The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

[Applejack]

Fair point. Collins and Murkowski have already said they won't vote. Grassley probably wouldn't either. And who knows where Mitt really is. If there isn't enough votes, I'm not sure Trump would take such a public L right before an election, despite what Mcconnell wants. I would wager that someone is nominated and Trump will make it a campaign issue. I personally know 3 people in battle ground states who weren't voting for Trump but now are wavering.

Honest question: Why would Ginsburg's death change people's vote on Trump?

If you want someone that (above all else) will appoint conservative judges, then you were voting for Trump before.
If you are someone who thinks that there are things more important to the nation than conservative judges you weren't voting Trump before, and you aren't now.
Trump can get a nominee through for a vote before he's out of office - it really is easy. So your vote really should not depend on this nomination-it's going to happen regardless of who wins.

But this will be used as cover to vote for Trump by people that were inclined to anyway.

[beefytee]

Well as long as we are being pedantic, I’m not so sure I would apply that label to all of those cases. But If you have to dig that deep for points of comparison, that kind of makes my point.

I am not saying this is a case with the highest stakes. I am saying it is one of the most egregious black and white cases of hypocrisy I can think of.

This will be really interesting to watch in cases were senators are in a tight battle for reelection. Lots of people doing political calculus right now.

And the democrats are right there with them on hypocrisy where a lot of them cried bloody murder in 2016 when the nominee was blocked and are now dead set against it now.

I don't like any of the hypocrisy but I don't know that this stands out any more than anything else that goes on in Washington. The politicians will say what makes things easiest at the time.

Bottom line is the republicans had all the power to block the nominee in 2016 and have all the power to push one through now. If the electorate doesn't like it, they need to show it with the vote.

[beefytee]

Honest question: Why would Ginsburg's death change people's vote on Trump?

If you want someone that (above all else) will appoint conservative judges, then you were voting for Trump before.
If you are someone who thinks that there are things more important to the nation than conservative judges you weren't voting Trump before, and you aren't now.
Trump can get a nominee through for a vote before he's out of office - it really is easy. So your vote really should not depend on this nomination-it's going to happen regardless of who wins.

But this will be used as cover to vote for Trump by people that were inclined to anyway.

Never Trumper Republicans and independents will feel much more at ease voting for Biden if there isn't the prospect of an imminent liberal judge nomination looming after the election with projections saying the democrats are likely to retake the Senate. That's how I feel anyways.

[All-American]

Honest question: Why would Ginsburg's death change people's vote on Trump?

If you want someone that (above all else) will appoint conservative judges, then you were voting for Trump before.
If you are someone who thinks that there are things more important to the nation than conservative judges you weren't voting Trump before, and you aren't now.
Trump can get a nominee through for a vote before he's out of office - it really is easy. So your vote really should not depend on this nomination-it's going to happen regardless of who wins.

But this will be used as cover to vote for Trump by people that were inclined to anyway.

It’s not even Ginsburg’s death, per se, that has me wavering. It’s the democrats’ reaction to the mere idea that republicans might have the audacity to fill the vacancy, which includes threats of court packing. If they go there, what happens next is obvious, if not inevitable—and extremely dangerous.

[USUC]

Honest question: Why would Ginsburg's death change people's vote on Trump?

If you want someone that (above all else) will appoint conservative judges, then you were voting for Trump before.
If you are someone who thinks that there are things more important to the nation than conservative judges you weren't voting Trump before, and you aren't now.
Trump can get a nominee through for a vote before he's out of office - it really is easy. So your vote really should not depend on this nomination-it's going to happen regardless of who wins.

But this will be used as cover to vote for Trump by people that were inclined to anyway.

I can only speak to the reasons for 2 of them as we were all in a text conversation, but they mentioned the threat of court packing, ending the filibuster, and and the feeling of being "extorted with threats" of this mixed with calls for civil unrest.

[Jeff Lebowski]

It’s not even Ginsburg’s death, per se, that has me wavering. It’s the democrats’ reaction to the mere idea that republicans might have the audacity to fill the vacancy, which includes threats of court packing. If they go there, what happens next is obvious, if not inevitable—and extremely dangerous.

Imagine that. Dirty unprincipled politics begetting dirty unprincipled politics.

[Commando]

I think Trump obviously has the right to fill the seat, as would any president in his position. Just like Obama should have been able to fill the seat vacated by Scalia in February of 2016. That move by the Senate was one of the dirtiest moves in recent memory.

It would do this country a great service if they would hold off in recognition of that bullshit from the last term. I am saying it will be a great disservice to fill the vacancy before Biden's inauguration. In other words, they are definitely going to fill the seat and we all are going to see some shit pop off that will eclipse 2020. Get your food storage on point.

[All-American]

Imagine that. Dirty unprincipled politics begetting dirty unprincipled politics.

If you can’t see the difference between filling a vacancy and court packing then let’s just talk about brisket.

[Bo Diddley]

And the democrats are right there with them on hypocrisy where a lot of them cried bloody murder in 2016 when the nominee was blocked and are now dead set against it now.

I don't like any of the hypocrisy but I don't know that this stands out any more than anything else that goes on in Washington. The politicians will say what makes things easiest at the time.

Bottom line is the republicans had all the power to block the nominee in 2016 and have all the power to push one through now. If the electorate doesn't like it, they need to show it with the vote.

This is what I've been thinking about today. It just seems like business as usual.

[Harry Tic]

It’s not even Ginsburg’s death, per se, that has me wavering. It’s the democrats’ reaction to the mere idea that republicans might have the audacity to fill the vacancy, which includes threats of court packing. If they go there, what happens next is obvious, if not inevitable—and extremely dangerous.

Of course you need to consider in your calculations the lack of legitimacy with which many Americans will view SCOTUS, in the event that McConnell muscles through an appointment. The institution has already suffered tremendous damage in recent years and even a highly qualified jurist that is seated by Trump will likely encourage the further erosion of the court’s reputation, no matter their qualifications. And, to be honest, you have to suspect that even Justice Roberts is worried about this. Ideological purity is not everything and I’m willing to bet he’d prefer to have a Merrick Garland seated next year rather than an Amy Coney Barrett this year (that’s not to say that Biden would send up someone like Garland: that ship has sailed).

Of course court-packing on the part of Democrats would just set a match to a huge pile of very dry tinder anyway (I think they’d be better off impeaching Kavanaugh if they want to make a dramatic point and/or correct the ideological imbalance).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[All-American]

Of course you need to consider in your calculations the lack of legitimacy with which many Americans will view SCOTUS, in the event that McConnell muscles through an appointment. The institution has already suffered tremendous damage in recent years and even a highly qualified jurist that is seated by Trump will likely encourage the further erosion of the court’s reputation, no matter their qualifications. And, to be honest, you have to suspect that even Justice Roberts is worried about this. Ideological purity is not everything and I’m willing to bet he’d prefer to have a Merrick Garland seated next year rather than an Amy Coney Barrett this year (that’s not to say that Biden would send up someone like Garland: that ship has sailed).

Of course court-packing on the part of Democrats would just set a match to a huge pile of very dry tinder anyway (I think they’d be better off impeaching Kavanaugh if they want to make a dramatic point and/or correct the ideological imbalance).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don’t really disagree with much of this. As you can see above, my first reaction was that Trump’s best play might be to table the nomination.

[Commando]

If you can’t see the difference between filling a vacancy and court packing then let’s just talk about brisket.

Do you think the Senate hitting snooze on an appointment for 11 months until another president gets a crack at it is 'filling a vacancy' or 'court packing?' Super curious about your answer.

[Jeff Lebowski]

If you can’t see the difference between filling a vacancy and court packing then let’s just talk about brisket.

Yes, I can see the difference. Can you?

Come on, that is not a realistic scenario. Even FDR couldn't pull that off at the height of his popularity.

[Applejack]

If you can’t see the difference between filling a vacancy and court packing then let’s just talk about brisket.

If you can’t see the difference between reality and “what my democratic friends” say they will do, then let’s just go back to talk about sports.

Biden has not endorsed expanding the court.

[Moliere]

Of course you need to consider in your calculations the lack of legitimacy with which many Americans will view SCOTUS, in the event that McConnell muscles through an appointment. The institution has already suffered tremendous damage in recent years and even a highly qualified jurist that is seated by Trump will likely encourage the further erosion of the court’s reputation, no matter their qualifications. And, to be honest, you have to suspect that even Justice Roberts is worried about this. Ideological purity is not everything and I’m willing to bet he’d prefer to have a Merrick Garland seated next year rather than an Amy Coney Barrett this year (that’s not to say that Biden would send up someone like Garland: that ship has sailed).

Of course court-packing on the part of Democrats would just set a match to a huge pile of very dry tinder anyway (I think they’d be better off impeaching Kavanaugh if they want to make a dramatic point and/or correct the ideological imbalance).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The scotus has suffered tremendous damage? Why? From what I can remember from the latest round of opinions was that they did a good job and most people seemed pleased except for the far, far right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk