What? What moral law am I breaking expecting my elected President to choose his nominee and then the votes to go as they may?
If they had the votes it would be done. What rules where changed? None. An explanation was offered for a decision in 2016. A lot of things have changed.
It doesn’t. The Constitution leaves much up to the Senate. It doesn’t mandate a number of Justices.
Pick sides, @blshaw…
But please, please don’t go there…
Sure they did. The Senate refused to bring the nominee up for a vote based on a new rule of “can’t do it in an election year.”
1 Like
Ok - so you agree Garland should be on the bench?
Did they have the power to bring it to a vote and then have the votes? If so, absolutely. If not, no.
If the Democrats have the power to keep Trump’s pick from coming to a vote, then that is their prerogative.
I believe the President should pick and then the senate gives it’s consent, or not.
2 Likes
They should have just Borked Garland and been done with it.
There was never any danger of that, but no, they weren’t ‘supposed to.’ Nor should they expect good behaviour in return.
You were clear at the time, and I wouldn’t accuse you of being so.
I think ‘mean’ is being unduly kind to that farce, but let’s leave that aside, as it isn’t strictly relevant.
I’m not quite sure I can agree. Both sides have on the record statements from 2016, 2018, and now that make them all look like rank hypocrites. Which leads us back to what should be done now.
If not appointing this seat would de-escalate the situation, then I’d support not doing so (for what the opinion of a Brit is worth), but I have seen zero evidence that there will be any such de-escalation.
Shoe on the other foot, do you think there would be any hesitation to fill this seat?
I’m still waiting for the day you yanks give up the ghost on separation of powers and admit it’s an unworkable hodgepodge created by the French.
2 Likes
No, they wouldn’t.
Pick. Then, Senate’s prerogative to vote or not.
Please please expect that you will receive responses you don’t agree with, may be unwanted, or even unmerited in an open forum.
3 Likes
I am wondering what you all think about the GOP using the seat as an election carrot. If they confirm now, they lose a carrot to motivate the vote. If they wait, then supporters of Trump have more incentive to go vote in November. However, if they wait and lose they lose both the presidency and a justice. I am wondering if this thought is considered by the GoP strategists. Additionally, I think the GoP placing a justice before the election would increase turnout by DEMs. I heard “Vote Blue” has raised 100 million last weekend after RBG died, that is some evidence that this issue could motivate DEMs.
It could be they think their base is static, and is going to show up. Data supports the former, I am not sure on the latter (but the Trump / GoP base seems to be better at voting historically).
I think having something in the bag is better than a gamble in which you might get nothing, or both. I am guessing this is probably what they are thinking.
lolz.
I’ve been here long enough to expect just about anything, @blshaw .
It was a rhetorical request.
1 Like
Bet your bottom dollar that they’re thinking of little else.
It’s impossible to know. Generally speaking, the GOP does well when judicial nominees are in play, but does this seat being open motivate their base or the Dem base more? It’s a gamble either way.
2 Likes
Trump should nominate Merrick Garland just to make everyone’s head explode.
4 Likes
From all indications; Trump voters don’t need any more motivation. Many are locked…loaded…and were ready to put the man back into office in 2018.
The riots and all of the vitriolic rhetoric have merely solidified those feelings.
Trump’s focus at this point are those areas that could affect the Electoral College.
1 Like
And all indications are that he’s well aware of this. Planned rallies in Arizona, Ohio. Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan.
I’m not sure of any in PA, but I’m not confident they could win PA again, and it may be a sunk cost to attempt.
Philadelphia and the surrounding areas is where Trump is fighting tooth-and-nail to derail and/or delegitimize the Mail-in Ballot process.
1 Like
When we think about the Trump supporters we see on TV (you know the ones riding the scooters with confederate flags on the back), sure I agree with you. However, I think it is more grey than that. I think center right and independents that are slightly right really could go to Biden, or not vote. Many of these people voted for Trump because they hated Hillary, thought Trump would act presidential once he won, or in many cases the wanted SCOTUS seats.
I do know principled conservatives who said they held their nose and voted for Trump because of SCOTUS seats. If there is likely no more SCOTUS seats they may vote Biden, third party or stay home.
Hilarious. You don’t know if you “have the votes” until you vote. The whole purpose of not bringing it to a vote is to prevent the nominee from getting confirmed - not ho hum, no need to waste everyone’s time on a vote that’s gonna fail.
If they had the votes, they’d bring it to a vote and be done with it. Voted down, case closed. What McConnell feared was enough GOP Senators would defect and vote Yes on a (principled) theory that the President should get who wants, barring some lack of qualification, etc., which has been the general norm of the Senate.
1 Like