Filling the SCOTUS Seat Isn’t an Option, It’s an Obligation

 

With Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death and a newly vacant Supreme Court seat, the political madness of 2020 got even madder. But this moment is precisely why so many Republicans voted for Donald Trump despite their misgivings. A conservative majority on SCOTUS has been a signature goal of the party base going back to Ronald Reagan’s presidency. Now, 40 years later, the opportunity is finally here.

To quote Margaret Thatcher, this is no time to go wobbly. As expected, many are.

The center-right’s appetite for catering to the Democrat base instead of their own is insatiable. In reaction, GOP voters launched the Tea Party movement. When that fizzled, they elected Trump. Many Republicans still haven’t learned this lesson and want to surrender before any battle begins.

At The Bulwark, Jonathan V. Last oddly casts this moment as a “political crisis,” which it most certainly is not. Justice Ginsburg’s passing is a sad event, as is anyone’s death, but it was as inevitable as every other Supreme Court vacancy. We’ve been through this more than 100 times before.

Yet Last believes RBG’s mortality is an unexpected “black swan” event. His solution is to toss aside the simple Constitutional process and replace it with a complex backroom deal:

There are only a handful of ways out of this trap and all of them require the prudential coordination of elites. Which is … not something we have seen a great deal of in the last, say, generation of American life.

Nearly zero voters, left or right, want to be governed by the “prudential coordination of elites.” In fact, the Constitution doesn’t mention “prudential,” “coordination,” or “elites.” It does state that the President is obligated to nominate a jurist and the Senate to provide advice and consent.

Why invent some novel aristocratic contraption when our foundational document provides a simple path forward? These are the rules every elected official — left, right, and center — agreed to uphold since our founding.

One expects knocking knees at The Bulwark, but the demand for some extraconstitutional haggling is spreading.

Jonah Goldberg and David French, two conservatives for whom I have great respect, recommend a different type of deal with Senate Democrats. I’ll let French explain:

First, Trump makes his pick.

Second, the Senate applies the Schumer principle and gives the nominee a hearing. This will have the benefit of giving the American people a more-complete picture of the qualifications and philosophy of the nominee and thus the stakes of the presidential election.

Third, the Senate then applies the Graham/Rubio/Cruz rule and does not vote before the election. If Trump wins, they then vote on the nominee.

But what if Trump loses? What principle comes into play? Joe Biden’s own words provide the guide.

In the October 2019 Democratic debate, Joe Biden clearly expressed his opposition to court-packing. “I’m not prepared to go on and try to pack the court,” he said, “because we’ll live to rue that day.” He continued, “We add three justices. Next time around, we lose control, they add three justices. We begin to lose any credibility the court has at all.”

Goldberg, offering similar advice, adds some context in his LA Times column:

Even before Justice Ginsburg’s demise, Democratic support was building not just for packing the Supreme Court by increasing the number of justices (which Ginsburg opposed), but also for D.C. and Puerto Rican statehood and abolition of the legislative filibuster. Now Democrats are all but vowing to go through with expanding the court in response to a rushed replacement for Ginsburg.

What will be the GOP’s argument against such schemes?

…Moreover, merely on the level of realpolitik, abandoning all considerations other than what you can get away with amounts to preemptive disarmament for the wars to come. The pernicious logic of apocalyptic politics works on the assumption that the long term doesn’t matter. But the long term always becomes now eventually.

Making a too-clever-by-half deal instead of simply following the Constitution is also a type of “preemptive disarmament for the wars to come.” The GOP has the White House and the Senate, while the Democrats have nothing. If the Packers are leading 42-3, they don’t give two touchdowns to the Vikings if they promise to be nice to them in the next game.

Any deal is especially suspect given the Senate Democrats’ abysmal track record on upholding the slightest of norms. A party willing to portray the dullest nominee in SCOTUS history as a high-school drug lord and gang-rapist has no interest in comity or fair play.

French and Goldberg’s deal is better than Last’s but still attempts to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. Trump and McConnell hold all the cards; the left has only screaming.

Democrats high and low have already promised to pack the court, create new states, and abolish the electoral college. They have allowed their constituents to create mayhem, attack citizens, destroy businesses, and burn buildings in their cities for three and a half months. This is who they were before RBG died and they will only radicalize further as we move toward the election.

The Republican base has set everything in place for a conservative Supreme Court. It is the party’s obligation to deliver it to them.

Forget “prudential coordination of elites,” it’s time at last for “We the People.”

Published in Law, Politics
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 219 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Matt Balzer, Imperialist Claw Member
    Matt Balzer, Imperialist Claw
    @MattBalzer

    Percival (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Richard O’Shea (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Oh, now … see there? Just when you figure you have someone pegged …

    I take everything bad I’ve ever said about Romney. Wait, that would be intemperate. I’ll take back one bad thing, but in the spirit of promoting amity I’ll let him pick which one.

    With Romney on board, this will happen. I would have bet the other way. This should also serve to shore up any other wobbly Senators.

    Despite my best efforts, the Senate Republicans are moving forward. I believe that this will be a pyrrhic victory.

    A pyrrhic victory? Why? Because we will lose the full-throated support of Jeff Flake going forward?

    I think it’s because the Senate will have done what it was elected to do. Can’t have that.

    • #61
  2. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    Percival (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    I think that the norms are clearly to wait until after the election.

    Gary, are you really comfortable with Reagan as your avatar? It doesn’t seem to suit you, somehow.

    Why wouldn’t I keep the Greatest President of the Twentieth Century as my avatar?

    Because he was a conservative. In fact at the time the Bush wing of the party (or Rockefeller wing, if you prefer) loathed him to start. They made accommodation with him only when they realized that they weren’t going to beat him. You are more of a Willard Romney Republican. He prefers to be called Mitt Romney. I prefer to call him a feckless, opportunistic, backstabbing, weasel-faced fink. So we compromise.

    Who is this guy and what has been done to or with Mittens? 

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/romney-supports-holding-a-vote-on-next-supreme-court-nominee/ar-BB19iVJN?ocid=msedgdhp

    • #62
  3. Matt Balzer, Imperialist Claw Member
    Matt Balzer, Imperialist Claw
    @MattBalzer

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Matt Balzer, Imperialist Claw (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Zed11 (View Comment):

    After Kavanaugh debacle, am not especially concerned about anything the Democrats are whining about. Same goes for Goldberg, French, Don Lemon, Michael Moore, Bill Maher, or any NeverTrump Archie Bunker.

    By lumping in Jonah Goldberg, David French, Richard Epstein and me with Don Lemon, Michael Moore and Bill Maher, you are coming close to Godwin’s Law.

    So what you’re saying is that Lemon, Moore and Maher are Nazis? I thought that accusing the Democrats of being Nazis was something we weren’t supposed to do.

    That is below you, and it stops as opposed to expands conversations.

    I repeat: who are you to say that? I mean you’re over here calling people Nazis, so where do you get off telling people what they aren’t supposed to do?

    The author might has well included AOC, Bernie Sanders and Ilhan Omar. C’mon man. This is like saying that because David Duke supports Trump, and is a racist, that anyone who doesn’t denounce David Duke is running with racists. I don’t believe that for a minute.

    Says the man whose support for any given candidate is contingent on how “Trumpy” they are.

    • #63
  4. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    You might want to talk to Harry Reid about the law of unintended consequences, after going nuclear in November 2013 to confirm three Judges to the DC Circuit.

    • #64
  5. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Matt Balzer, Imperialist Claw (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Matt Balzer, Imperialist Claw (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Zed11 (View Comment):

    After Kavanaugh debacle, am not especially concerned about anything the Democrats are whining about. Same goes for Goldberg, French, Don Lemon, Michael Moore, Bill Maher, or any NeverTrump Archie Bunker.

    By lumping in Jonah Goldberg, David French, Richard Epstein and me with Don Lemon, Michael Moore and Bill Maher, you are coming close to Godwin’s Law.

    So what you’re saying is that Lemon, Moore and Maher are Nazis? I thought that accusing the Democrats of being Nazis was something we weren’t supposed to do.

    That is below you, and it stops as opposed to expands conversations.

    I repeat: who are you to say that? I mean you’re over here calling people Nazis, so where do you get off telling people what they aren’t supposed to do?

    The author might has well included AOC, Bernie Sanders and Ilhan Omar. C’mon man. This is like saying that because David Duke supports Trump, and is a racist, that anyone who doesn’t denounce David Duke is running with racists. I don’t believe that for a minute.

    Says the man whose support for any given candidate is contingent on how “Trumpy” they are.

    I believe that you meant to say “Non-Trumpy.”

    • #65
  6. DrewInWisconsin, Man of Constant Sorrow Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Constant Sorrow
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta… (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    In 2016, Trump won Arizona by only 3%. Trump was able to hold 94% of Republican votes in 2016, many of whom were hoping that Trump would grow up in the process. He hasn’t. If the Republican rate of voting drops to only 85% Trump loses Arizona.

    Arizona recently shifted from “Toss Up” to “Lean Biden.”

    As a Biden voter, this should make you happy. Why are you complaining?

    I am not complaining. As a “Republican for Biden” supporter, I am pointing out that Arizona will likely vote for a Democrat for only the second time during my life. (I was born in 1952.)

    Likely? I assumed that a “Republican for Biden” would be voting for Biden. Why call yourself a “Republican for Biden” if you still aren’t sure?

    • #66
  7. DrewInWisconsin, Man of Constant Sorrow Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Constant Sorrow
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    This is like saying that because David Duke supports Trump, and is a racist, that anyone who doesn’t denounce David Duke is running with racists. I don’t believe that for a minute.

    Don’t believe it? You’ve used this smear countless times!

    • #67
  8. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta… (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta… (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    In 2016, Trump won Arizona by only 3%. Trump was able to hold 94% of Republican votes in 2016, many of whom were hoping that Trump would grow up in the process. He hasn’t. If the Republican rate of voting drops to only 85% Trump loses Arizona.

    Arizona recently shifted from “Toss Up” to “Lean Biden.”

    As a Biden voter, this should make you happy. Why are you complaining?

    I am not complaining. As a “Republican for Biden” supporter, I am pointing out that Arizona will likely vote for a Democrat for only the second time during my life. (I was born in 1952.)

    Likely? I assumed that a “Republican for Biden” would be voting for Biden. Why call yourself a “Republican for Biden” if you still aren’t sure?

    Please re-read what I said.  I said that it was likely that “Arizona” will vote for a Democrat for only the second time since 1952.

    • #68
  9. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    TBA (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Third, the Dems will use the nuclear option on the legislative filibuster. The Supreme Court will be expanded to 11 justices, and DC and Puerto Rico will become new states. The Dems will also increase the Federal Judiciary by 30% as happened when Jimmy Carter was President.

    This is like battered wife syndrome; better not ever do anything to upset the Dems or they might go berserk and it would be all our fault.

    Yes. And you said it better than I would have. The Never-Trump losers and cowards probably think Trump should ask the Democrats to review his proposals before he proceeds so as not to upset them. 

    As far as Trump needing to grow, I think the GOPe should follow Trump’s lead and grow a pair.

    • #69
  10. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta… (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    This is like saying that because David Duke supports Trump, and is a racist, that anyone who doesn’t denounce David Duke is running with racists. I don’t believe that for a minute.

    Don’t believe it? You’ve used this smear countless times!

    Please document your slur or withdraw it with an apology.

    • #70
  11. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Django (View Comment):

    TBA (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Third, the Dems will use the nuclear option on the legislative filibuster. The Supreme Court will be expanded to 11 justices, and DC and Puerto Rico will become new states. The Dems will also increase the Federal Judiciary by 30% as happened when Jimmy Carter was President.

    This is like battered wife syndrome; better not ever do anything to upset the Dems or they might go berserk and it would be all our fault.

    Yes. And you said it better than I would have. The Never-Trump losers and cowards probably think Trump should ask the Democrats to review his proposals before he proceeds so as not to upset them.

    As far as Trump needing to grow, I think the GOPe should follow Trump’s lead and grow a pair.

    “The Never-Trump losers and cowards”?  Thank you for elevating the level of discourse.

    • #71
  12. danok1 Member
    danok1
    @danok1

    Zach H. (View Comment):
    While I disagree with them here & there, I like all three of those guys–JV Last, Jonah and D. French. I’m not out of sympathy with their concerns, particularly David’s, about “disunion”. I guess one way to preserve the union would be to truckle endlessly to whatever the Left demands and surrender strategic advantages for magic beans: French, particularly in his recent Time article, seems to be advocating that approach.

    Perhaps French will explain in his new book, but why the worry about “disunion”? He appears to have lost the plot; the goal of our government should not be to “preserve the union,” it should be to preserve our liberties. Seems to me that another orginalist on SCOTUS would be a better way to preserve our liberties than to kowtow to the left.

    And if “disunion” is necessary to preserve our liberties, I’m for it.

    • #72
  13. DrewInWisconsin, Man of Constant Sorrow Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Constant Sorrow
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Please re-read what I said. I said that it was likely that “Arizona” will vote for a Democrat for only the second time since 1952.

    Okay, so you’re still a solid Biden voter, right? No going wobbly!

    • #73
  14. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    TBA (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Third, the Dems will use the nuclear option on the legislative filibuster. The Supreme Court will be expanded to 11 justices, and DC and Puerto Rico will become new states. The Dems will also increase the Federal Judiciary by 30% as happened when Jimmy Carter was President.

    This is like battered wife syndrome; better not ever do anything to upset the Dems or they might go berserk and it would be all our fault.

    Yes. And you said it better than I would have. The Never-Trump losers and cowards probably think Trump should ask the Democrats to review his proposals before he proceeds so as not to upset them.

    As far as Trump needing to grow, I think the GOPe should follow Trump’s lead and grow a pair.

    “The Never-Trump losers and cowards”? Thank you for elevating the level of discourse.

    What else can be said about people who are afraid of fulfilling an obligation because it might upset the Democrats? That covers the term “cowards”. 

    BTW, Trump is President and his opponents are not. Objectively, they are “losers”. 

    You’re welcome. 

    • #74
  15. DrewInWisconsin, Man of Constant Sorrow Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Constant Sorrow
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta… (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    This is like saying that because David Duke supports Trump, and is a racist, that anyone who doesn’t denounce David Duke is running with racists. I don’t believe that for a minute.

    Don’t believe it? You’ve used this smear countless times!

    Please document your slur or withdraw it with an apology.

    You expect me to go back through all your posts? Sorry. No, I know what you’ve written. The whole point of saying “David Duke endorses Trump” (which you have done countless times), is to somehow connect Duke’s beliefs with Trump’s. David Duke also supports Ilhan Omar. What does that say? Do Trump and Omar believe the same things? This kind of criticism is silly. So no, I will not apologize. Rather, I expect you to apologize for using this smear and countless other smears, such as the Charlottesville lie that you continue to peddle. The Ukraine lie. The Russian collusion lie. The “200,000 COVID Deaths are Trump’s fault!” lie.

    Every lie that the Democrats hand you, you willingly spread. And you expect us to believe you’re some kind of Reagan Republican? I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck.

    • #75
  16. Jon1979 Inactive
    Jon1979
    @Jon1979

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    I believe that Joe Biden would keep his word.

    Do you believe Kamala would keep Joe’s word, if Joe can’t make it all the way to 2025?

    • #76
  17. DrewInWisconsin, Man of Constant Sorrow Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Constant Sorrow
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Jon1979 (View Comment):

    Do you believe Kamala would keep Joe’s word, if Joe can’t make it all the way to 2025?

    Joe Biden can’t even keep his word. Don’t expect Kamala to do it.

    • #77
  18. Jon1979 Inactive
    Jon1979
    @Jon1979

    Django (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    I think that the norms are clearly to wait until after the election.

    Gary, are you really comfortable with Reagan as your avatar? It doesn’t seem to suit you, somehow.

    Why wouldn’t I keep the Greatest President of the Twentieth Century as my avatar?

    Because he was a conservative. In fact at the time the Bush wing of the party (or Rockefeller wing, if you prefer) loathed him to start. They made accommodation with him only when they realized that they weren’t going to beat him. You are more of a Willard Romney Republican. He prefers to be called Mitt Romney. I prefer to call him a feckless, opportunistic, backstabbing, weasel-faced fink. So we compromise.

    Who is this guy and what has been done to or with Mittens?

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/romney-supports-holding-a-vote-on-next-supreme-court-nominee/ar-BB19iVJN?ocid=msedgdhp

    If your argument, as Romney’s has been, is that he’s not against conservatism,  but just against Trump and his actions, you pretty much have to go this route, as opposed to the Bulwark-Lincoln Project route, where everything Trump touches must be opposed. Mitt still has an out, of course, if he decides Barrett, Lagoa or whoever else might be on the list is unqualified, but his action has still angered liberals (and possibly this guy, who wasn’t happy with the Kavanaugh defenders two years ago):

    • #78
  19. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta… (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Please re-read what I said. I said that it was likely that “Arizona” will vote for a Democrat for only the second time since 1952.

    Okay, so you’re still a solid Biden voter, right? No going wobbly!

    Half a league, half a league,
    Half a league onward,
    All in the valley of … you know … the thing
    Rode the six hundred.

    • #79
  20. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Third, the Dems will use the nuclear option on the legislative filibuster. The Supreme Court will be expanded to 11 justices, and DC and Puerto Rico will become new states. The Dems will also increase the Federal Judiciary by 30% as happened when Jimmy Carter was President.

    And then in 2022 the Democrats in Congress will be destroyed worse than they were in 2010 after they forced Obamacare through despite public opposition.

     

    • #80
  21. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Percival (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta… (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Please re-read what I said. I said that it was likely that “Arizona” will vote for a Democrat for only the second time since 1952.

    Okay, so you’re still a solid Biden voter, right? No going wobbly!

    Half a league, half a league,
    Half a league onward,
    All in the valley of … you know … the thing
    Rode the six hundred.

    For real.

    • #81
  22. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    In 2016, Trump won Arizona by only 3%. Trump was able to hold 94% of Republican votes in 2016, many of whom were hoping that Trump would grow up in the process. He hasn’t.

    Maybe not on Twitter.

    In policy, he’s grown up. Better deregulation and judges than I would have expected from nearly any GOP President.

    Trump has fired all of the adults who could have constrained him. He completely blew COVID-19. No.

    I seem to recall hearing January that we could expect a couple million dead from the virus.

    If we’re at only 10% of that, we’ve done pretty well.

    And how many of those 200,000 were the results of Democratic governors putting positive cases in nursing homes?

     

    • #82
  23. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    In 2016, Trump won Arizona by only 3%. Trump was able to hold 94% of Republican votes in 2016, many of whom were hoping that Trump would grow up in the process. He hasn’t.

    Maybe not on Twitter.

    In policy, he’s grown up. Better deregulation and judges than I would have expected from nearly any GOP President.

    Trump has fired all of the adults who could have constrained him. He completely blew COVID-19. No.

    I seem to recall hearing January that we could expect a couple million dead from the virus.

    If we’re at only 10% of that, we’ve done pretty well.

    And how many of those 200,000 were the results of Democratic governors putting positive cases in nursing homes?

     

    I don’t always trust my memory, but I think I heard an initial estimate from the usual suspects that it would take two to three years to develop a Covid-19 vaccine. Then came “Operation Warp Speed”. If there is a vaccine available in January, 2021, it is just short of a miracle. And it happened on Trump’s watch. 

    • #83
  24. DrewInWisconsin, Man of Constant Sorrow Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Constant Sorrow
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Django (View Comment):
    I don’t always trust my memory, but I think I heard an initial estimate from the usual suspects that it would take two to three years to develop a Covid-19 vaccine. Then came “Operation Warp Speed”. If there is a vaccine available in January, 2021, it is just short of a miracle. And it happened on Trump’s watch. 

    It’s been funny watching Trump-haters become anti-vaxxers because they refuse to take the “Trump vaccine!”

    • #84
  25. Jeff Hawkins Coolidge
    Jeff Hawkins
    @JeffHawkins

    David French saying that because Joe Biden was against court packing (now it’s “no comment”) we should make a deal in writing with him is something.

    Biden dropped out in 1988 because he was found to be a constant liar.

    • #85
  26. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta… (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):
    I don’t always trust my memory, but I think I heard an initial estimate from the usual suspects that it would take two to three years to develop a Covid-19 vaccine. Then came “Operation Warp Speed”. If there is a vaccine available in January, 2021, it is just short of a miracle. And it happened on Trump’s watch.

    It’s been funny watching Trump-haters become anti-vaxxers because they refuse to take the “Trump vaccine!”

    Agree. Harris was talking as though she really thought Trump mixed up the vaccine in the White House basement.  

    • #86
  27. DrewInWisconsin, Man of Constant Sorrow Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Constant Sorrow
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Jeff Hawkins (View Comment):
    David French saying that because Joe Biden was against court packing (now it’s “no comment”) we should make a deal in writing with him is something.

    And that deal-making with Democrats always works out well, doesn’t it. Saint Reagan would certainly have something to say about whether Democrats keep their promises.

    • #87
  28. Jager Coolidge
    Jager
    @Jager

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Jon Gabriel, Ed. (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Let’s talk about the law of unintended consequences of jamming through the nomination regardless of the consequences. In November 2013, Harry Reid used the nuclear option to stop filibusters for appointments, other than the Supreme Court. In 2017, Mitch McConnell expanded that to the Supreme Court and has been busy ramming through federal judges, which is a good thing in my view.

    I predict that if Mitch forces a confirmation vote before the election, the following three things will happen.

    First, Trump will be defeated. The strongest reason to keep Trump was to replace Ginsberg on the Supreme Court, and Breyer is a spry 82 year old. With no more seats to fill, why keep the Trump albatross?

    Second, Senate hypocrites like Lindsey Graham, and Steve Daines will be defeated. Their pious words in 2016 will be thrown in their faces repeatedly and justifiably. Act Blue received over $100 million in donations after McConnell made his play.

    Third, the Dems will use the nuclear option on the legislative filibuster. The Supreme Court will be expanded to 11 justices, and DC and Puerto Rico will become new states. The Dems will also increase the Federal Judiciary by 30% as happened when Jimmy Carter was President.

    Mark my words, this will be the largest miscalculation since Harry Reid nuked the filibuster on appointments back in 2014.

    • It’s not “jamming through.” It’s observing the norms.
    • If the GOP doesn’t appoint someone (or at least nominate someone), all of them will be defeated.
    • The Dems have already promised to end the filibuster, pack the court, and introduce new states.

    I think that the norms are clearly to wait until after the election.

    I think you miss use the word “norm”. The Senate holding off on Merrit Garland was the violation of the Norms. Never before had a Court appointment been held up simply because it was an election year. 

    https://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/

     

    • #88
  29. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Jon1979 (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    I think that the norms are clearly to wait until after the election.

    Gary, are you really comfortable with Reagan as your avatar? It doesn’t seem to suit you, somehow.

    Why wouldn’t I keep the Greatest President of the Twentieth Century as my avatar?

    Because he was a conservative. In fact at the time the Bush wing of the party (or Rockefeller wing, if you prefer) loathed him to start. They made accommodation with him only when they realized that they weren’t going to beat him. You are more of a Willard Romney Republican. He prefers to be called Mitt Romney. I prefer to call him a feckless, opportunistic, backstabbing, weasel-faced fink. So we compromise.

    Who is this guy and what has been done to or with Mittens?

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/romney-supports-holding-a-vote-on-next-supreme-court-nominee/ar-BB19iVJN?ocid=msedgdhp

    If your argument, as Romney’s has been, is that he’s not against conservatism, but just against Trump and his actions, you pretty much have to go this route, as opposed to the Bulwark-Lincoln Project route, where everything Trump touches must be opposed. Mitt still has an out, of course, if he decides Barrett, Lagoa or whoever else might be on the list is unqualified, but his action has still angered liberals (and possibly this guy, who wasn’t happy with the Kavanaugh defenders two years ago):

    “Dear Bill, 
    “Your inner self is what you are. You have been living in denial and should probably accept who you are and admit it to yourself. But only yourself. Otherwise you won’t be allowed to occupy a ‘official Conservative’ spot in the media anymore. You would no longer be useful to the Democrat party. 
    “Yours because you’re ours, 
    “The Media” 

    • #89
  30. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Percival (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta… (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Please re-read what I said. I said that it was likely that “Arizona” will vote for a Democrat for only the second time since 1952.

    Okay, so you’re still a solid Biden voter, right? No going wobbly!

    Half a league, half a league,
    Half a league onward,
    All in the valley of … you know … the thing
    Rode the six hundred [million].

     

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.