes. And what if Manchin crosses?
I forgot. Gardner goes no for the same reason as Collins.
By the way, Hillary and her “never concede” friends may rue the day they pretty much have forced a vote to avoid a 50-50 SC. So its back to a point Dave makes later: do your damned jobs, Senators.
They will confirm someone. I think McConnell waits until after the election. That way the Senators on the bubble dont have to answer so many questions. Will the Dems pack the court in return? Not so sure, but wouldnt surprise me. There arent really any rules anymore, just power. To be fair, it does seem like the party that keeps getting the most votes ought to have representation.
Steve
My very first thought was to leave RBG’s seat vacant until after the election.
But then I asked myself the “What would Jesus do†question, except substituting Democrats for Jesus. And, the answer would be they would, without hesitation, chose a nominee, even if the election were the next day.
So, I changed my mind, and think a nominatIon should be made, with alacrity, by the current POTUS.
Furthermore, considering the non-stop, miserable opposition the Dems have created for 4+ years – far exceeding that of any previous loyal opposition party – I truly believe the Democrats and their aggressive surrogates will initiate election chaos, whether or not the republicans choose to exercise replacing Ginsburg before or after the election.
It makes no difference anymore…..
That would be the party that keeps getting the most states, wouldn’t it?
The belly laugher of the day: Juan Williams claiming the nomination and process should be delayed to “protect the dignity of the process.”
The dignity. Right. Bret Kavanaugh might want to be asked about the dignity of the process.
“But then I asked myself the “What would Jesus do†question, except substituting Democrats for Jesus. ”
We only have one example for this hypothetical, and we know what happened to Merrick Garland.
“The dignity. Right. Bret Kavanaugh might want to be asked about the dignity of the process.”
Now which would be worse? Never even having a vote or having some people be mean to you for a few days then having a guaranteed win? The answer is obvious here.
Steve
To be helpful; here’s my suggestion for reducing the risk of an explosion.
Conditional expansion of the Supreme Court.
Enact a bill where the President may nominate 2 additional justices to the court if and only if Ginsburg replacement is confirmed before Jan 20th and the duly qualified President on Jan 20th is from a different party then today (a Democrat). And all three justices join the court only on the confirmation of all 3 justices.
I don’t like tying the Supreme Court to a partisan balance; but it is better then things I have around going around today, organized violence, unlimited Court packing, admittance of DC and PR as States to “pack†the senate.