13 ms·
Mitch McConnell and Trump will have a replacement confirmed by the end of October.
by quickthrowman 6y ago
Mitch McConnell and Trump will have a replacement confirmed by the end of October.
- moate 6y agoAbsolutely 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 agoInteresting 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 agoTrump 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 agoWhy would he give up virtually guaranteed victory in exchange for something that only matters if he loses?
- 1986 6y agoGetting a conservative justice on the court is a massive draw for Trump's reelection. That's why he released a list of candidates before both elections.
- dmurray 6y agoI don't get this theory. There are a lot of people out there who want to see a conservative justice elected, but prefer Biden over Trump in the White House? Or a lot of conservative voters who are apathetic about the presidency and might not vote, but would be convinced to come to the polls if a Supreme Court spot was at stake? I mean I can believe both of those sets of people exist, but hardly that they're numerous enough to dictate the election strategy.
- rayiner 6y agoI bet there are a lot of independents who would prefer Trump to nominate a Justice and then lose the election.
- evan_ 6y agothere are zero people who fit this description
- int_19h 6y agoA lot of right libertarians are in this boat, actually.
- evan_ 6y agoWhy? Trump is never going to appoint a justice who will legitimately advance any cause of liberty. He’s going to appoint someone who will protect his power and the power of the Republican Party. Trump making more appointments is exactly the same as him getting another 4 years, except it will last decades.
- jghn 6y agoAgree, but worth noting that they can nominate/seat someone after the election. They have their POTUS and majority until the end of January.
- filoeleven 6y agoThis logic might apply during less polarized times. American politics right now is full-on us-versus-them, and who has the biggest numbers. McConnell is in Kentucky and ahead in the polls, and he’s smart enough not to full-on troll the left with a flat-out fascist. The left will respond as if he did anyway, but they’ll have a lot less success in convincing conservatives it’s a bad move if the judge is not beyond what most conservatives will support. That line has shifted far to the right (or, to the far right) over the past 30 years. I guess I’m saying that opinions on an “inoffensive conservative justice” is a bimodal distribution, and McConnell’s right hump is higher.
- dehrmann 6y ago> American politics right now is full-on us-versus-them Among voters, but Trump would/did(?) throw the GOP under the bus to get elected.
- evan_ 6y agoWith Supreme Court supremacy Republicans don’t have to get re-elected by voters anymore, they just have to dispute the results, lose, and appeal up to the nearest friendly court.
- LegitShady 6y agoAnd trump has appointed a huge amount of federal judges, including appeals court judges. With this he'd have appointed 3 supreme court judges as well. It's apocalypse for the democrats.
- quickthrowman 6y agoThe court seat matters more than the Senate and more than the presidency to Mitch McConnell. He’d give up his own senate seat to confirm this justice.
- zerocrates 6y agoYou can have your cake and eat it too by waiting, though. The looming court seat was a very effective driver of votes for Trump in the previous election, at least that's the conventional wisdom. So have a go at seeing if that will work again. You can also spin it as being respectful, serious, and considered by waiting. Even if you end up losing the Presidency, and even the Senate, you're still in power for enough time afterward to make an appointment. The only things I could think of working against that would be: the idea that you just make the appointment immediately and tout it as another success to your base, or perhaps a fear that since it's Ginsburg's seat that's vacant, having it open is actually a more mobilizing force for Democrats. There's also, I suppose, the possibility that you make the move right away on the theory that this upcoming election is likely to be contested and could reach the Supreme Court.
- leptons 6y agoTrump and the GOP plan to steal the electrion via the Supreme Court, just like GW Bush did in 2000, except this time they will need SCOTUS a lot more because it won't be as easy for them to justify nulling a landslide for Biden - but they will do it anyway because they have no shame, and if they have power, and they have SCOTUS to do their dirty work, then so be it.
- LegitShady 6y ago> You can have your cake and eat it too by waiting, though. The risk of not winning either is too much. They'd rather get the "win" and campaign on the win.
- int_19h 6y agoOP is saying that there's no risk, because you can wait until after the election, but before the new term begins (i.e. before January, 3). Trump could still nominate then, and the current Senate could confirm. But this is also exactly why this gambit doesn't really work - because the voters know that whatever happens at the polls, the end result is the same. They could hold voters hostage to the Supreme Court nomination back in 2016 because there was a split between the president and the Senate that blocked either side from getting what they really wanted until the next term.
- dang 6y agoPlease don't use uppercase for emphasis. If you want to emphasize a word or phrase, put asterisks around it and it will get italicized. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
- juniper_strong 6y agoOf all the fouls you could call...
- dang 6y agoThere's no implication about relative importance. Also, if it isn't consistent, that's because we only see a portion of what gets posted here, often rather randomly. If you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it. You can help by flagging it or emailing us at hn@ycombinator.com. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=likeliest%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
- Rebelgecko 6y agoThis is probably the most toxicity I've ever seen in an HN story's comments. Thanks for everything you do... I imagine you've got your work cut out for you tonight.
- Cd00d 6y agoTIL. I use underscores for italics (as my normal applications work that way), and have just been accepting that my emphasis looks like _emphasis_, instead of emphasis. Thank you.
- quickthrowman 6y agoThanks for moderating this thread dang, you’re a saint.
- adrianmonk 6y agoI definitely would expect Trump to calculate whether it is more in his interests to do it before or after election day. I don't think it's possible to remove the election math, though. Whatever he does, it could influence voter turnout for both sides. There's also the possibility that something about the election will be disputed and go to the Supreme Court (as happened with vote counting with Bush v. Gore in 2000). So Trump might decide he wants his appointee to already be serving before election day if he thinks that would be more in his favor.
- swader999 6y agoWith the large mail in vote, an appointee before election day seems likely.
- blisseyGo 6y agoYep. It's pretty much needed as if the election is contested and needs to be decided by the Supreme Court, not having a justice will be a disaster. Also presidency ends on January 20th - you can't go without a justice for 4 months.
- Cd00d 6y agoWhy can't we go without a justice for 4 months? After Scalia died we lacked a justice for nearly a year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_nomination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_...
- blisseyGo 6y agoBecause this time, most likely there will be a contested election. And because this time it's different because both the WH and Senate are held by the same party unlike 2016. SC judge needs both Senate and WH and that was not the case in 2016.
- projektfu 6y agoEither way, it takes 5 justices to make a majority.