Who will go against Mitch?

Iris GW

To leave the RGB thread alone, this one is to talk about what will be done about her replacement. Mitch McConnell has released a statement that he will hold a vote on the Senate floor, going against what he said should be done in 2016. Biden is leading Trump in the polls, signaling that the American people want a change yet he declares that the GOP has a mandate to move forward.


However, senators can choose whether or not to go along with his hypocrisy. Supposedly, Lisa Murkowski has spoken that she will not.



SaveComment237Like7
Comments (237)
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Bunny

Does she mean it this time?

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
foodonastump

I was just wondering if everybody would fall in line or if any have any fairness and decency within them.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

She will accept a very large bribe as usual. Same with Susan Collins. I have zero respect for any Republican at this point. They will sell out our country as they have shown already by allowing Trump to run roughshod over the Constitution.

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
foodonastump

Maybe Collins will join her. For a bit.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
gyr_falcon(Sunset 23)

I suspect moscow mitch knows exactly how many close race vote exemptions he can give, and not have it matter. I'm fine with being proved wrong and him not having enough support for the next act of hypocrisy, though.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Iris GW

Already, Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine have said that there is not enough time to confirm someone before November.

Collins told The New York Times earlier this monnth that she'd oppose seating a nominee in a lame-duck session if Joe Biden wins the White House.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/18/politics/congress-fight-rgb-seat/index.html

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Lars(Z11a (coastal L.A.) and Z9a (desert))

They have until Jan 20, even if Trump is voted out. It remains to be seen how low they will go. I only hope that there are enough respectful republicans in the senate to honor the memory of RBG.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Joaniepoanie

Im delayed watching Rachel but she just shared a 2018 quote from Graham saying he would not support a SC nomination in Trump’s last year. Collins was quoted as saying the same a few months ago. Let’s see what happens. Hillary said Dems should do everything in their power to stall Mitch.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
kadefol

I just read there are at least 4 GOP senators who stated they will not vote until a new president has been sworn in. I hope they don't try to backtrack.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b(zone 9/10)

Good for her - hoping she can resist McConnell's pressure.

Wondering if Romney will also resist...

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
studio10001

:))) Trying to picture Graham as Dorian Gray, to poor effect....

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
maddie260

Should Biden win, and it's looking very good right now, and a SCOTUS replacement goes through, there will be payback. I'm sure there are Rs who will consider this before voting; they aren't ALL fools.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Iris GW

They have until Jan 20, even if Trump is voted out.

Doesn't the new Senate take office Jan 1?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Trump isn't a lame duck. Obama was.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dirtygert(5-NY)

Graham --- in his own words. What is a man worth, if he won't stand by his words and his beliefs?
https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1307137339232149505

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
paprikash

After all the many liberal arguments that Obama’s pick should have been voted on, they have convinced me. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I think - just like the dems used to think - they should seat a nominee.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Holding up the vote for the results of an election is dirty politics.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Biden said that his choice would be based on race and gender. That's unconstitutional.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

This is going to be very interesting. No idea how it will turn out other than to say that McConnell, swamp creature that he is, will try and get a vote to the floor.

Hard to see how they get it done by election day and maybe that would not be such a good move politically. There are 4 GOP Senators who are very likely to lose their seats and another one in a tight race. What does it mean to them if there is a vote before the election and they vote yes? Does a confirmation attempt cost the GOP the Senate? If the vote is after the election and they lost will they, and other Senators, feel an obligation to vote not to confirm because their State and country has spoken?

If a conservative judge is confirmed prior to the election does that remove some of the support for Trump from Republicans who can't stand him but wanted to swing the balance on the SC so stuck with the Republican candidate to get that judge.....and now have it?Do they stay home ?

Another interesting fact....if Kelly wins AZ , and it looks like he will, then he can be seated as early as Nov 30th because it is a special election not a regular term election.

Lots of complicating factors on this one....but one thing is certain the hypocrisy of McConnell and the lack of principals of all who were so adamant about the inappropriateness of Obama's pick but are now positively gleeful about the opportunity to do what they decried is as appalling as it is predictable.

Interesting days to come.......



1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Apples and oranges. Obama was a lame duck.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

"After all the many liberal arguments that Obama’s pick should
have been voted on, they have convinced me. Two wrongs don’t make a
right. I think - just like the dems used to think - they should seat a nominee."

Eleven months vs 7 weeks and early voting has already started there is a difference not that I expect Trump supporters to see that. I think this very well might cost the GOP the WH and the Senate...worth it? I certainly think so.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
socks(10a)

No, Iris, sadly not January 1. The 20th.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

We see the difference. Plain as day. Obama was a lame duck.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
paprikash



Nana H

10 minutes ago

This is going to be very interesting. No idea how it will turn out other than to say that McConnell, slime bucket that he is, will try and get a vote to the floor.

———————

Our Senator, a “slime bucket”? That’s beyond nasty and inappropriate IMO

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Actually one of my milder views of him. Politicians are fair ball as far as I'm concerned but funnily enough, I rarely call anyone any name, not even Trump. McConnell is just so low in my estimation, a man of no character or principles.

I'm sorry if it offended you but I truly dislike that man...even more than I dislike Trump. I'll change it to swamp creature as I see that is a name used often to describe politicians from both sides.

15 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri_cles

Criticism of a politician who is a liar and a scoundrel is hardly inappropriate on a political forum. Get real my friend.

12 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg Z-7 Va(Z-7)

"Holding up the vote for the results of an election is dirty politics."

Where were you 4.5 years ago lurker? Glad you're coming around to seeing the gop as dirty.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
deegw

Finger wagging about name-calling while running from thread to thread posting about "Bidense". lol

Byedon!

15 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Tito Milian

Romney is still in play.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Tito Milian

VPOTUS will break a tie.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

"not before November" promises are meaningless:

Already, Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine have said that there is not enough time to confirm someone before November.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg Z-7 Va(Z-7)

This will most likely be the most hypocritical move the gop senators have ever faced in their lifetimes. They can take a chance, a gamble, on either Americans not caring or caring a hell of a lot on what they do next.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Socks, Iris was talking about when the new Congress assembles. It is usually around the 3rd of January (odd number years)

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Tito Milian

Democrats would deny their Gods and mothers to seat the next Justice, so those pearls won’t clutch.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg Z-7 Va(Z-7)

Another factor is the AZ senate race, if Kelly wins he could be sworn in by late Nov since it's a special election case.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/18/us/elections/the-winner-of-the-arizona-senate-race-could-be-seated-in-time-for-a-vote-on-a-supreme-court-pick.html

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
leona_2008

Finger wagging about name-calling from the person who runs from thread to thread posting about "Bidense". lol

Byedon!

Ba-da-boom!

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"I suspect moscow mitch knows exactly how many close race vote exemptions he can give, and not have it matter."

I'm just starting this thread but my guess would be he might not have all the info he needs from all the GOP senators quite yet but I expect he will very soon.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"Hillary said Dems should do everything in their power to stall Mitch."

Yes, I saw her interview with Rachel. I always wonder, when I see Hillary interjecting herself, if that will turn out to be a good or bad thing. I think her strong words saying the Dems should absolutely not concede this election have more importance now then when she made them. I talked about that on the other RBG thread in reference to Ted Cruz's opinion.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"I just read there are at least 4 GOP senators who stated they will not vote until a new president has been sworn in. I hope they don't try to backtrack."

"stated" when? Yesterday, following RBG's death?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg Z-7 Va(Z-7)

Trump has toyed with the idea of nominating Cruz for the court, I hope he does.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"Eleven months vs 7 weeks"

I like how you chose the end date in the first case as inauguration and in the second as election day.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Didn't mean too...thought it was 11 months before the election. So make it 9 or 10 months........ happier?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"I rarely call anyone any name"

Hmmmm

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg Z-7 Va(Z-7)

Does 9 months vs 7 weeks sound any better Ann?

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"Criticism of a politician" "is hardly inappropriate on a political forum"

I have to agree with this.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
paprikash

I really agree, too, but it’s like an outsider criticizing a kooky family member. Okay for the family to criticize but not an outsider. Policy that affects you, fine, but it’s OUR family

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
paprikash

Why so egregious for the Republican Senate majority to use their position to their advantage when the House used their majority for theIr ridiculous shampeachment.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

"I really agree, too, but it’s like an outsider criticizing a kooky
family member. Okay for the family to criticize but not an outsider.
Policy that affects you, fine, but it’s OUR family"

.......and it's a policy that affects me too both from a financial and security perspective. Tell me that there has never been any criticism of world leaders by Americans including posters here. Politicians around the world are fair ball as they impact the lives of people in other countries, especially leaders in the US.

It is entirely within my right to comment on American politics and politicians and I will continue to do so regardless of how appropriate or inappropriate you or any other poster think it is. I require neither your approval nor permission.

12 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
deegw

Name-calling for me but not for thee. And the post trying to justify it has to be one of the top ten most ridiculous rationalizations I have ever seen in HT.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
paprikash

True, Nana. You definitely do not require my approval or permission for anything and vice versa

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
paprikash

No, Dee - Ridiculous was the democrat shampeachment.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Well, as the title of the OP spelled out, this will come down to the decision of the GOP senators. Trump and McConnell have now made their positions clear. I would guess a nomination will be made early next week.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Joaniepoanie

Graham --- in his own words. What is a man worth, if he won't stand by his words and his beliefs?

****

That shipped sailed for Republicans in November 2016. I will be surprised if Mitch doesn’t get his way. And yes Pap—- Trump, Mitch, and Graham are total scumbags. Most of the Repubs in Congress are now. Who didn’t know that already?



4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-400972298

Ann, I agree that Trump will put forth his nomination early next week, but the political posturing from both sides will be nonstop for the foreseeable furture.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-400972298

Your side are scumbags, too, Joanie. But they're your scumbags so you embrace and support them.

Then act morally holier when Republicans do the same.

Democrats have brought the game to new lows since Trump's election, and I want Republicans to fight and to win...by any means necessary.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
deegw

Gee, I hope Tito weighs in again. It's always good to get different points of view.

7 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-400972298

Ann, Hillary is always scorched earth. The build up of bitterness over her lifetime has corroded her soul.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Joaniepoanie

Spineless, greedy Repubs have consistently ignored their oath and put party over country for the most corrupt and incompetent president in history. It doesn’t get lower than that. What a shameful legacy they’ll leave behind.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-400972298

Here's a legacy left behind:

"When there is a vacancy on the SCOTUS, the President is to nominate someone, the Senate is to consider that nomination... There's no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off-years. That's not in the Constitution text."


` Barack Obama, 2016

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Hillary losing the election because of GOP cheating is the big mistake America made when we will look back at history. It’s where the Republicans abandoned democracy because of greed.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-400972298

"The Constitution says that I nominate candidates for SCOTUS when there's a vacancy... [The Senate's] job is to give this person a hearing, to show the courtesy of meeting with them. They are then free to vote whatever their conscience dictates."

-Barack Obama, 2016

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
batyabeth

by any means necessary? Golly. Legal, or is illegal ok too? Constitutional, or is unconstitutional ok too? Just where do you go for "any means neccessary"? Do you have a bottom line that you believe shouldn't be crossed, or have you erased it in order to stay in power? Inquiring minds want to know............and no I'm not being sarcastic, I really do wnat to hear your honest response.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-400972298

"We cannot tolerate a politically motivated, willfully negligent vacancy on the Supreme Court."

-Barack Obama

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-400972298

“That’s their job. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.”

_

-RBG when asked whether the Senate was obligated to consider Garland

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
justerrilynn(10)

Democrats have brought the game to new lows since Trump's election.

I haven’t forgotten the shameful way Kavanaugh was treated and the gofundme lunatic.

And, I shouldn’t forget.

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-400972298

That's exactly why all the protestations about McConnell fall on deaf ears. We've become inured after watching Democrats attempt to destroy Kavanaugh and sit idly by while their minions Burn, Loot and Murder.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (She/Her)(8a)

The precedent is there and no one is saying it isn’t.

McConnell should keep the precedent that he came up with or be known to be a hypocrite.

party of values amirite?

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
justerrilynn(10)

Great opportunities to show Kamala viciously persecuting an innocent man. Over and over and over.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-400972298

Speaking of, I'm with Crowder.



Steven Crowder

@scrowder

·3h

The party that verifiably, falsely slandered and labeled Kavanaugh a “gang r*pist” in front of his family and the whole world no longer gets to lecture us on decorum. Now, we make it sting.

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

ML is right. Precedent set by McConnell is the current 'precedent'. McConnell & pubs rejected what Obama and RBG opined. Why embrace them now? Because it lets them Republicans move the goal posts.


And then there's the Trump supporters defaulting to "you are making me do this". Or "you did this thing I don't like first so I have to do it now".

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
kadefol

"Within hours -- as other senators were offering condolences to Scalia's family
-- McConnell issued a stunning, categorical rejection of Obama's
authority more than 11 months before the Democrat's replacement would be
sworn into office.

"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," McConnell said."


"I'll tell you this – this may make you feel better, but I really don't
care – if an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term,
and the primary process has started, we'll wait until the next
election," Graham said during a forum with The Atlantic. His comments came at the tail end of the confirmation process for Trump's most recent Supreme Court pick, Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Joaniepoanie

When was it proven that Kavanaugh did not commit rape? No one can say definitively it did or didn’t happen.

From MSNBC——Mitch has politicized the judiciary with this notion that the courts belong to conservatives and only they get to pick judges. He would not even hear Garland and he planned to filibuster any nominee Hillary put forth for four or eight years had she won. Dems must fight this tooth and nail.

7 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-400972298

When was it proven Joe Biden didn't rape Tara Reade?

Let's keep up this, "prove a negative" thing.



5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (She/Her)(8a)

Was Joe Biden appointed time a life-long position on the most powerful court in the land?

Must have missed that.

Remember the days when Supreme Court judges were to be above reproach?

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
maddielee

This article contains a list of GOP senators who promised not confirm a Supreme Court nominee during an election year. A pretty long list.


Article with quotes From Mother Jones

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

You really think thier word or their promise matter in a Trump world.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
justerrilynn(10)

My guess is that when it comes right down to it, the dem’s might get one defector but no more. Everyone knows that when Trump wins it will be contested. Most likely it will end in Supreme Court. The seat has to be filled. Two weeks from now is a respectable time to start the process in political world.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
maddie260

'Live by the sword, die by the sword'. If Rs succeed in filling this seat due to gross hypocrisy and Democrats win, I suggest Democrats enact SCOTUS reform. That may be adding justices and/or term limits. Nothing in the Constitution requires nine seats on the bench; it fact, the number of justices has been different during different periods. Also, the filibuster is on the line with this one.

7 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (She/Her)(8a)

And everybody knows that when Biden wins it will be contested, too.

Everyone knows a lot of things.

The only thing that matters to this debate is the precedent under the law.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
justerrilynn(10)

Oh, if thats all, the law is on the side of putting someone in the seat now.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (She/Her)(8a)

The precedent isn’t.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
justerrilynn(10)

The law is.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (She/Her)(8a)

“As common law courts, U.S. courts have inherited the principle of stare decisis.[25]American judges, like common law judges elsewhere, not only apply the law, they also make the law, to the extent that their decisions in the cases before them become precedent for decisions in future cases.[26]

(Wikipedia, bolding mine)

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
terezosa / terriks

Bad meme. It was Garland, not Gorsuch who was denied a hearing.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
justerrilynn(10)

linsey, they can go for the straight out law and not use law interpretation.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Juster, what law are you talking about?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (She/Her)(8a)

justerrilynn(10)

2 minutes ago

linsey, they can go for the straight out law and not use law interpretation.

———

Yes they can, thus displaying the hypocrisy of the Party of Trump. As I’ve said all along.

Is there a mechanism to challenge that all the way to the Supreme Court?

And if so, do we expect the SC judges to rule on their interpretation of the precedent set under the law or do we think they will rule based on their affiliation with a specific political party?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (She/Her)(8a)

I wonder why people are so willing to accept Mitch McConnell’s bad faith arguments?

No honour?

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
justerrilynn(10)

I’m not arguing about which side has more hypocrisy. It’s soup!

In the words of Amy Coney Barrett- precedents are not sacrosanct. Justice’s duty is to the Constitution, and that it is thus more legitimate.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (She/Her)(8a)

If Senate Republicans accept Mitch McConnell’s bad faith argument that “it’s different this time” there is no debate about which side has more hypocrisy.

Conservatives are abandoning the Republican Party in droves, and what you’re being left with is the fascists and authoritarians.

Right leaning posters on this forum are oh-so-concerned about the Democratic Party being lost to progressives and socialists.

Maybe clean your own house.

9 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
justerrilynn(10)

Miss Lindsey, Democrats are abandoning the Democratic Party in droves. This is true. It is not the Democratic Party of yesteryear.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (She/Her)(8a)

I don’t care about Democrats abandoning the Democratic Party. I’m not a Democrat. I’m not a liberal.

I care about whether there is an honourable party that represents my conservatism.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Rory (Zone 6)(6)

"Miss Lindsey, Democrats are abandoning the Democratic Party in droves. This is true. It is not the Democratic Party of yesteryear."


Really? Where are they going? I don't see droves of Dem coming out against Biden. I do see droves of Rep coming out against trump.

10 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
justerrilynn(10)

Lindsey, Things seem to have gone to war mode. I don’t have the answer. It’s about to get nastier on both sides. Keep your own counsel and stay true to your own beliefs. This is something voters on “both” sides of the isle will have to do.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

I can'r see why the GOP would want a done deal before the election. That would simply remove one of the many motivations for voting Republican in November.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
AITG

" I don’t have the answer."


Why not?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Tito Milian

We’ll, AOC has called for radicalizing, so that should help matters.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b(zone 9/10)

Haha - the Bizarro World comments are hilarious!

Every one of them shows just how disinformed our rightward marching comrades are.

Or are they posting disinformation on purpose?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Elvis, I agree with that but the downside of after the election is the concern that Trump won't win and the Senate balance tightens or flips both of which make the likelihood of a confirmation riskier. Additionally, Trump needs that judge in place if he loses and challenges the election in court.


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Tito Milian

Both sides are going to challenge

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
deegw

Oh hey, Tito's here!

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (She/Her)(8a)

elvis

21 minutes ago

I can'r see why the GOP would want a done deal before the election. That would simply remove one of the many motivations for voting Republican in November.

———

My thought exactly elvis.

Donald doesn’t have the political chops to realize this though, and he gleefully disregards all advisors even the ones who want him to win.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (She/Her)(8a)

Nana I can see a lot of people who previously said they won’t vote, coming out to vote for Donald for that SC nomination alone.

It is literally the only thing they would go out to vote for, at this point.

He’ll be a fool if he announces a nomination before the election, it’s his only chance of recruiting conservative independents, never-Trump republicans, and those whom he has jaded.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Tito Milian

Underestimating Trump has been to his advantage at every turn.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Tito Milian

Wishful thinking

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

I agree.......I said that way , way up thread. It could be a real carrot to bring out Republicans who may have soured on Trump. Doing it before could cause those moderates who have soured on Trump to say they have the SC they want and stay home .

My point is the risk to that , more for McConnell than Trump, is that Trump loses, the Senate tightens and the confirmation is denied. IMO, McConnell cares more about the courts than he cares about Trump.

I think the smart move would be to nominate now and delay the appointment until after the election in hopes of a Trump win.

Gonna be interesting.

ETA A lot will depend on who he nominates too.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

This article is very interesting and quite frankly a huge shock to me. The author is a poll analyst for CNN who is very well respected in the industry but these are not his opinions, he is reporting objectively on poll data. I apologize for not just providing the link instead of the text but I'm having issues with my smart phone...likely more my issue than it' s.


Unlike 2016, polling this year suggests Democrats more motivated by Supreme Court than Republicans



Analysis by Harry Enten, CNN
Updated 1 hour ago Sep 19, 2020
(CNN) - The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has the ability to upend the 2020 presidential election. But while most analysis suggests President Donald Trump was helped by the opportunity to appoint a new justice in the 2016 election, polling this time around suggests something different may be in the offing.
I should point out that while it could shift in the days and weeks to come, polling initially shows that former Vice President Joe Biden's voters have been more likely to be fired up about Supreme Court selections and that voters overall trust Biden more on a Supreme Court selection.
A new Marquette University Law School poll paints the landscape well. Nationally, it finds that 59% of Biden voters say that appointing the next Supreme Court justice is very important to their vote. Compare that with only 51% of Trump voters.
This finding matches what we saw in a CNN/SSRS poll last month. In that poll, 78% of Biden backers told pollsters that nominating the next justice was extremely or very important to their vote. That compared with 64% of Trump supporters. (It was 47% Biden supporters and 32% Trump supporters who said it was extremely important.)
View Trump and Biden head-to-head polling
Compare these numbers to what we saw heading into the 2016 election. The final CNN/ORC poll in that cycle showed that 58% of Trump supporters said that nominating the next Supreme Court justice was extremely important to their vote, while only 46% of Hillary Clinton voters said the same. In the 2016 exit poll, Trump beat Clinton by a 15 point margin among those who put Supreme Court appointments as the most important factor to their vote.
In other words, it seems, at least initially, that unlike in 2016, a Supreme Court nominating fight could be more of a motivating factor for Democrats than Republicans.
Of course, this election is going to be fought in the swing states and it's going to be fought over the few voters who are still persuadable at this stage.
New York Times and Siena College polled voters this week in Arizona, Maine and North Carolina about their views of the presidential candidates and the Supreme Court.
Biden was more trusted to pick a nominee in the average of all three states by a 53% to 41% margin. That was actually larger than his average lead against Trump in the horserace of 50% to 41% in the three states.
This phenomenon of Biden getting slightly more favorable numbers on who should pick the next Supreme Court nominee than in the horserace matches what a recent Fox News national poll found.

But perhaps more interesting is what the New York Times found among persuadable voters (i.e. those who said they could change their mind or were not backing either Biden or Trump). They preferred Biden to pick the next nominee by a 49% to 31% margin.
And among those voters who might not vote (i.e. those who said were less than very likely to cast a ballot), Biden led Trump by a 52% to 23% margin on who would be better at picking the next Supreme Court justice.
In other words, it seems that if the Supreme Court is a motivating factor for voters in these key swing states, it'll be more likely to get voters out for Biden than Trump.
Of course, this is just a preliminary look before voters knew that there would be another Supreme Court vacancy during Trump's first term in office. There are a number of complicating factors that could shift things.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already said any Trump Supreme Court nominee will get a Senate hearing. And at least initially, a clear majority of Democrats, independents and Republicans said that hearings should be held if a vacancy occurred in 2020 per the Marquette University Law School.
Will Biden lose his edge on the Supreme Court, if Democrats try to block that nominee? Maybe, although I'm at least somewhat skeptical of polling on this issue.
Voters in 2016 said the Senate should vote on then-President Barack Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland. Senate Republicans still blocked hearings, and it didn't seem to hurt them at the polls.
There's also the possibility that some Democrats will say that the Supreme Court should expand in size, if Republicans confirm a new justice. Biden has argued against that previously.
Although a majority of Democrats (61%) were for expanding the size of the Supreme Court in the Marquette poll, a majority of independents (56%) were against it.
And let's not forget that Trump has put out a list of potential nominees, while Biden has not. Could Biden's list shift the dynamic? It's possible.
The bottom line is there's a lot we still don't know. The days and weeks will clarify, but for now the polling indicates that the topic of filling a vacancy helps Biden not Trump.
TM & © 2020 Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.
A WarnerMedia Company.
All Rights Reserved.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
adoptedbyhounds

"Where were you 4.5 years ago lurker? Glad you're coming around to seeing the gop as dirty."

What are you talking about? When Scalia died, Dems had the Presidency and the Republicans had the Senate. Obama named his pick. The Senate chose to wait.

Today, Republicans have both the Presidency and the Senate. No reason to delay confirmation.

With everyone well aware that Joe Biden, if elected, will be unable to actually serve as president for any length of time, it's more important than ever to have the SCOTUS complete.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

"With everyone well aware that Joe Biden, if elected, will be unable to actually serve as president for any length of time"

I'm quite sure that "everyone" is NOT well aware. Be interesting to see what facts you have to back up that rather outlandish statement.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
justerrilynn(10)



To most people with eyes and ears Biden has early stage Alzheimer’s.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (She/Her)(8a)

“Today, Republicans have both the Presidency and the Senate. No reason to delay confirmation.”

Except if you want to avoid politicizing the Supreme Court.

But no one does :-(

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

"To most people with eyes and ears Biden has early stage Alzheimer’s."

Another outlandish statement not bourne out by facts. BTW what are the signs, clinically, of early stage Alzheimers that Biden manifests ?

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"'Live by the sword, die by the sword'. If Rs succeed in filling this seat due to gross hypocrisy and Democrats win, I suggest Democrats enact SCOTUS reform. That may be adding justices and/or term limits. Nothing in the Constitution requires nine seats on the bench; it fact, the number of justices has been different during different periods. Also, the filibuster is on the line with this one."

The Dems should broadcast this very widely.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
studio10001

Dems aren't able to broadcast anything very widely, Ann, you know that. The news, much disparaged, follows 45 around for whatever new quote will dominate the news cycle. He does not disappoint, and has so successfully diminished the average attention span that any piece of wheat can rile listeners to complete distraction. You are much more likely to hear that idea ^^on repeat from the Republicans.


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg Z-7 Va(Z-7)

Today, Republicans have both the Presidency and the Senate. No reason to delay confirmation.

Returning your question to you "What are you talking about?" The "reason" is to allow the voters to choose the prez to nominate a judge, just like Mitch said 4 years ago. So yes the gop is dirty, and they are the swamp that trump said he'd get rid of.

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-400972298

Ann, Republicans are broadcasting the Democrats' agenda widely. When Democrats have the WH and Senate, they will pack the SC. That's if Trump gets this appointment and that's if Trump doesn't get this appointment.

That is why Republicans need to go forth in the Senate with a vote.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cyn427 (z. 7, N. VA)(zone 7, Northern VA)

HU-400972298, "Republicans are broadcasting the Democrats' agenda widely. When Democrats have the WH and Senate, they will pack the SC."

And you know this how? The accusation is baseless and once again, an attempt to rile up Trump's base with a chosen talking talking point. I wonder which Fox personality is pushing that. Just another attempt to justify their hypocrisy when the apples to oranges bit didn't work.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Iris GW

2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”

2018, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.”

2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term - I would say that if it was a Republican president.”

2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”

2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”

2016, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”

2016, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”

2016, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”

2016, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”

2016, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”

2016, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”

2016, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA): ""It has been less than 72 hours since Justice Scalia's passing. There has already been too much politicking around the issue of his replacement. This decision should not be rushed, and it should not be made amid the clamoring of a presidential election season. We should honor Justice Scalia's legacy, and we should put off a decision on his replacement until the newly-elected president can make his or her choice."

9 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mrskjun(9)

I just hope every republican senator remembers what the dems put Kavanaugh through. Payback is a witch!

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Looking forward to it, kjun. And if a Dem nominated candidate behaves as Kavanaugh did when being questioned I expect them to be pulled from consideration and would be saying so the Dem pres, my senators (Dem), and the senators on the committee.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
roobear

I don't think it's about letting voters decide, I think it's about power for both sides. Who controls what gov branch to be able to do what they want. Is anyone really surprised when a party that has power, uses it to their political advantage?

In 2016 the Democrats would have appointed a judge during an election year if they had both the White House and the Senate at the time, but they didn't, so it didn't happen (didn't have the power). The Republicans have both at the present, which makes the situation different than 2016, and the option more possible.

If Hillary was president right now, and the Senate was Democrat controlled, does anybody really believe the Democrats would even hesitate to try to fill the seat? I'm guessing no by looking at quotes from Obama, Schumer, etc. in 2016.

If Democrats had the Senate right now with Trump as President, would they do the same as Mitch did in 2016, and refuse to hold hearings? With as dangerous as they think Trump is, why would they ever let him even try to fill a seat? Especially in an election year.

If Democrats were to gain power in the House, Senate, and White House, why wouldn't they try to pack the court in their favor if it isn't currently? Rep. Joe Kennedy III has already tweeted the suggestion to do so.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (She/Her)(8a)

If if if

Shoulda woulda coulda

All that matters to me is what the law says, how it has been most recently interpreted, and whether politicians of various stripes will stand by their own assertions.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mrskjun(9)

I promise you, if Obama had a democratic senate he would have Merritt Garland on the supreme court. Not the same now.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Iris GW

Of course he would have - he had 11 months left in his term! Scalia died in FEBRUARY. And if the GOP hadn't pulled that stunt in 2016, hardly anyone would be talking about what is happening NOW.

It's the hypocrisy, mrskjun, don't you get it?

8 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

HU298 (responding to Maddie's, then my comment): "When Democrats have the WH and Senate, they will pack the SC."

Cyn: "And you know this how? The accusation is baseless and once again, an attempt to rile up Trump's base with a chosen talking talking point. I wonder which Fox personality is pushing that. "

That would be Maddie (on this thread, but I don't think she's a Fox personality:): "Live by the sword, die by the sword'. If Rs succeed in filling this seat due to gross hypocrisy and Democrats win, I suggest Democrats enact SCOTUS reform. That may be adding justices and/or term limits. Nothing in the Constitution requires nine seats on the bench; it fact, the number of justices has been different during different periods. Also, the filibuster is on the line with this one."

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

Did HU298 say that? I thought it was Tito. Oh well, same difference.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Lindsey, Trump and McConnell can absolutely nominate and confirm a SCOTUS justice, if McConnell can get a minimum of 50 senators to vote yes to the confirmation. There is no legal precedent argument. One third of American presidents have nominated justices during an election year and 6 presidents have nominated justices after they lost reelection but before their successor was sworn in. The "precedent" argument you are putting forth is, frankly, silly.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Iris GW

The "precedent" argument you are putting forth is, frankly, silly.

Not sure why you keep pretending that 2016 didn't exist. McConnell himself set the precedent.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"In 2016 the Democrats would have appointed a judge during an election year if they had both the White House and the Senate at the time, but they didn't, so it didn't happen (didn't have the power). The Republicans have both at the present, which makes the situation different than 2016, and the option more possible."

Simple as that. If 50 senators agree, it will happen. If fewer than 50 senators agree, it won't.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b(zone 9/10)

It's not just about filling a seat - it's about who would be chosen. Merrick Garland had bipartisan support. He's not an ideologue or extremist and has no questionable or unsavory history - unlike Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. He's well-respected with an admirable record.

The only reason he did not get the seat was because of McConnell and his lust for power.



7 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
shead

Both sides are just as hypocritical as the other in this. Finger wagging gets nowhere because each side has essentially flip flopped their positions from 2016. Neither side is being true to its previous conviction therefore making the assertion of hypocrisy in the other side utterly foolish and useless.

The only person to blame for this current debacle is RBG, herself. She should’ve stepped aside before now if the person filling her seat was so important to her.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Back to this comment -

Cyn: "And you know this how? The accusation is baseless and once again, an attempt to rile up Trump's base with a chosen talking talking point. I wonder which Fox personality is pushing that. "

Congressional correspondent Chad Pergram (a Fox News personality) just reported that Chuck Schumer (today in their conference call) said that anything is on the table, including possibly trying to eliminate a filibuster if the Democrats get control of the Senate next year. Jerry Nadler has previously proposed possibly increasing the size of SCOTUS.

Baseless Cyn?

Again, I think Dems should widely broadcast this info. It's very good info for the voters to understand.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Iris, there have been 19 various "precedents" in election years.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

I think the smart move would be to nominate now and delay the appointment until after the election in hopes of a Trump win.

Well, yes. Of course.

And we want Trump to win, but whether or not he wins, the sitting Senate is still in place through the end of the year, and Trump is still in place till 20 January.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Not quite Elvis. If McSally were to lose in AZ, that seat would change hands near the end of November. Because she was appointed, that election takes place on election day but is a "special election". Thus, as soon as the AZ results are certified, that seat would change parties in the event Kelly wins. Then we'd only have 52 GOP senators for the rest of the year. McConnell could certainly hold the vote prior to the AZ confirmation if he needed her yes vote.

But, of course, we might not even know of the presidential election results for some time following election day due to counting and potential law suits - when we'd potentially need a 9 justice SCOTUS to break a tie.

If McConnell has the votes, the sooner the better IMO. Things could get extremely chaotic from election day on - especially if the Dems are trying to make them chaotic on purpose.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (She/Her)(8a)

“...when we'd potentially need a 9 justice SCOTUS to break a tie.”

Again assuming that justices will vote along Party lines rather than voting on their individual interpretations of the law.

I make no such assumptions, perhaps I’m naive.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
AITG



Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
batyabeth

aaaand still no answer from mr "by any means necessary". Interesting.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

I agree Miss L. To make an assumption that the SC would vote along party lines should Trump contest a loss suggests that what the conservatives have said all along about the courts is true but about conservative judges....they vote according to politics and not the law.

Depending on the basis of the case I would expect most judges to view through a legal, not political lens.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Toby

Sounds like they're worried that Roberts will join the liberals, creating a tie.

Let's not forget that Roberts wants to protect the reputation of his court. I think we can trust the Chief Justice not to be a puppet for Trump and the right wing. For the SC to take a case, it takes the vote of four justices. The current make-up of the SC ensures that any case conservatives want to hear will be heard. But liberals don't have the votes to bring their cases without one conservative voting with them. That one conservative will likely be Roberts..

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

I have no idea what kind of vote challenge SCOTUS could ultimately face - fraud accusations, recount (and extent and time of recount efforts), etc.. Thus, I have no idea how individual justices would vote on what kind of challenge. But, both sides have loudly proclaimed they have lawyers lined up for this election and some on the left have proclaimed they should not concede this election. So, who knows what messes could occur and what legal challenges SCOTUS could potentially face. Therefore, I've no clue that Lindsey is thinking about "party lines". But, what I mean is a SCOTUS with an even number of justices could potentially run into a tie in any case. 9 justices couldn't.

Toby, Roberts could certainly be an unexpected or surprise vote in any case on nearly any topic.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

I am thinking it more and more likely this seat will be filled by the end of November or sooner. It sounds like the momentum (and even the votes) might be there. As everyone, I'm watching with great interest.

Today, as I peruse the news, I see the attempted Senator shaming tactic is certainly underway. I don't think that will accomplish anything for the Dems, but that seems to be the tactic of the day.

I also saw where fake news was spread on twitter about Romney being a no vote and it was quickly shot down by his spokesperson as fake news. She didn't indicate what his vote would be.

It looks like ACB is a very likely choice. I had guessed and hoped it might be her last time - but my guess was obviously wrong. I googled all about her again last night. My gosh, she has a lot of children (7), including 2 adopted Haitian children. Big family!

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

I don't know what to think about this. I am of two minds. There is no doubt he will nominate someone, the debate is when the vote will occur. If it's held before the election he is assured his legacy as it relates to the courts and the base will be happy......but they were voting for him anyhow and the issue pretty much goes away as an election issue for Republican voters.

If the vote is scheduled for after the election the appointment will be a huge issue at the polls but for both sides. Are there really that many Republicans and Independents who have decided to vote for Biden that would come back to Trump over this? If the courts were that big a deal for them they would not have left in the first place. The base will be thrilled but how does it expand the vote?

I expect the Democrats will make a huge issue out of reproductive rights and healthcare, particularly pre-existing conditions, as well as the hypocrisy of the Republicans and really push the fact the appointment is happening while votes are actually being cast.

It is unclear to me how this brings out more Trump supporters...anyone gung ho on the SC appointment was likely already in for Trump. It will be interesting to see how this moves the general election polls and the Senate polls. I truly have no idea how this is going to play.

As far as ACB , she was not chosen last time because McConnell thought she was too controversial and wouldn't be confirmed. Not sure why it would be different this time as a matter of fact I think it may make things tougher for those Senators up for re-election. One thing is for sure if he nominates her he can totally kiss the educated women's vote goodbye.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"The base will be thrilled but how does it expand the vote?"

"It is unclear to me how this brings out more Trump supporters"

I think filling this seat before or right after the election has absolutely nothing to do with bringing out Trump supporters or not bringing them out. I think if the situation were reversed, it would also have not a thing to do with Dem supporters voting or not. It's so much bigger, more consequential and important - than voter response!

As far as voters, there will be enormous numbers of them placing votes this year - for both candidates! There will also be enormous viewership of next week's debate! Both views are my opinion.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

"I think filling this seat before or right after the election has absolutely nothing to do with bringing out Trump supporters or not bringing them out"

Maybe in your mind but I can pretty much guarantee it absolutely has everything to do with bringing out votes in both Trump and McConnell's minds especially Trump who likely doesn't care squat about anything other than getting re-elected and his legacy.

Ann, I'm not so sure that is true that it has nothing to do with bringing out votes. If the vote is after the election I think that it may motivate some to come out to ensure a Trump victory. If Biden wins this appointment likely goes nowhere so deferring it is a huge gamble.


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
adoptedbyhounds

"Except if you want to avoid politicizing the Supreme Court."

That train left the station when Dems disgraced themselves abusing Brett Kavanaugh in front of his family and the American people.

A replay with a different nominee...especially a woman, would be fascinating!

Bring her on.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

This is an InterestIng one.......just heard Jake Tapper ask Dick Durbin if holding back government funding and shutting down the government was on the table as a way of stopping the nomination and confirmation before the election. Durbin didn't answer.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
shead

“One thing is for sure if he nominates her he can totally kiss the educated women's vote goodbye.“

Why?

This educated woman would applaud the nomination and any educated woman voting for Trump right now wouldn’t leave over him nominating another educated woman to the bench. Why would they? Those who would oppose ACB were never there to begin with.

The pro of nominating ACB is that the American Catholic clergy are giving mixed signals regarding whether a Catholic can vote for Biden or not. Disagreement is vehement and some Catholics are on the fence: vote for a self-proclaimed Catholic who publicly disagrees with church teaching on some major issues (abortion) but who they agree with on other social justice issues (immigration, etc.) OR vote for the candidate whose personality you don’t really like and whom you don’t view as particularly moral, either, but who is Pro- Life. It’s a hard place to be for some and if Trump were to nominate a CATHOLIC woman to the bench, it might just be enough to sway some to hold their noses and pull the lever for Trump.

Strategically, I think making the nomination but holding off the vote might be the best move to make.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri_cles

Makes no sense because if Biden wins, he will deep six that nomination.

If Trump wins, he can nominate whoever he wants. He already compiled a list and everyone knows he wants to pack the Court with RW ideologues.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

I agree that any educated woman, or actually any woman, who is with Trump now will stay with Trump. What I am saying is that it will do nothng to grow that demographic.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
justerrilynn(10)

I agree with Shead. There are women who have been in political limbo since the Democratic Party started moving further left and who would move to the Republican side with someone like ACB added. One of my best friends who is Catholic did this in 2016. She can’t stand Trump the man but found the Republican side overall a better fit. AddIng someone like ACB would increase Trumps female vote. I’m not sure how much but there would be an increase.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri_cles

ACB...LOL !

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri_cles

Who the _ is ACB?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
shead

Google is your friend, heri_cles ;)

ACB is only the POTUS’s front runner for nomination to fill RBG’s SCOTUS seat.

Is that too many acronyms?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Toby

There are women who have been in political limbo since the Democratic
Party started moving further left and who would move to the Republican
side with someone like ACB added

Republicans have left the GOP because Trumpism has moved it too far right. It's GOP women who voted Dem in 2018, giving the House to Dems. Educated suburban women are now part of our coalition, not the GOP's.

It's odd that Trumpers don't see Trumpism as right wing extremism, but the racist, nationalist extremists sure know what's going on and are thrilled with the direction he's taking us. Educated women aren't turning away from the GOP because of Trump the uncouth man. The ideology has changed too.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Anyone hear Biden' s speech. Very powerful and focused and so much bigger than self.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri_cles

What other Supreme Court Justice is popularly known by and called by their initials?

Give me a break Jack.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri_cles

I wonder what AMM will do.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Joaniepoanie

Byedon wants to heal the country not divide and tear apart. His speech was like a breath of fresh air.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"If Biden wins this appointment likely goes nowhere"

I don't understand your logic in this comment. Is it your opinion that if the process is going along and close to a confirmation vote at election time, Biden were to potentially win the election, that Republicans would suddenly say never mind? I don't think there is any chance that would happen.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
paprikash

LOL the dems aren’t into healing; they’re into rioting and looting.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"“One thing is for sure if he nominates her he can totally kiss the educated women's vote goodbye.“

Why?

This educated woman would applaud the nomination and any educated woman voting for Trump right now wouldn’t leave over him nominating another educated woman to the bench. Why would they? Those who would oppose ACB were never there to begin with."

I completely agree. This is another opinion (kiss the educated women's vote goodbye) where I can't even imagine the logic.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Think about a women's right to choose. Most educated women are pro choice. Check the numbers and then come back and tell us how it is illogical.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

"If Biden wins this appointment likely goes nowhere"

"I don't understand your logic in this comment. Is it your opinion
that if the process is going along and close to a confirmation vote at
election time, Biden were to potentially win the election, that
Republicans would suddenly say never mind? I don't think there is any
chance that would happen."

I think that there are enough Republican Senators of conscience who would not confirm a Trump appointee if Biden wins. Doesn't take many ...maybe another one or two. The election will be over so that pressure will be gone. Not complicated.


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

the American Catholic clergy are giving mixed signals regarding whether a Catholic can vote for Biden or not.

Rather like closing the barn door after the horses have already gone.

Catholics are just as likely to get an abortion as other U.S. women. Why?

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/01/24/catholics-are-just-likely-get-abortion-other-us-women-why

*

According to the latest numbers from the Guttmacher Institute, 24 percent of women who procure abortions identify as Catholic, almost the same as 22 percent of all U.S. women who called themselves Catholic in a 2014 survey by Pew Research Center. In the same sources, evangelical Protestants made up 27 percent of all women in the United States but only 13 percent of those who underwent abortions, revealing a greater reluctance toward choosing abortion, a greater reluctance toward revealing their religion on a survey or both.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (She/Her)(8a)

“evangelical Protestants made up 27 percent of all women in the United States but only 13 percent of those who underwent abortions, revealing a greater reluctance toward choosing abortion, a greater reluctance toward revealing their religion on a survey or both.”

or a lesser incidence of unplanned pregnancy?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
shead

Like Biden, many people may identify as a Catholic or a Protestant. That’s usually because of how they were raised and not necessarily indicative of a fervent or devout religious life otherwise. More Hispanics would certainly identify as Catholic but that is much more cultural than anything for many.


The Catholic vote I’m referring to are the voters who are attending weekly mass, partaking the sacraments, and who are trying to live the Catholic life in most areas of their life. They may be turned off on Trump but want to be faithful to the Magisterium and the USCCB but their parish priest may be telling them something entirely different. This exact thing is happening at my BFF’s parish with their priest. Those stuck in this limbo may be swayed to vote for Trump if he nominates Amy Coney Barrett, an educated, devout, Catholic woman.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Conscience? The SCOTUS opening is now. The current elected president is President Trump. The current elected Senate majority is Republican, which actually was an increased majority in 2018. The people did speak when they made these election choices. Elections have consequences. The process will play out precisely as it should and would in any situation where a SCOTUS opening occurred and the President and Senate were of the same party.

I get that Dems hate this situation (I would too), but it is the situation. It would be the same exact situation if the Dems currently had the presidency and a majority in the Senate. All the shaming attempts are simply worthless. This is what it is and the outcome will be entirely in the hands of the GOP senators. I'd say the early signs are that enough of them will stick together to complete this process. We'll all watch it proceed.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Toby

Politically, Catholic registered voters are evenly split between those who identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party (47%) and those who favor the GOP (46%).
In their partisanship, U.S. Catholics are deeply divided along racial
and ethnic lines. Most Hispanic Catholics identify with or lean toward
the Democratic Party, while 54% of white Catholics today identify with
or lean toward the GOP.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/10/7-facts-about-american-catholics/

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
shead

“What other Supreme Court Justice is popularly known by and called by their initials?“


I’m not sure what your point is or if that’s a rhetorical question or not. The very first sentence in the OP referred to Justice Ginsberg as RBG.

Initials are used frequently on these boards....

DT, HRC, POTUS, SCOTUS, AOC, RBG, etc.

It’s tiring to type Amy Coney Barrett every time. Thus, ACB it is for me at least. Those understanding the context know who I and the others are referring to.


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Toby

Trump was elected four years ago. The GOP in the Senate has a slight majority. The voters had spoken, but Trump's approval has never reached the level it was at his inauguration.

What happens if Trump loses and the Senate goes Democrat in November? Haven't the voters spoken and clearly signaled that they want a different direction for our country? Do you want to argue that our November votes don't count?

This is why we need to wait until after the election. Let's let the voters speak.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

I think it's kind of common to use initials with those who go by three names because it takes a long time to type, or even to say. I first heard ACB on a TV report about her as a likely nominee - the host said "now sometimes referred to as ACB". Sounded sensible to me.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

The SCOTUS is a separate branch of government. and it doesn’t belong to a party. McConnell has politicized the court instead of following norms and cheated Obama out of his appointee. If election have consequences Obama was entitled to a nominee. The Congress should have put him up and voted on him. That was their job. It was not their job to decide there should be a new rule only for that year. The GOP under McConnell has lost its moral compass. It is why most of the moderates left in 2018. They didn’t want to be involved with Trump and McConnell.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

No, Toby. The November votes will count and the winner of that election will continue or take over in January. From that point, SCOTUS nominations will be up to them and confirmation success or failure will be up to the Senate at the time, until the following president or Senate takes office. Elections have consequences and the upcoming election will have consequences exactly as the 2016 and 2018 elections did.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H


"Conscience? The SCOTUS opening is now"

Ann, my comments were if Biden wins.....not pre election. If Biden wins the Presidency, and the vote is held post election, I believe that several Republican Senators , enough Republican Senators, will decide to go with the will of the Amercan people.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Toby

Of course the November votes count. I understand the process so you don't need to Annsplain it to me.

So you don't support McConnell's argument to let the voters speak in an election year? This November's election is much more indicative of how voters feel than how they felt about Trump four years ago and the Senate two years ago. If they reject Trump, it means they want the country to go in a different direction and that direction is not with a conservative Supreme Court.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

The GOP always use the phrase “the American people” when they really mean “their”people.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"Ann, my comments were if Biden wins.....not pre election. If Biden wins the Presidency, and the vote is held post election, I believe that several Republican Senators , enough Republican Senators, will decide to go with the will of the Amercan people."

I think just the opposite. If Biden wins, I think more GOP senators will vote yes post-election than would if the vote were before the election.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri_cles

It’s tiring to type Amy Coney Barrett

LOL.



1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri_cles

I am tired of typing "Trump."

Hopefully that won't be necessary much longer.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (She/Her)(8a)

I’m tired of typing Trump too, and my autocorrect changes it to Trumo every single time. I change it back but it feels like a sacrifice lol.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cyn427 (z. 7, N. VA)(zone 7, Northern VA)

"Democrats have brought the game to new lows since Trump's election."

Now that is funny considering how low the Republicans went when Obama was president-in fact, McConnell's goal from the day he was elected was to obstruct everything and make him a one-term president.

Frankly, I think the Democratic senators need to play hardball. They have let McConnell push through every single judge Trump wanted whether qualified or not. The lower courts have 10 judges that the ABA deemed not qualified. That is ridiculous for a lifetime position. I hope the democrats will use the strategies available to them to either slow or stop this until after the election at the very least.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"So you don't support McConnell's argument to let the voters speak in an election year?"

I'll respond to this by saying that we could devote many threads to the many things Schumer, McConnell and various members of congress have said in the past when the the tables were turned. Neither man and neither party will end up looking like they even came close to consistency.

But, then I'd ask any Dem here to think what they think their party would do right now if Obama were president, had a Dem Senate and a conservative justice had just died. I don't think a single one of you could say with honesty that you think they'd do nothing and just leave the seat open until January. I wouldn't buy it if you said it. My goodness, some Dems are talking about packing the court and ending the legislative filibuster as we speak!

Either party would go forth with this nomination and vote. The opposite party would simply hate it, as Dems do now. RBG made a potential history changing decision when she decided to hold onto her position when the Dem opportunity to replace her was available. She was quite widely criticized at the time but it was her decision to make.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

shead

Google is your friend, heri_cles ;)

ACB is only the POTUS’s front runner for nomination to fill RBG’s SCOTUS seat.

Is that too many acronyms?

ACB certainly is simpler, like AOC. Easy.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (She/Her)(8a)

“ But, then I'd ask any Dem here to think what they think their party would do right now if Obama were president, had a Dem Senate and a conservative justice had just died. I don't think a single one of you could say with honesty that you think they'd do nothing and just leave the seat open until January.”

You’re probably right.

Waiting was Republican McConnell’s argument all along, remember?

And the Dems argued against it.

Your whole point here is that Democrats would continue in their declared opinion, while Republicans flip flop based on political expediency.

It’s hilarious that you think this hypocrisy is just fine.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"Waiting was Republican McConnell’s argument all along, remember?

And the Dems argued against it."

"It’s hilarious that you think this hypocrisy is just fine."

Lindsey, it's "hilarious" that you just wrote this: "And the Dems argued against" "Waiting". What are they arguing for now? Oh, yeah - to wait. Hypocrisy????

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
shead

Exactly, Ann. That’s why using the word hypocrisy is just superfluous right now. Both sides are guilty of it.


Opportunistic is a better word to describe it. Both sides use whatever circumstances, opportunities, laws, and events to their own political advantage, for good or bad. Honestly, I’m not sure why we’d expect anything different.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

I'm watching Meet the Press (from earlier) right now. Kasie Hunt spelled it out pretty well.

Dems are a mess about this situation right now. Poor Chuck Todd is losing it on his show today. If Dems are so darn sure Americans will see a SCOTUS nomination and potential confirmation as some horrible, rotten, hypocritical, unconscionable decision - why the upset? I know you don't want the GOP to confirm another justice, but if you're right about how Americans/voters will view this process, you'll soon have the presidency, Senate, and House, in your opinion - right? So, take a deep breath and wait for the election results.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
studio10001

'Both sides use whatever circumstances, opportunities, laws, and events to their own political advantage, for good or bad. Honestly, I’m not sure why we’d expect anything different.'

Because we want more from our representatives. Because we expect them to do what they promise or get the boot. They are seeking the boot.

I don't ever worry about autocorrect. 45 or 86 are fine by me.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
studio10001

Dems are such a mess that they raised 100 million this past weekend on the announcement of the replacement. Thank you.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

You're welcome. Put your 100 million to good use:)

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
palisades_

Both sides use whatever circumstances, opportunities, laws, and events to their own political advantage, for good or bad. Honestly, I’m not sure why we’d expect anything different.

And often times, it’s not in the country’s best interests, but the party.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
shead

“Because we want more from our representatives. Because we expect them to do what they promise or get the boot. They are seeking the boot.“


I think you’re missing my point. Working in furtherance of the issues that their supporters want them to focus on IS doing what they promised their supporters they’d do. It’s what gets them and keeps them elected. I’m not making this statement as an endorsement or a condemnation. It’s simply reality. Again, why would we expect them to do any different?

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
shead

“And often times, it’s not in the country’s best interests, but the party.“

Unfortunately, hasn’t that always been the crux of the problem with a two party system?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
studio10001

I took the point, shead. My own is that I am one of their constituents. I expect better because I deserve better.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

Why the belief that in the 2020 election Catholics will not vote Democratic because of Biden's position on women's reproductive rights?

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both supported women's right to choice.

The Catholic women who obtain abortions at the same rate as non-Catholic women -- I would not presume that they are not attending weekly mass or otherwise uninvolved in the Church.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri_cles

OK GOPers sing along with AMM.



Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
batyabeth

"The lower courts have 10 judges that the ABA deemed not qualified. That is ridiculous for a lifetime position."

oh yes. this is crucial. QUALIFIED members of the governmnet, people who actually have the background to run, oh, say the Dept of Education, etc. The fact that the Bar Association would not lable not one but ten of T's picks qualified (at the very least) and the Senate would comfirm them anyway just for political points is very telling, and exrememly worrying. What on earth would you want with unqualified judges? Oh wait............

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

"I think just the opposite. If Biden wins, I think more GOP senators
will vote yes post-election than would if the vote were before the
election."

Ann, not sure how you get to that conclusion. Do you mean that Senators who said that they do not support a nomination in an election cycle because they think the people should have a say, Senators like Murkowski and Collins, will suddenly change their mind when the people have clearly had their say. Makes no sense.

I think it's the other way around. I think the ones who opposed it in the first place along with those who are uncomfortable with the nomination happening now, such as Grassley , Romney and maybe Graham but who went along with it, as well as some Senators who maybe lost their seat or are retiring, will listen to the voice of the American people if Biden has a decisive win.

Time will tell how this will work out but I think the seat will be filled if the confirmation is prior to the election, less likely after....but who knows.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Toby

I know you don't want the GOP to confirm another justice, but if
you're right about how Americans/voters will view this process, you'll
soon have the presidency, Senate, and House, in your opinion - right?
So, take a deep breath and wait for the election results.

And? McConnell will still hold the vote for the Supreme Court. Are you saying that's the trade-off--we get the presidency and Congress and you get a solidly conservative Supreme Court for a generation?

I would be fine with Trump nominating a justice and the Senate voting if fairness had prevailed, but McConnell played dirty politics when he wouldn't hold a confirmation hearing for Garland. Obama even picked a moderate so that the justice could win votes from both sides of the aisle. It was purely personal that McConnell stole that seat.

I am less concerned about which side wins or loses as long as the process is fair. There is right and there is wrong and I always choose right, but that's me.

So you see, it would have never come to this hypothetical if McConnell hadn't stolen a seat. The current president would nominate regardless of where he was in his term.

But, then I'd ask any Dem here to think what they think their party
would do right now if Obama were president, had a Dem Senate and a
conservative justice had just died.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Nana, I think Republican senators very typically hold conservative beliefs and will very much want to confirm a conservative justice. While RBG is admired in so many ways, her rulings, dissents and views were not what conservatives admired about her. Quite the opposite. Just as a Republican president can't be replaced by a Democrat president in the minds of many who care about policy, a conservative justice and liberal justice are not the same.

I think it possible that, as a Canadian, you might not fully grasp the great differences between conservatism and liberalism in the U.S. I've often heard Canadians talk about relatively small differences in policy plans between PM choices in Canada. There are huge differences between a Democrat and Republican party choice in America and huge differences between conservative and liberal justices in how they view and interpret adherence to the Constitution.

Senators are people who have chosen governing as their passion and career. They care deeply about their beliefs and the future of our country. SCOTUS is increasingly impactful (sadly) in that future as Congress has become so incredibly polarized.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Fair Toby? Nothing Trump has been put through from Dems trying to overturn his election for his entire term has been even close to fair. What Kavanaugh went through was not fair. The whole Mueller mess was not fair. And now, we have brand new talk of yet another potential impeachment, court packing, and ending of the filibuster. Fair? Are you joking?

This 5 minute video was an excellent exchange yesterday, IMO. There are two conservatives and on liberal on this panel and each give their point of view. But, the position I agree with 100% is the position put forth by Guy Benson at the end of this clip. Everything he said matches my opinion on the topic and the very end of his segment is particularly interesting to me (the statistics part).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCRfAFVAq5k


2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Still believe Trump isn’t a criminal? Time will prove Republicans wrong but it will be too late for America, I fear.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Toby

Yes, fair. McConnell started this entire mess when Scalia died. What had the Democrats done at that point except that their presidential candidate won the election? Everything you posted came after McConnell stole the SC seat. I think a LOT of the animosity the Dems have toward the GOP can be traced right back to that. Trump was just the icing on the cake.

Time to change course. Vote Biden and vote out the Senate GOP and McConnell!

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Joaniepoanie

The McConnell senate has put power and party over principles. They have allowed trump to run rough-shod over the Constitution, abdicating their oath. This corrupt and dishonorable crop must go.

McConnell is such slime he did not even wait until RBG’s body was cold before putting out his statement within hours of her death that the senate would fill her position. What normal, decent person does that? He should not be filling her seat at all, but the slug could have at least waited until after her funeral to bring up the subject. And then there was top slime Trump 24 hours later yukking it up about filling the seat at a rally to cheers from the crowd. No shame or sense of decency to be found in the trump camp.


5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Ann, believe me I fully grasp the huge difference between liberalism and coservatism in the States as well as the depth to which those beliefs are held.

The part of your post I don't understand is your logic in your statement that " If Biden wins, I think more GOP senators will vote yes post-election than would if the vote were before the election." That makes no sense. Why would people like Murkowski and Collins say they would not confirm this close to an election then reverse themselves post election when their position seems to be that peoples voice should be heard?

As far as additional Senators deciding against confirmation should Biden have a decisive win, while I totally understand the desire of conservatives to place conservative judges, I do believe that it is very possible a few, very few, may choose to respect the voice of the people over their own ideologies should the vote be post election. Guess we will see.


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Nana, I just ran across this 538 article. I think the "In the end" section of this article nicely summarizes the topic you and I have been a bit back and forth with on this thread and is certainly pertinent to my "Nana, I think Republican..." comment up thread just a bit.


https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/will-senate-republicans-back-trumps-push-to-fill-ginsburgs-seat-even-if-he-loses-reelection/

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Ann, I don't disagree with any of that although I still think a few may think differently post election, just my opinion.

The thing I am most curious about is why you think Murkowski and Collins , which would be the " more Senators" post election in your statement, would change their mind. They are already going against the conservative ideology you seem to think overrides all else.


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

I think Collins might actually have a great deal of job/Senate seat preservation on her mind. I think should Biden win, the chances of Collins winning are super slim. So, if the vote were after the election and she had suffered a loss - I think her strongly held views about America's future would override all her other considerations. That's my opinion.

I won't be at all surprised to see both Collins and Murkowski ultimately vote yes on the nominee - regardless of whether the vote takes place before or after the election and regardless of the presidential winner of the election. I'd refer you back to the "In the end" section of the 538 article for a pretty accurate description of my thinking/reasoning. I don't think either Collins or Murkowski have gone against the "conservative ideology" "already". I don't think that assumption is at all clear at this point. I think you might be reading more into what they've both said than their words actually say - as far as what they will actually do when the vote takes place. I'd have to go review their quotes, but I don't think either have come even close to saying they will vote no on the Trump nominee if Biden wins.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri_cles

Everybody understand what cheating is. That'd a problem for DT and AMM .

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Ann, thanks for the explanation of your opinion. Time will tell.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

I think Dems are making a very big mistake with threats (e.g., everything on the table, arrows in the quiver, impeachment). I think they really risk being seen as willing to turn this country upside down over Trump and the GOP conducting a process that is "iron clad" (borrowing Guy Benson's term) in its lawfulness and constitutionality. Dems are painting a very frightening picture of what they would do with control. They are threatening to make Harry Reid's move look like it was nothing. Without that Reid move, we would not be where we are today. It was huge!

The other thing I think will go very badly is the already begun protests at Graham and McConnell's homes.

This are the kinds of things I was thinking about in a comment over the weekend where I addressed what I thought was the "reality" of the situation.


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Ann, you have been predicting huge backfires on the Dems for quite some time now. So far no evidence of any such thing but maybe you'll ll get lucky this time.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (She/Her)(8a)

“I won't be at all surprised to see both Collins and Murkowski ultimately vote yes on the nominee - regardless of whether the vote takes place before or after the election and regardless of the presidential winner of the election.”

Neither will I, but for different reasons.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Nana, I'm not sure how far back you're looking (predicted backfires) but we have Trump as president, a GOP majority in the Senate with an increased majority in 2018, a third SCOTUS seat to potentially be filled since Trump took office - and you see no evidence of Dem actions/moves/tactics backfiring, falling short or failing?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Do you care to elaborate on the reasons "reasons" you see, Lindsey?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Ann, your multiple claims of backfires have been since Trump was elected and actually since the Dems took the house. Generally aimed at the 2020 elections.

Like I said maybe this latest claim will pan out for you because according to polls as of today Dems are doing just fine despite your backfire predictions.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Dems are doing fine. I'll look at today's polls to see how far out any of them go and if any include the weekend. But the betting market does include the weekend and there has been a little change for both Biden and for Trump.


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
justerrilynn(10)

Ann, quick question. I’m having doubts that President Trump will nominate ACB and play it safer with a conservative woman who hasn’t been as vocal over abortion. What do you think? I’m in Florida, I hope he picks Barbara Lagoa.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Ann, when do you think the backfires you have predicted will finally manifest themselves, maybe election day? Off the top of my head some of your more ardent predictions, the Mueller Report, the FISA issues, Impeachment, BLM protests, the " burning" of American cities in support of violence . One would think by now some of those would have bubbled up.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Power grabs by the Unethical GOP doesn’t mean the Dems plans are backfiring. It means our government has been taken over by an unethical group of power mongers with no respect for norms or Democracy. They can only function as such because they have created a smokescreen for the enablers by throwing them a few policy crumbs while destroying the institutions behind the scenes. It is a given the Trumplicans don’t read credible news enough to know what he is destroying behind his smokescreen.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Juster, I know you addressed this to Ann but I think Trump really wants to go with the base which is ACB yet the thoughts of what a Latina woman from Florida might do for him in Florida is going to be huge in his mind. Which will win.......the base or the vote?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
justerrilynn(10)

Thanks for your input Nana.

I am hoping he will pick Barbara Lagoa. My thinking is that she will have a deep understanding, deeper than most Americans even on how important it is to keep our country from going too far left. That is my feeling anyway. I live in Florida and have found all Cuban Americans I have met to be very open minded and accepting of those with differing opinions and lifestyles while not giving up their own principals. There is a love of America there for obvious reasons.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Juster, I think the three women are still all under consideration. I heard a report from John Roberts that the chatter of Lagoa is down a bit today, with a higher likelihood ACB or Rushing (but the feeling is she may be a bit too young). I'm thinking it will be ACB, but I thought that last time - and it was Kavanaugh:)

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Nana, the if you were talking about recent backfires (and you said you meant since the 2018 election and in regard to the 2020 election), the only place backfires could show up is when America next votes - in November. The only other info we'd have would be the polls and they've shown a up trend for Trump and a down trend for Biden in many a chart over the last three months. Definitely more tightening than widening!

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
justerrilynn(10)

Yes, with Trump... the one that is put in the preliminary light usually isn’t the one. That’s why I’m thinking not ACB.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Back to Lagoa. I think this describes one concern about her. I heard a brief bit about it on the news this morning and was able to find this corresponding to the little bit I heard:

"Lagoa would bring some legal baggage with her to a confirmation hearing. Lagoa came came under fire recently for refusing to recusing herself from a case in which the federal appeals court upheld a Florida law that requires felons to pay off their court fines and fees before having their voting rights restored. The law was passed by the Republican-controlled state Legislature after voters approved a constitutional amendment that ended the state’s lifetime voting ban for most felons.

Lagoa and another judge on the appeals court previously sat on the state Supreme Court when it considered how to interpret the amendment.

Sen. Kamala Harris was among the co-signers of a letter that criticized Lagoa for not recusing herself from the federal case. Harris, who was later picked as Joe Biden’s running mate, would cast a vote in the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

Desmond Meade, executive director of the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, said Lagoa’s action on the felon voting case shows she is more interested in a political outcome than the law."

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Juster, very true about the one with the preliminary light! But, never a real unexpected choice with Trump either (he broadcasts his list and he sticks to it). So that could very well lead to Lagoa. Plus, she had 80-15 bipartisan support when confirmed to the 11th Circuit. ACB only had 55-43 when she was confirmed to the 7th.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Ann, yes some tightening to be expected entering the home stretch but to think it amounts to anything close to the recent backfires you have so adamantly declared is comical. Things may change but it will be because of new news not old news.

Biden is leading , in some cases substantially, in many States Trump won and very, very competive in several other States Trump won. Texas and Georgia almost virtual ties ......who would have thought. However, maybe you are right and the voters will wake up to the " backfires" election day.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
justerrilynn(10)

Ann, yes, I had also read Lagoa’s background. She is from Hialeah and it would be extremely interesting to see Kamala try to break her down. I don’t think her viciousness would go to far.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

Didn't read this thread.

Saw this just now.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1307877608487628802

Hay

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Perfect^^^!

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Lol, I agree with IT Guy. That person deserves a promotion:)

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Back to the OP for a moment. It appears, potentially, Collins and Murkowski might go against Mitch, but that's it. But, "in the end", I'll actually be a little surprised if either do.

If you wonder why I put "in the end" in quotes, Nana and I were having a discussion/debate up thread where I found and linked a 538 article with what I thought was a good "in the end" section. If you are curious about our debate, just search on 538 and you can review that part of the thread.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

The confirmation is likely a done deal. Even though I think there is a slightly better chance of a no vote post election ( assumes a significant Biden win) I really hope the vote comes before the election. That takes it off the table as far as a Republican election issue but still leaves it a burning issue with Dems. Who wins the Presidency is of much more concern to me than the SC which I see as mostly a domestic issue . That does not mean I don' t have an opinion. It just doesn't impact me or the world the way Trump does.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Izzy Mn(4)

I can hardly wait until mcconnell is gone and or the majority in the Senate is democratic. The new majority leader Democrat will be in control and be the place where Republican bills go to die, payback is coming in spades.

Save    
Browse Gardening and Landscaping Stories on Houzz See all Stories
Industrial Style Houzz Tour: Going Against the Grain in a Missouri Silo
See how a creative couple turned a metal grain bin into a most unusual container for living
Full Story
Houzz Tours Houzz Tour: Los Angeles Condo Gives Green the Go
By Houzz
A profusion of leafy textiles, jade-painted pieces and green trellis patterns create a fresh feel against crisp white backdrops
Full Story
Landscape Design Garden Overhaul: Which Plants Should Stay, Which Should Go?
Learning how to inventory your plants is the first step in dealing with an overgrown landscape
Full Story