199
As usual I'm with Bernie on this. Why would Democrats want to immediately give Trump a new Justice to nominate. Democrats are too focused on Kumbaya and bipartisanship to actually nominate a Justice.
And even if she stepped down, the current Senate, which they don't even have a majority with the Democrat-In-Name-Only turned independents Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema are likely to block any decent Democrat proposals until the Senate tilts full Republican, where it definitely won't happen.
They have a better chance of keeping the status quo by crossing their fingers she stays in position for at least the next US election. IMO it's either you roll the dice, or you admit defeat right away.
Isn’t the argument that a younger replacement would be fast tracked now, while the Dems had the whitehouse and the senate?
The left obviously doesn’t want to leave a vacant seat for Trump. The point is to lock the seat down even harder.
aren't they just going to have the same issue as last time, where the appointment will be stalled till he takes office then suddenly all the resistance disappears and they can send it through immediately?
The Democrats control the Senate. The Republicans don't have an option to stall until January. It's all about whether the DINOs want a 7-2 court.
This is 100% what will happen, so of course the Dems will try to do it. Fools.
Different circumstances, same result.
Previously McConnell prevented the Senate from voting on Obama's nomination for months before the election.
In this case, Biden could nominate someone, and Schumer would undoubtedly call a vote ASAP, but then you'd risk the vote failing because of Manchin and Sinema. They've already publicly betrayed the Democratic party and they're both on their way out; there's nothing for them to gain by playing ball with a SCOTUS nominee.
The result would be exactly as before: Trump would come into office and get a SCOTUS pick right away, the only thing that might be different is whether McConnell or Scott gets to submit the pick. Hell, he might get to do it anyway if Alito and/or Thomas retire, so why give up another seat?
They’d need to do what they do before bringing a bill to the floor. Make sure that they have the votes ahead of time.
If you get one of those two people bought in on a particular justice candidate, then you could tell the current sitting Justice “it’s safe,” and you could fast-track the new person.
That said, there is still risk of someone having a change of heart at the last minute.
Yeah, I don't get why people think they'd just YOLO this and find out how Manchinema would vote on the senate floor. If one of them isn't locked in, then definitely don't start it, but maybe Sinema, for all her mercenary ways, might think abortion actually did matter and a 7-2 court is just dumb.
Lol, you think the republicans would seat a new justice after Biden lost the election? They only ever do that for their own party
What is up with the reading comprehension in this thread?
The Democrats still control Supreme Court appointments until January.
They don't have a say in the matter in the current senate, it's all about the DINOs.
That worked out so well getting us Justice Gorsuch. When Ruth Bader Ginsburg died. Have things gotten significantly better since then? Or worse?
The Dems did not control both the WH and the Senate when RGB died. They do now - for another 7 weeks.
Only if you count the likes of Manchin or Sinema. Which would be foolish.
If she's like Ginsburg, she's got at least 4 more Presidential elections in her.
But in the end, it won't matter. Trump will convince Thomas and Alito to step down like he did Kennedy and we'll have a 5 member Trump court for the remainder of our lives.
Yep. If people thought the first 4 years were bad. The bar has been lowered so much its in orbit beyond the moon.
The bar was on the floor.
These dumb mfers brought shovels.
If we get elections in the future, it's possible we'll get Democrats in two of the branches, and if they get their shit together they can pack the courts. It's not entirely hopeless, but it does ride on the Democrats being remotely competent as an organization for even a brief period of time.
That would require Democrats to fight and not cave and we all know how that works out.
Bernie is 83 and still very active, of course he doesn't see the wisdom in asking the 70 year old who is otherwise in good health to step down. This isn't the same situation as the late 87 year old Ruth Bader Ginsburg who was constantly in and out of the hospital.
That's not the problem; the problem is there's no guarantee that you'd get the Senate to approve a replacement in time.
Now that Manchin and Sinema are on the way out, what incentive is there for them to approve a Biden appointee to SCOTUS, especially with a particularly vengeful GOP administration coming in?
She does have type 1 diabetes but it's manageable.
I'd be cool with her fucking off if we had a reasonable senate majority. otherwise, this is just handing a gift to the republicunts.
She is literally the smartest person in the court by far and remains to be. We can talk replacement when she loses her mind like Breyer did.
I would support this if I had any faith in the Democrats to get their shit together and actually appoint someone before Trump takes over. Honestly, I wouldn't put it past them to replace her with Bill Barr in another attempt to win over never-Trumpers.
Biden pack the fucking courts you fucking spineless brain dead cunt!
IMHO, it’s only worth doing if the independents who caucus with the Dems can be brought onboard with a replacement proactively before she resigns.
If you can’t get the Manchins of the world to proactively back a specific fast-tracked replacement, don’t even try.
Bold of you to trust either of the two independents would agree to and then not immediately block it once she stepped down.
The window has closed. She'll resign and Congress will delay it until its Trump's appointment. This would be unutterably stupid to do now with 2 months left.
this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2024
199 points (98.1% liked)
politics
19135 readers
1171 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS