I know this may seem cold, after such a short time, but what is your opinion of how the POTUS is going to fill the replacement of Ruth Bader Ginsburg? And with who?
Categories
I know this may seem cold, after such a short time, but what is your opinion of how the POTUS is going to fill the replacement of Ruth Bader Ginsburg? And with who?
17 replies on “What’s next with SCOTUS”
I heard Charles C. Cooke say that there is no chance that Dems will pack the court, because “What will be their excuse?”. Charles is a smart guy, but apparently, he has not been paying attention, because the Dems don’t need an excuse.
The next time the Dems get the President and Senate, they will pack the court because “orange man bad, and he violated the constitution, and he is a bad orange man, and hitler”.
So, whatever McConnell does, either
1) do it fast, before the election, or
2) Wait until Trump gets reelected , or
3) do it in the lame duck session if Trump gets defeated.
The victory will be short lived.
The only question becomes, which one of the three ways will convince more voters in the USA that the Dems only care about power, not how they get to their end result.
This is one of those times when, for Republicans, the good policy lines up with the good politics (and good optics). They have to go with Option 1, and those in charge (Trump and McConnell) know it.
The “Rs hypocrites because 2016” argument will fail to persuade anyone but rigid anti-Trumpers on both right and left. The spectacle of the Dems doing to a Christian mother what they did to Kavanaugh will far outweigh any accusations of hypocrisy, which happen all the time.
I pray that the Republicans do NOT take Rush Limbaugh’s advice and skip the hearings. I think that would be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The optics would be terrible. Save that argument/tactic for the next appointment.
I have to comment on this again because I have So Many Thoughts.
Ted Cruz is releasing a book this October (I’ll bet it gets rushed and released earlier) about how so many of our freedoms hang by one vote right now on the Court. With John Roberts having turned into a swing vote that thinks precedent is more important than ruling on the merits, it will not be possible to count on his support on any vital issue, and it’s almost beyond doubt that he would not vote to overturn any bad precedent, whether it’s a Commerce Clause case, a civil rights case, or an abortion case.
I think the issue for Trump is that this seat, not the previous two which did not affect the balance of the court, is the seat that he was elected to flip. This is the one. If he doesn’t get a Thomas-caliber textualist confirmed to this seat, we’ve lost not only the Court but many of our most important freedoms, such as our First and Second Amendment freedoms. And all of the rest of the Bill of Rights.
And when you consider that it is almost a certainty that the upcoming election will be litigated all the way up to the Supreme Court, just like Bush v. Gore, with the Democrats demanding recount after recount until they can cheat out a win, it’s necessary to have all nine seats filled.
It’s no exaggeration to say that this is the most important nomination of the next thirty years.
So anyway, I think nominating this next Justice is one of the biggest reasons why Trump was elected. And, based on the rhetoric currently coming out of the White House, he knows it and he is all in.
Just an update for everyone — At the Trump Rally in NC last night Trump pledged to fill the vacancy left by RBG with a woman. It’s a good strategy to replace a woman with another woman. Conservative female voters won’t feel left out and the nominee can be used to flog the Democrats with “sexism” the same way they all tried to flog us with “racism” if we didn’t like Obama’s policies even though that dislike was a matter of politics not pigmentation.
Trump said at the rally that he’ll send a name to the Senate this week.
The only real question is if there’s enough Republicans in the Senate that will vote for the nominee. At least two female Republican Senators have now said they will not vote to affirm a nominee before the election. It remains to be seen if the third “female”, to wit: Mitt Romney, will join them.
I think it’s a safe bet that no Democrat Senators are going to vote for confirmation of a nominee before the election. Their party will beat them to death if they do that. Personally I’d like to see that same degree of pressure brought to bear on Republican hold-outs to confirm.
It’s time to weed out the RINOs, if they’re not going to support what’s best for America then by all means swap party affiliations and join the Democrats attempt to destroy the country.
Bill, Scott, and Steve, I hope you comment on this ASAP!
I think we can count on at least 1 RA and a BWNow covering several aspects of the vacancy.
My guess is that Scott will use the BWNow, in his role as “Journalis” (Dem Operative) to ask Bill about being fair and waiting until after the election.
Steve will likely use his RA to discuss options to fill the seat.
Just guesses on my part. Heck they might do all the RA on this as it’s pretty momentous and I think they could find several different points of view to explore.
Also, it’s worth noting that all of the Democrats (including Justice Ginsburg herself and all of the media) are saying that they want to delay the nomination “until a new president is installed.” The implication being, of course, that at the next inauguration, the president sworn in will not be the present incumbent.
We need to point out to them that a four-year vacancy is not going to happen.
2020 Sucks.
an unfilled vacancy energizes dem voters because they’ll think they’ll be able to fill it. A filled vacancy demoralizes them. Do it before the election!
I am certain he will make the nomination before the election. I suspect that hearings will take place before the election.
I can understand why the Senate might want to delay the actual vote until after the election, but I think it’s risky. Trump is not a lame duck president, so the parallel to 2016 fails.
An unfilled vacancy will energize the left, but I think it will also further energize the right. A lot of those on the right who find Trump personally distasteful understand that he is their last hope to turn the Court for at least a generation. Making the choice concrete instead of hypothetical will get them off their butts to vote for him instead of staying home as some kind of virtue-signalling protest.
trump voters will crawl over broken glass to vote whether this scotus seat is filled or unfilled. Demoralizing dem voters with the scotus seat already filled may help win some of the more marginal states.
I hope you are right. And now he’s announced that the nominee will be female. I hate the identity politics, but now we can be sure of Democrat senators being nasty to a woman because she dares to disagree with them. I wonder if Biden will say that she’s “not really a woman.”
Trump has a list of 20 names but this slot is slated for one of the six females on the lists. Bridget Bade, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals; Barbara Lagoa, 11th Circuit judge; Martha Packold, Northern District of Illinois judge; Sarah Pitlyk, Eastern District of Missouri judge; Allison Jones Rushing, 4th Circuit judge; Kate Todd, deputy assistant to the president.
Leftist heads are exploding across the internet. Her replacement will have to be sworn in very quickly. The left will fight any Trump pick. However I do not think they can block anyone. Trump knows how to get in their head and kick their brain about randomly. I also don’t think the left can walk and chew gum at the same time. This will shatter their electoral manipulation plans. They are literally juggling too many knives now.
Wasn’t there a very conservative Catholic woman who was being considered when Kavanaugh was put up? Different name than the six you have. But I cannot recall it at the moment.
Amy Coney Barrett. She was the odds on favorite before but she had a difficult time getting approved for a circuit court position. It depends on whether Trump’s latest list is everybody or just an addition to his previous list.
That’s her, thanks. I thought what he did was add to his current list to bring it to 20. But don’t know if she is still on the list.
I agree it will probably be a female. The list is an “additional” names list. Trump has released a list of names four time, the last three being additions to the original list.
I personally would like to see Mike Lee. Why? Because that’s who Ted Cruz wants. Also, as a senator he’s comparatively well known; he’s squeaky, squeaky clean; and he might be the most originalist person on the whole list.
Second, I’d hope for Amy Coney Barrett. I would love to see the left “saying the quiet parts out loud” with their anti-first-amendment religious bigotry (and viciousness against conservative females) during hearings that more people would be paying attention to than did during her original nomination, leading up to the presidential election.