Justice Ginsburg dies

[Belsnickel]

One of the discussions being had is around court packing if they approve a Trump nominee. I've seen some folks on the left advocating for retaliation in the form of completely dismantling the filibuster and upping the number of Justices to 11 if they take the Senate and the White House in November.

So here is the problem with that. Public mood via polling (which could change based on current circumstances) surrounding nominating a Justice at this point is low. Most voters don't want it to happen. However, even fewer voters approve of court packing. That's the political gambit being played right now. McConnell risks a higher likelihood of losing control of the Senate if they push through a nominee, but it's a bet they're willing to take if they can put another Justice on the bench because the long-term implications of the move are strong and the Democrats will likely not retaliate with court packing because of the approval.

It's very interesting to watch.

[Belsnickel]

(09-21-2020, 12:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Was there ever any doubt?  Here's the problem though, the hypocrisy is rampant on both sides.  If you were against not filling the vacancy in 2016 then you have to be against it now, otherwise you're a hypocrite.  If your position in 2016 was that the next president should fill the seat and you're for filling the seat now then you're a hypocrite.  Ginsburg herself was against not filling the position in 2016, stating something along the lines of the president doesn't stop being the president in their final year in office.  You cite precedent, but precedent is not law, it's not binding in any sense.  I also have zero doubt that if it was a Dem POTUS and a Dem controlled Senate that they'd be confirming before the inauguration.

So essentially it's a massive group of hypocrites all contradicting their former positions.  In other words, business as usual in DC.

I think what bugs me the most are the excuses for reversing course. When I hear them from the likes of MConnell and Graham I just get sick. I just wish they'd own up to their positions and say that it's entirely because of the power grab and for no other reason. Every politician that tries to give an excuse other than they want the power this affords on their side is full of shit and I just want them to own up to it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-21-2020, 12:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think what bugs me the most are the excuses for reversing course. When I hear them from the likes of MConnell and Graham I just get sick. I just wish they'd own up to their positions and say that it's entirely because of the power grab and for no other reason. Every politician that tries to give an excuse other than they want the power this affords on their side is full of shit and I just want them to own up to it.

Oh, on this we completely agree, it's a bunch of bullshit.  A SCOTUS seat is so valuable that both parties will do whatever they can to fill them, it's about the power of the court and nothing else.

I do hope the Dems don't try and pack the court if they win on election day.  I honestly think that would be the straw that breaks the camel's back and the beginning of the end of the US.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-21-2020, 11:12 AM)GMDino Wrote: I had to just get off social media for the most part over the weekend because the comments were just mind-blowingly stupid.

RBG was a decent human being to devoted so much of her life to helping.

As to the politics:  Too many of my friends think because the Democrats wanted the Garland nomination to go through that *THEY* are the hypocrites for telling the Republicans to stay consistent and not nominate anyone now.  The disconnect is maddening.

Had the GOP allowed the nomination in 2016 then the Democrats would have no argument now...but they didn't so they do.

Not that Republicans (or their supporters) care.  They will simply do what they want and then DEMAND they be treated as equals when/if they are in the minority again.  For once I hope that if that happens the Democrats rub the GOP's nose in the crap they are spewing. 

If you are on the other side of the argument from 2016 then you are a hypocrite.  I thought Garland should get a vote, and I think Trump's nominee should get a vote, but if the Democrats want to do what they can to hold off the vote then that's fair payback, but not the way it should be.

[*bfine32*]

In 2015 I thought it was wrong to deny Garland at least a hearing. The only difference I see this time around was in 2016 we knew the current POTUS was not going to get reelected. We don't know that for a fact this time.

The GOP would be fools not to hear a nomination made by POTUS.

[*bfine32*]

(09-21-2020, 10:47 AM)Benton Wrote: I don't remember the date, but Trump released a list of potential replacements 'should there be an opening soon' the first week of September.

Maybe option three: they're all bad trying to gain political points off RBG's death?

The crazy thing is: The only thing Trump can do "wrong" is exactly what Obama did.

Unless by some logic folks feel a POTUS running for reelection provides a short list of people he'd consider for a SCOUTUS opening is wrong. I'm sure there will be those that do.

[Belsnickel]

(09-21-2020, 01:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The GOP would be fools not to hear a nomination made by POTUS.

Absolutely. The Democrats would also be fools not to fight it tooth and nail.

[BmorePat87]

Just to be clear, Trump's nominee will get at least two votes. They will get a vote in committee. On the floor, there will at least be a vote for cloture.

Garland's nomination wasn't even brought up in committee. His nomination was treated as if it never occurred.

If Murkowski, Collins, and two others vote against cloture, that will be a completely different action than what occurred to Garland.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-21-2020, 01:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Absolutely. The Democrats would also be fools not to fight it tooth and nail.

True, but at the end of the day there's really nothing they can do to stop it.

(09-21-2020, 01:09 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Just to be clear, Trump's nominee will get at least two votes. They will get a vote in committee. On the floor, there will at least be a vote for cloture.

Garland's nomination wasn't even brought up in committee. His nomination was treated as if it never occurred.

If Murkowski, Collins, and two others vote against cloture, that will be a completely different action than what occurred to Garland.

That's why I think the vote won't be held until after the election.  At that point you're either won, and you're safe for six years, or you've lost and have nothing to lose.  I think the only possible no votes after election day would be Romney and Murkowski.  I don't think Romney can afford to keep bucking the party though, he's on thin ice as it is.

[Belsnickel]

(09-21-2020, 01:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: True, but at the end of the day there's really nothing they can do to stop it.

Eh, not so true. There are some things that can be done, even in the House, to delay things.

[BmorePat87]

(09-21-2020, 01:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: True, but at the end of the day there's really nothing they can do to stop it.


That's why I think the vote won't be held until after the election.  At that point you're either won, and you're safe for six years, or you've lost and have nothing to lose.  I think the only possible no votes after election day would be Romney and Murkowski.  I don't think Romney can afford to keep bucking the party though, he's on thin ice as it is.

He rebounded back from impeachment. I think he can weather this if he weathered that, but I agree that we're more likely to see action after the election.

Collins is down and is more likely to lose if she votes yes. Graham is in a tight race and voters will see clips of him saying "hold my words against me in 2020" from now until November. Kelly is on track to win Arizona. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-21-2020, 01:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Eh, not so true. There are some things that can be done, even in the House, to delay things.

Delay, yes.  Stop, no.  Cocaine Mitch gets to set the Senate agenda and judicial appointments are on a separate calendar from ordinary business.  Plus Reid nuking the judicial filibuster got rid of that possible tactic.

As for the House, pulling another impeachment out of their rear would be a horrible move on their part and, IMO, really hurt them on election day.

[*bfine32*]

(09-19-2020, 01:01 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Viewing this a different way:

I'm no fan of Trump. That is no secret to anyone. And, I wasn't excited about his prior two choices. But, they have proven to be anything but the party-line "yes men" many critics thought they would be. Sure, I haven't agreed with all of the things they sided on. But I have agreed on some.

In short, maybe a third Trump pick would not be the "end of the world"?

This is a good point. I'm pretty sure Gorsuch has become the court's new swing vote. 

[Belsnickel]

(09-21-2020, 01:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Delay, yes.  Stop, no.  Cocaine Mitch gets to set the Senate agenda and judicial appointments are on a separate calendar from ordinary business.  Plus Reid nuking the judicial filibuster got rid of that possible tactic.

As for the House, pulling another impeachment out of their rear would be a horrible move on their part and, IMO, really hurt them on election day.

Another impeachment of Trump? I agree. I could see an impeachment of Barr, though, based on the goings on with the Flynn case. The scathing friend-of-the-court brief recently filed on that situation has really grabbed some attention.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-21-2020, 01:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is a good point. I'm pretty sure Gorsuch has become the court's new swing vote. 

You spelled Roberts wrong.

(09-21-2020, 01:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Another impeachment of Trump? I agree. I could see an impeachment of Barr, though, based on the goings on with the Flynn case. The scathing friend-of-the-court brief recently filed on that situation has really grabbed some attention.

I would agree if Pelosi hadn't already poisoned that well by stating an impeachment would help delay/stop Trump's SCOTUS nominee from being confirmed.  An impeachment of anyone at this point will look brazenly partisan and an abuse of the process.

[CKwi88]

(09-21-2020, 01:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Absolutely. The Democrats would also be fools not to fight it tooth and nail.

The question is what teeth and nails do they have really? Even though there are well over 4 senators on record saying that there shouldnt be a vote, the odds of more than 3 of them maintaining that is next to zero.

Hypocrisy and obstruction are hardly news on Capitol Hill, but I fear that this might be the (formal) end of any semblance of bi-partisanship in congress, and passing legislation will simply depend on having 50 senators plus the presidency. 

[Benton]

(09-21-2020, 01:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The crazy thing is: The only thing Trump can do "wrong" is exactly what Obama did.

Unless by some logic folks feel a POTUS running for reelection provides a short list of people he'd consider for a SCOUTUS opening is wrong. I'm sure there will be those that do.

Your post was about McConnell and Biden doing wrong by suggesting the right thing to do before RBG was buried, but Trump had done no wrong since he didn't do the same thing; I suggested he was just as wrong, maybe more so, in that he suggested her replacement before she was even dead. 

[Mickeypoo]

(09-21-2020, 01:09 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Just to be clear, Trump's nominee will get at least two votes. They will get a vote in committee. On the floor, there will at least be a vote for cloture.

Garland's nomination wasn't even brought up in committee. His nomination was treated as if it never occurred.

If Murkowski, Collins, and two others vote against cloture, that will be a completely different action than what occurred to Garland.

But the White House was Dem and Senate Rep. with Garland.  

Has a SCOTUS ever been confirmed when opposite parties held the White House and Senate?

[Mickeypoo]

(09-21-2020, 01:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: True, but at the end of the day there's really nothing they can do to stop it.


That's why I think the vote won't be held until after the election.  At that point you're either won, and you're safe for six years, or you've lost and have nothing to lose.  I think the only possible no votes after election day would be Romney and Murkowski.  I don't think Romney can afford to keep bucking the party though, he's on thin ice as it is.

But do we want an 4-4 court with the very real possibility of a contested election?  That could get very ugly.

[Belsnickel]

(09-21-2020, 03:19 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: But the White House was Dem and Senate Rep. with Garland.  

Has a SCOTUS ever been confirmed when opposite parties held the White House and Senate?

That is irrelevant.

(09-21-2020, 03:22 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: But do we want an 8-8 court with the very real possibility of a contested election?  That could get very ugly.

I think you mean 4-4, and the court isn't 4-4, it's 5-3. Also, the Republicans were willing to risk that in 2016; why not now?

This just goes to my earlier statement: I wish they'd just admit it's for the power and get rid of all the excuses.