20 ms·

There would seem to be precedent for this now. Justice Antonin Scalia died in February of 2016, a replacement was nominated in March of 2016, and because Scali

There would seem to be precedent for this now. Justice Antonin Scalia died in February of 2016, a replacement was nominated in March of 2016, and because Scalia's seat had become vacant during an election year, the Senate would not even consider a nomination from the president [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_nomination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_...

HaloZero 6y ago
McConnell has already stated that he will put someone up even though his logic would apply to this year.
minimaxir 6y ago
In a normal government, precedent would likely be followed. This is not a normal government.
- roenxi 6y ago
  The precedent set was that the Senate can overrule the president. That precedent will be followed. I don't think anyone misunderstands the situation - McConnell is going to do whatever is most expedient to get a Supreme Court composition that he likes. Any specific justification is mostly cosmetic - Senate has the power, and the controller of the Senate uses the power.
  - Hnrobert42 6y ago
    That was not the precedent. The precedent was to “allow the country to decide.” Drop the pretext. His side won. Screw the other side. Just have some integrity and own it.
- thesagan 6y ago
  Actually, I think this is now normal in the U.S. and should be expected going forward. From both duopoly parties. Power grabbing is the game.
  - Aeolun 6y ago
    Of course. If it’s clear that the other party is not playing by the rules, there’s very little reason to keep to them yourself.
tootie 6y ago
Precedent means nothing. There's no law. Mcconnell just abused his power and will do so again with no regard for his past position.
- beervirus 6y ago
  It was hardly an abuse. It was business as usual.
  - blake1 6y ago
    It was a new rule, concocted at a moments notice, and discarded the moment it outlived its usefulness. That latter moment was today. It was the definition of abuse.
    - beervirus 6y ago
      Please tell me the last time a democrat-controlled senate confirmed a Supreme Court justice for a republican president in an election year.
      - nwienert 6y ago
        You are right, and shouldn’t be downvoted for pointing out a simple truth. People are upset because the media played it up as such a miscarriage of justice, but the truth is the senate wouldn’t have confirmed him and so they didn’t vote for a hearing. The Democrats of course can and obviously will do the same the next time they have opposition in the senate - and would have done the same, I’d bet, if the situation was flipped then. I actually think many don’t understand this as it was really propagandized on Twitter, etc as some massive deal, but having the hearing wouldn’t have changed anything.
        bcrosby95 6y ago
        > but the truth is the senate wouldn’t have confirmed him and so they didn’t vote for a hearing. This is not necessarily true. McConnell does this to protect his fellow senators from having to decide between party and state, potentially hurting their re-election chances if they side with the party. Majority leaders regularly stop things going to vote not because they wouldn't pass, but rather because it can create strife and bad feelings within the party.
jandrese 6y ago
If you think McConnell has a shred of honor or cares one whiff about not being a hypocrite I have a bridge to sell you.
- blisseyGo 6y ago
  His point was that the WH and Senate shouldn't contemplate a SCOTUS nominee in an election year if they are controlled by opposite parties. Not hypocritical as that's not the case this time.
  - chipotle_coyote 6y ago
    That's the way he's reframing the point now. There was no mention from 2016 that I can find where he mentioned anything about opposite parties: his argument was entirely "it's too close to the election and the next president should be the one who gets to appoint the next Justice."
    - blisseyGo 6y ago
      That's what was given to him in 2016 by the Senate which holds the power of giving or not giving a vote to the WH nominee according to the constitution: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2719115/Senate-SCOTUS-Letter.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2719115/Senate-SC... Also: 1. Don't impeach a president in an election year. 2. If dems wanted their adversaries to respect unwritten norms, maybe they should have refrained from baselessly accusing the nominees of gang rape (Justice Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas). 3. A SC Judge vote needs BOTH WH and Senate. That was not the case in 2016 regardless of who said what. That is the case this time. It's the President's prerogative to nominate, and the Senate's prerogative to confirm. 4. This time, it would also most likely be a contested election. So not having a full supreme count will be a disaster. Btw, I am NOT a fan of McConnell. But this case is very different.
- cm2187 6y ago
  If you think McConnell has a monopoly on hypocrisy I have a bridge to sell you as well. McConnell took both sides of the argument (delay when convenient, expedite when convenient), the democrats opposed him on both occasions. If this was a moral discussion, then both parties are equally guilty of hypocrisy. Now if you think that political appointments are a moral matter rather than a balance of power within the constitution matter, it's not a bridge that I have to sell you, it's a planet.
notafraudster 6y ago
McConnell immediately clarified his position was "the Senate shouldn't consider a nomination in an election year if it's controlled by my party and the president isn't in my party" -- no kidding, this was his actual clarification.
- treeman79 6y ago
  Honest at least.
- pandaman 6y ago
  And he just cited the position Joseph Biden asserted in 1992, no kidding: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-arg...
  - rayiner 6y ago
    Biden didn’t just suggest the idea, he was also citing historical practice!
  - matthewbauer 6y ago
    Biden's speech was just saying that the nomination shouldn't happen during an election. I don't think he ever said it couldn't happen during a lame duck session of the Senate.
    - Hnrobert42 6y ago
      Let’s be clear. A lame duck is one that has been shot, is still in flight, but is headed down. In politics, it refers to after a sitting representative loses an election (or term limit ends) but before before the term ends. Obama was not a lame duck when Scalia died. McConnell et al redefined the term to suit their needs. As they will no doubt redefine it now.
    - pandaman 6y ago
      He was just saying that the nomination should not happen during an election year and then he expands that he won't consider conservative nominees from the conservative i.e. different party president. It's just 4 minute video of several speech fragments, does not take long to watch and be informed.
theptip 6y ago
From the article: > Asked what he would do in circumstances like these, McConnell said: "Oh, we'd fill it." [the supreme court seat]
quickthrowman 6y ago
Mitch McConnell and Trump will have a replacement confirmed by the end of October.
- moate 6y ago
  Absolutely not. Why would Trump eliminate one of the biggest draws to electing him? If he pushes someone through before November, he absolutely loses the senate (assuming you believe the polls). No way those purple states with senators up for election are going to carry Republicans who went from "we don't vote for the USSC during final term years" to "RUSH THROUGH THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY NOMINEE!" in 4 years. The move is to have everything set and ready to go during the lame duck and push hard then if you lose or wait until Jan if you win. Removes the election math from the process.
  - dehrmann 6y ago
    Interesting point. Trump and McConnell's interests aren't actually aligned, here. McConnell is up for reelection, ahead in the polls, and wants an inoffsensive conservative justice. Trump's behind, is more interested in his reelection than in getting a conservative justice on the court. He can't drag his feet too long or it will look like he's stalling, and he'd have to nominate a judicial version of Judy Shelton so he's playing to his base, but it's someone the Senate wouldn't approve. Or if they have someone they already vetted with skeletons in the closet that just haven't come out yet.
    - selimthegrim 6y ago
      Trump wants to skate from state (NY) let alone federal charges after the election if he loses. The Democrats should use this leverage for all it’s worth. If he’s going to act like a mob boss let’s turn him like one.
      - evan_ 6y ago
        Why would he give up virtually guaranteed victory in exchange for something that only matters if he loses?
compscistd 6y ago
I know it doesn't mean much, but I filled out a plea to both my Republican senators and Mitch McConnell's contact forms to respect the McConnell / Merrick Garland precedent in 2016. Obviously they've explicitly said they wouldn't, but it doesn't hurt to try.
rayiner 6y ago
That is not the precedent: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/history-is-on-the-side-of-republicans-filling-a-supreme-court-vacancy-in-2020/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/history-is-on-the-sid... > History supports Republicans filling the seat. Doing so would not be in any way inconsistent with Senate Republicans’ holding open the seat vacated by Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016. The reason is simple, and was explained by Mitch McConnell at the time. Historically, throughout American history, when their party controls the Senate, presidents get to fill Supreme Court vacancies at any time — even in a presidential election year, even in a lame-duck session after the election, even after defeat. Historically, when the opposite party controls the Senate, the Senate gets to block Supreme Court nominees sent up in a presidential election year, and hold the seat open for the winner. Both of those precedents are settled by experience as old as the republic. The linked article actually goes on to describe every situation where there was an election year Supreme Court vacancy. Please read.
- AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
  Just curious: does dem-controlled senate behave differently?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - rayiner 6y ago
    No. See: https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/03/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-nominee-rejections-politics-has-lot-do-it/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/03/neil-gorsuch-supreme-...
    - tchock23 6y ago
      Can you cite something other than the conservative National Review?
      - rayiner 6y ago
        The "conservative" National Review went back to every Supreme Court appointment in history and made charts showing exactly what happened to answer your question. The New York Times, with its "moral clarity" performed no such analysis and presented no such charts. So no, I won't cite something else.
ixtli 6y ago
This is America there is literally nothing stopping anything from happening if you wield power.
defertoreptar 6y ago
The Democrats wanted the nomination to go through, but the Republicans blocked it. There's no real precedent unless both parties are for it.
awb 6y ago
McConnell is on the record saying he would seat a justice during Trump's reelection. There are no principles, just power struggles. If HRC was president, McConnell would follow his 2016 policy. With Trump president he'll make a new policy. There are no repercussions for bringing home the bacon to your constituents at any cost.
- raisedbyninjas 6y ago
  Mcconnell's stated policy was that he wouldn't confirm any Clinton nomination, regardless of the year.
stjohnswarts 6y ago
Yeah no way this matters to the current generation of Trump supporters. His second in command, McConnell, is probably calling an emergency session tonight to get the votes he needs to put in someone to end Roe v. Wade, as it is probably the most symbolic victory of women against the white male patriarchy since the birth of the USA (and suffrage) and it must not stand.
- rayiner 6y ago
  The irony of your scare-mongering is that Roe was a 7-2 case where two Nixon appointees voted in the majority. It was reaffirmed in Casey where another Republican voted in the majority. Obergefell was written by a Republican. So was Bostock.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    I don't think there's irony there. The republican platform explicitly wants to overturn Roe. Russo was months ago. If the new justice is right of Roberts, it would get overturned.
    - Clubber 6y ago
      The evangelicals are part of their coalition. They have to at least pretend to try to overturn it or the evangelicals won't show up. Each party is a coalition of interests whether it's a particular minority, class, etc. They have to at least pander to every part of their coalition, otherwise they don't show up to vote. If nothing gets done, they can simply flail their arms, yell, scream and blame the other party. The important thing is making it look like they are trying. Each party also has a coalition of large donors who expect a lot more for their money than mere pandering and aren't fooled by the tactics used for the previously mentioned coalitions. Parties without donors die, so this is a existential requirement. This is essentially why voters never get what they want and donors always do.
    - rayiner 6y ago
      A 5-4 conservative majority Supreme Court keeps striking down abortion restrictions, much less rolling anything back. A 6-3 wouldn’t flip it, though you might get some more enforcement of the viability limit. Only Alito and Thomas would actually vote to flip it if it came to that.
JohnTHaller 6y ago
McConnell has already publicly stated that he's bringing a nominee to the senate floor. You didn't think he'd have consistency and integrity even with his own precedent did you?
tootie 6y ago
Mcconnell has already said he confirm a nominees without delay. He can even confirm after losing my the election in a lame duck session if he wants.
blhack 6y ago
I'm curious: does anybody seriously think that if the positions were reversed that the Democrats would honor this? Let's say that Biden wins, then Trump runs against him again in 2024. Somebody dies or retires right before the election, do you think the democrats would seriously wait and risk allowing the nomination to be done by Trump? None of these people are in any way signaling their actual virtues. It's all just slogans. Also: the Democrats didn't grant this to the Republicans over Scalia. The Republicans were in power in the Senate at the time and used this power to their advantage. Yeah, this is all terrible: this is the world you get when our politics seem to be regulated by twitter. If you want this to change, get rid of cable news talk shows, and get rid of twitter. Until then, this is what you're going to have.
- knightofmars 6y ago
  Possibly. There is a level of accountability that seems to happen with the Democratic party. Not to say absolutely but it has happened. https://www.vox.com/2018/5/21/17352230/al-franken-accusations-resignation-democrats-leann-tweeden-kirsten-gillibrand https://www.vox.com/2018/5/21/17352230/al-franken-accusation...
  - AuryGlenz 6y ago
    Throwing one of your own under the bus for political reasons isn’t what I’d call accountability.
    - tacheiordache 6y ago
      Maybe not as what we hope accountability really means but it is slightly better than protecting your own knowing they did wrong.
    - knightofmars 6y ago
      And here's the example comment that highlights the varying moral compass that seems to exist in defining what one perceives as "thrown under the bus" vs "holding accountable". What are your political leanings, if you don't mind me asking?
jb775 6y ago
The Senate wasn't setting a precedent, they were simply blocking the nomination from the opposite political party....as is their right. Would have played out the exact same way if political tables were turned.
- Aeolun 6y ago
  I think the political tables have been turned that way quite a few times, but it never happened until that time.
  - jb775 6y ago
    Any references and/or dates? Or just gonna stop there since that's what you'd like to believe?
    - Aeolun 6y ago
      Not really, just an inference from there being some 150 years of election. If there was an instance where the other party did this the GOP would be slapping them around the ears with it. So since they’re not doing that, I assume there’s no instance they can use.
IncRnd 6y ago
That does not form a legal precedent. What you refer to was a political move and not a legal action. The Constitution governs this, not how people previously voted or blocked votes. I believe the first time a SC nominee was blocked was Roger Taney in 1835. This is politics and happens, as a general principle, regularly by both parties.
blisseyGo 6y ago
You don't have to agree with it but his point was that the WH and Senate shouldn't contemplate a SCOTUS nominee in an election year if they are controlled by opposite parties. Not hypocritical as that's not the case this time. Also what happens if the election is contested and needs to be decided by the Supreme Court? Can't have a Supreme Court without a justice till January 20th.
- namarie 6y ago
  > Also what happens if the election is contested and needs to be decided by the Supreme Court? Can't have a Supreme Court without a justice till January 20th. Strangely enough that same Supreme Court spent most of 2016 without a justice with no issue. Also, in what world the Supreme Court deciding on the validity of an election with a deciding member having been appointed to it just before that same election by one of the participants does not consist of a massive conflict of interest?

HaloZero 6y ago

McConnell has already stated that he will put someone up even though his logic would apply to this year.

minimaxir 6y ago

In a normal government, precedent would likely be followed. This is not a normal government.

roenxi 6y ago
The precedent set was that the Senate can overrule the president. That precedent will be followed. I don't think anyone misunderstands the situation - McConnell is going to do whatever is most expedient to get a Supreme Court composition that he likes. Any specific justification is mostly cosmetic - Senate has the power, and the controller of the Senate uses the power.
- Hnrobert42 6y ago
  That was not the precedent. The precedent was to “allow the country to decide.” Drop the pretext. His side won. Screw the other side. Just have some integrity and own it.
thesagan 6y ago
Actually, I think this is now normal in the U.S. and should be expected going forward. From both duopoly parties. Power grabbing is the game.
- Aeolun 6y ago
  Of course. If it’s clear that the other party is not playing by the rules, there’s very little reason to keep to them yourself.

tootie 6y ago

Precedent means nothing. There's no law. Mcconnell just abused his power and will do so again with no regard for his past position.

beervirus 6y ago
It was hardly an abuse. It was business as usual.
- blake1 6y ago
  It was a new rule, concocted at a moments notice, and discarded the moment it outlived its usefulness. That latter moment was today. It was the definition of abuse.
  - beervirus 6y ago
    Please tell me the last time a democrat-controlled senate confirmed a Supreme Court justice for a republican president in an election year.
    - nwienert 6y ago
      You are right, and shouldn’t be downvoted for pointing out a simple truth. People are upset because the media played it up as such a miscarriage of justice, but the truth is the senate wouldn’t have confirmed him and so they didn’t vote for a hearing. The Democrats of course can and obviously will do the same the next time they have opposition in the senate - and would have done the same, I’d bet, if the situation was flipped then. I actually think many don’t understand this as it was really propagandized on Twitter, etc as some massive deal, but having the hearing wouldn’t have changed anything.
      - bcrosby95 6y ago
        > but the truth is the senate wouldn’t have confirmed him and so they didn’t vote for a hearing. This is not necessarily true. McConnell does this to protect his fellow senators from having to decide between party and state, potentially hurting their re-election chances if they side with the party. Majority leaders regularly stop things going to vote not because they wouldn't pass, but rather because it can create strife and bad feelings within the party.

jandrese 6y ago

If you think McConnell has a shred of honor or cares one whiff about not being a hypocrite I have a bridge to sell you.

blisseyGo 6y ago
His point was that the WH and Senate shouldn't contemplate a SCOTUS nominee in an election year if they are controlled by opposite parties. Not hypocritical as that's not the case this time.
- chipotle_coyote 6y ago
  That's the way he's reframing the point now. There was no mention from 2016 that I can find where he mentioned anything about opposite parties: his argument was entirely "it's too close to the election and the next president should be the one who gets to appoint the next Justice."
  - blisseyGo 6y ago
    That's what was given to him in 2016 by the Senate which holds the power of giving or not giving a vote to the WH nominee according to the constitution: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2719115/Senate-SCOTUS-Letter.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2719115/Senate-SC... Also: 1. Don't impeach a president in an election year. 2. If dems wanted their adversaries to respect unwritten norms, maybe they should have refrained from baselessly accusing the nominees of gang rape (Justice Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas). 3. A SC Judge vote needs BOTH WH and Senate. That was not the case in 2016 regardless of who said what. That is the case this time. It's the President's prerogative to nominate, and the Senate's prerogative to confirm. 4. This time, it would also most likely be a contested election. So not having a full supreme count will be a disaster. Btw, I am NOT a fan of McConnell. But this case is very different.
cm2187 6y ago
If you think McConnell has a monopoly on hypocrisy I have a bridge to sell you as well. McConnell took both sides of the argument (delay when convenient, expedite when convenient), the democrats opposed him on both occasions. If this was a moral discussion, then both parties are equally guilty of hypocrisy. Now if you think that political appointments are a moral matter rather than a balance of power within the constitution matter, it's not a bridge that I have to sell you, it's a planet.

notafraudster 6y ago

McConnell immediately clarified his position was "the Senate shouldn't consider a nomination in an election year if it's controlled by my party and the president isn't in my party" -- no kidding, this was his actual clarification.

treeman79 6y ago
Honest at least.
pandaman 6y ago
And he just cited the position Joseph Biden asserted in 1992, no kidding: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-arg...
- rayiner 6y ago
  Biden didn’t just suggest the idea, he was also citing historical practice!
- matthewbauer 6y ago
  Biden's speech was just saying that the nomination shouldn't happen during an election. I don't think he ever said it couldn't happen during a lame duck session of the Senate.
  - Hnrobert42 6y ago
    Let’s be clear. A lame duck is one that has been shot, is still in flight, but is headed down. In politics, it refers to after a sitting representative loses an election (or term limit ends) but before before the term ends. Obama was not a lame duck when Scalia died. McConnell et al redefined the term to suit their needs. As they will no doubt redefine it now.
  - pandaman 6y ago
    He was just saying that the nomination should not happen during an election year and then he expands that he won't consider conservative nominees from the conservative i.e. different party president. It's just 4 minute video of several speech fragments, does not take long to watch and be informed.

theptip 6y ago

From the article: > Asked what he would do in circumstances like these, McConnell said: "Oh, we'd fill it." [the supreme court seat]

quickthrowman 6y ago

Mitch McConnell and Trump will have a replacement confirmed by the end of October.

moate 6y ago
Absolutely not. Why would Trump eliminate one of the biggest draws to electing him? If he pushes someone through before November, he absolutely loses the senate (assuming you believe the polls). No way those purple states with senators up for election are going to carry Republicans who went from "we don't vote for the USSC during final term years" to "RUSH THROUGH THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY NOMINEE!" in 4 years. The move is to have everything set and ready to go during the lame duck and push hard then if you lose or wait until Jan if you win. Removes the election math from the process.
- dehrmann 6y ago
  Interesting point. Trump and McConnell's interests aren't actually aligned, here. McConnell is up for reelection, ahead in the polls, and wants an inoffsensive conservative justice. Trump's behind, is more interested in his reelection than in getting a conservative justice on the court. He can't drag his feet too long or it will look like he's stalling, and he'd have to nominate a judicial version of Judy Shelton so he's playing to his base, but it's someone the Senate wouldn't approve. Or if they have someone they already vetted with skeletons in the closet that just haven't come out yet.
  - selimthegrim 6y ago
    Trump wants to skate from state (NY) let alone federal charges after the election if he loses. The Democrats should use this leverage for all it’s worth. If he’s going to act like a mob boss let’s turn him like one.
    - evan_ 6y ago
      Why would he give up virtually guaranteed victory in exchange for something that only matters if he loses?

compscistd 6y ago

I know it doesn't mean much, but I filled out a plea to both my Republican senators and Mitch McConnell's contact forms to respect the McConnell / Merrick Garland precedent in 2016. Obviously they've explicitly said they wouldn't, but it doesn't hurt to try.

rayiner 6y ago

That is not the precedent: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/history-is-on-the-side-of-republicans-filling-a-supreme-court-vacancy-in-2020/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/history-is-on-the-sid... > History supports Republicans filling the seat. Doing so would not be in any way inconsistent with Senate Republicans’ holding open the seat vacated by Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016. The reason is simple, and was explained by Mitch McConnell at the time. Historically, throughout American history, when their party controls the Senate, presidents get to fill Supreme Court vacancies at any time — even in a presidential election year, even in a lame-duck session after the election, even after defeat. Historically, when the opposite party controls the Senate, the Senate gets to block Supreme Court nominees sent up in a presidential election year, and hold the seat open for the winner. Both of those precedents are settled by experience as old as the republic. The linked article actually goes on to describe every situation where there was an election year Supreme Court vacancy. Please read.

AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
Just curious: does dem-controlled senate behave differently?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 6y ago
  No. See: https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/03/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-nominee-rejections-politics-has-lot-do-it/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/03/neil-gorsuch-supreme-...
  - tchock23 6y ago
    Can you cite something other than the conservative National Review?
    - rayiner 6y ago
      The "conservative" National Review went back to every Supreme Court appointment in history and made charts showing exactly what happened to answer your question. The New York Times, with its "moral clarity" performed no such analysis and presented no such charts. So no, I won't cite something else.

ixtli 6y ago

This is America there is literally nothing stopping anything from happening if you wield power.

defertoreptar 6y ago

The Democrats wanted the nomination to go through, but the Republicans blocked it. There's no real precedent unless both parties are for it.

awb 6y ago

McConnell is on the record saying he would seat a justice during Trump's reelection. There are no principles, just power struggles. If HRC was president, McConnell would follow his 2016 policy. With Trump president he'll make a new policy. There are no repercussions for bringing home the bacon to your constituents at any cost.

raisedbyninjas 6y ago
Mcconnell's stated policy was that he wouldn't confirm any Clinton nomination, regardless of the year.

stjohnswarts 6y ago

Yeah no way this matters to the current generation of Trump supporters. His second in command, McConnell, is probably calling an emergency session tonight to get the votes he needs to put in someone to end Roe v. Wade, as it is probably the most symbolic victory of women against the white male patriarchy since the birth of the USA (and suffrage) and it must not stand.

rayiner 6y ago
The irony of your scare-mongering is that Roe was a 7-2 case where two Nixon appointees voted in the majority. It was reaffirmed in Casey where another Republican voted in the majority. Obergefell was written by a Republican. So was Bostock.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  I don't think there's irony there. The republican platform explicitly wants to overturn Roe. Russo was months ago. If the new justice is right of Roberts, it would get overturned.
  - Clubber 6y ago
    The evangelicals are part of their coalition. They have to at least pretend to try to overturn it or the evangelicals won't show up. Each party is a coalition of interests whether it's a particular minority, class, etc. They have to at least pander to every part of their coalition, otherwise they don't show up to vote. If nothing gets done, they can simply flail their arms, yell, scream and blame the other party. The important thing is making it look like they are trying. Each party also has a coalition of large donors who expect a lot more for their money than mere pandering and aren't fooled by the tactics used for the previously mentioned coalitions. Parties without donors die, so this is a existential requirement. This is essentially why voters never get what they want and donors always do.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    A 5-4 conservative majority Supreme Court keeps striking down abortion restrictions, much less rolling anything back. A 6-3 wouldn’t flip it, though you might get some more enforcement of the viability limit. Only Alito and Thomas would actually vote to flip it if it came to that.

JohnTHaller 6y ago

McConnell has already publicly stated that he's bringing a nominee to the senate floor. You didn't think he'd have consistency and integrity even with his own precedent did you?

tootie 6y ago

Mcconnell has already said he confirm a nominees without delay. He can even confirm after losing my the election in a lame duck session if he wants.

blhack 6y ago

I'm curious: does anybody seriously think that if the positions were reversed that the Democrats would honor this? Let's say that Biden wins, then Trump runs against him again in 2024. Somebody dies or retires right before the election, do you think the democrats would seriously wait and risk allowing the nomination to be done by Trump? None of these people are in any way signaling their actual virtues. It's all just slogans. Also: the Democrats didn't grant this to the Republicans over Scalia. The Republicans were in power in the Senate at the time and used this power to their advantage. Yeah, this is all terrible: this is the world you get when our politics seem to be regulated by twitter. If you want this to change, get rid of cable news talk shows, and get rid of twitter. Until then, this is what you're going to have.

knightofmars 6y ago
Possibly. There is a level of accountability that seems to happen with the Democratic party. Not to say absolutely but it has happened. https://www.vox.com/2018/5/21/17352230/al-franken-accusations-resignation-democrats-leann-tweeden-kirsten-gillibrand https://www.vox.com/2018/5/21/17352230/al-franken-accusation...
- AuryGlenz 6y ago
  Throwing one of your own under the bus for political reasons isn’t what I’d call accountability.
  - tacheiordache 6y ago
    Maybe not as what we hope accountability really means but it is slightly better than protecting your own knowing they did wrong.
  - knightofmars 6y ago
    And here's the example comment that highlights the varying moral compass that seems to exist in defining what one perceives as "thrown under the bus" vs "holding accountable". What are your political leanings, if you don't mind me asking?

jb775 6y ago

The Senate wasn't setting a precedent, they were simply blocking the nomination from the opposite political party....as is their right. Would have played out the exact same way if political tables were turned.

Aeolun 6y ago
I think the political tables have been turned that way quite a few times, but it never happened until that time.
- jb775 6y ago
  Any references and/or dates? Or just gonna stop there since that's what you'd like to believe?
  - Aeolun 6y ago
    Not really, just an inference from there being some 150 years of election. If there was an instance where the other party did this the GOP would be slapping them around the ears with it. So since they’re not doing that, I assume there’s no instance they can use.

IncRnd 6y ago

That does not form a legal precedent. What you refer to was a political move and not a legal action. The Constitution governs this, not how people previously voted or blocked votes. I believe the first time a SC nominee was blocked was Roger Taney in 1835. This is politics and happens, as a general principle, regularly by both parties.

blisseyGo 6y ago

You don't have to agree with it but his point was that the WH and Senate shouldn't contemplate a SCOTUS nominee in an election year if they are controlled by opposite parties. Not hypocritical as that's not the case this time. Also what happens if the election is contested and needs to be decided by the Supreme Court? Can't have a Supreme Court without a justice till January 20th.

namarie 6y ago
> Also what happens if the election is contested and needs to be decided by the Supreme Court? Can't have a Supreme Court without a justice till January 20th. Strangely enough that same Supreme Court spent most of 2016 without a justice with no issue. Also, in what world the Supreme Court deciding on the validity of an election with a deciding member having been appointed to it just before that same election by one of the participants does not consist of a massive conflict of interest?