Discussion in 'Legal' started by Cannibul, Sep 18, 2020.
Now President Trump gets a third pick on the SC.
The Democrats will pull out all stops in trying to obstruct, but I'm not sure they'll be able to prevent this one. It may not come before the election, but I'm willing to bet quite a bit on there being a new justice confirmed before the next inauguration, whoever it may be.
Agree wholeheartedly. This could solidify the 2A for decades if the right pick can be sworn in on time.
Mitch McConnell is up to the task, I believe.
Don't forget the lame-duck session. A new justice will easily be confirmed before Jan. 3.
The confirmation of a third Trump appointment is a given.
However, look beyond the immediate issue. If the Court is dominated by the conservatives 6-3, but the presidency, House, and Senate are all controlled by the Democrats, the temptation will be great to increase the Court membership to 13 (Court packing). FDR wasn't able to do it but Biden might. It depends on how many of his initiatives are shot down by the 9-member Court.
I do not think there will be an appointment prior to the election. Then, there’ll be a long grueling slog to a confirmation after Trump pulls in the win
Only time will tell but I will be very surprise if first-term-Trump gets to fill this seat, my 22LR ammo is on the the next president (Trump, Biden, Jorgensen etc) will be filling the seat not the current president.
We can pray but not a chance of Senate confirmation for months after the election and Trump Inauguration!
Regardless of whether Trump wins, if the new Senate has at least 51 Democrats (as is now expected), all Trump appointments will be dead on arrival after Jan. 3. That's why time is of the essence. I expect a Trump appointment before the election, and a confirmation shortly thereafter.
She will be confirmed BEFORE the election...
Judge Barrett would be a strong plus for the 2nd Amendment.
election year, the Senate would not even consider a nomination from the president."
She's also a right-to-lifer. Voting to confirm her would put Sen. Susan Collins in a really tough spot for her re-election in Maine (as if she isn't already). That's one reason why a confirmation vote would have to held after the election. I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion, just with your timing.
That was then, and this now. Politicians are never bothered by inconsistency and hypocrisy.
That would be awesome! It would also put the Democrats on the defensive...or at least have their attention divided between trying to get re-elected and fighting the confirmation of someone they would rabidly hate.
This election is going to have some FIREWORKS!
Any particular reason? My thing is, the Republicans control the Senate and I don't see them passing up an opportunity to swing the court right possibly for a generation. They only need 51 votes, which may take a little work to get some of the centrists on board but is far from insurmountable. If cloture rules still applied I'd be with you, but since the nuclear option was invoked that changes things.
I agree with your thinking. A conformation is possible by January 3. The GOP Senate is thin but certainly doable.
It will make for great theater.
Tied votes (4-4 with her seat vacant) defer to the lower court's ruling without setting precedent, otherwise things will go about normally.
Given what the Republicans did to Obama and Merrick Garland in 2016 the Democrats are going to do everything they can to return the favor. They are not is a strong a position to do it but they are well motivated to return the favor.
All things being equal, I disagreed with her on alot of other important things as well. I'm sad for her and her family, I will never rejoice in someone's death unless they are a killer, rapist, etc.. That being said, seeing a positive in her seat potentially being filled by someone who is not a far left judicial activist like she was is reasonable.
Monac...There are many important issues and implications of Justice Ginsburg’s passing we could discuss. However, currently we’re on THR, a GUN focused website. ...hence the focus on the topic at hand. You feel free to branch out however and watch how quick the mods come in...
Oh, I get that. The difference is, the Republicans controlled the Senate then as an opposing party to the president. I'm not aware of any real procedural roadblocks the Democrats could effectively throw up to stall for as long as they'd need to. Their best bet would be to put political pressure on Romney and/or Collins. Murkowski already said she won't vote to confirm prior to inauguration, but still requires 3 more defections which means Romney, Collins, and one more.
I wasn't a huge fan of it when they did it even though I prefer Gorsuch over Garland because I thought it was a manipulation of the system. I didn't like the precedent that it set. That being said, I'd be surprised if they actually followed their own standard, and I believe McConnell already said they will vote on an appointment.
Separate names with a comma.