September 19, 2020

But also be clear about this: Was Barack Obama wrong to nominate Merrick Garland? You must clearly say that he was or I won't "let you" be clear.


ADDED: From Barack Obama's statement on the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg:
Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in.

A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment.
How does that basic principle apply to you, President Obama? You went ahead and made a nomination. Why shouldn't the new President follow his predecessor's precedent. What can you say to me that isn't "based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment"? It's hard to play the hypocrisy card!

AND:

ALSO: Speaking of "what's convenient or advantageous in the moment," why did Senator Kamala Harris vote against Neil Gorsuch?! Here's her statement. Can anyone seriously portray that as based on anything lofty?
Judge Gorsuch's deeply conservative views put him well outside the mainstream.... Given the controversial nature of this nominee, it is deeply unfortunate Senate Republicans took unprecedented steps to ram Judge Gorsuch through the Senate instead of the President working with Democrats and Republicans to find a consensus nominee.
That's a frank claim of power by a Senator. Obama frankly exercised the power that he had to make a nomination, and the Senate majority at the time frankly exercised the power that they had. Why should we expect the current Senate majority to do anything other than to cast the votes it has and confirm? All I can think is that they might become convinced that it will help them win Senate elections if the issue is left open for the election. That could happen, especially considering that they can still complete the appointment after the election and before the Senate and the presidency can change hands.

175 comments:

Readering said...

Timing completely different.

Ken B said...

Presidents should serve their term, their whole term, and nothing but their term.

Mr Wibble said...

I hate the "McConnell Rule". It's silly to see both sides trying to parse out increasingly convoluted reasons why the "rule" they applied in one situation is not applicable in another. To me it would be better for our country if we could just be honest, "The Senate is not voting on the Merrick Garland nomination because we're exercising our power of advise and consent by not consenting. We're doing this because we think that making Scalia's replacement an election issue benefits us."

Accept that our system is adversarial, and that it works, and we benefit, when politicians pursue their own goals openly rather than putting up a smokescreen about the greater good.

Ken B said...

I thought the senate should have voted on Garland, but they did not, and an election or two has fallen since then. The constitution itself seems clear: Trump has the right to nominate and the senate has the right to vote.

john said...

Clear as mud, Joe. But I appreciate his support for President Trump.

tim in vermont said...

This is all covered in the Democrat “Book of Situational Ethics and Naked Expediency.”

The funny thing is that rank and file will spin on a dime and take the exact opposite position they did on Garland. It will happen in the comments here.

Michael K said...

Obama was excellent at hypocrisy. Come to think of it, that is almost all he was good at.

Mary Beth said...

Obama is also saying we should wait. Cheeky bastard.

bleh said...

Biden’s comments in 2016, referencing his prior comments about election year SCOTUS appointments, indicate that his only requirement for making such an appointment is that it be made upon the Senate’s “advice” as well as its consent. Basically, as long as the Senate has a say, it’s all kosher, according to the Biden Rule.

I don’t know what any of these phony rules or “norms” really mean. In 2016, Obama nominated Garland and the GOP Senate refused to take up the nomination, which was their right to do. McConnell wanted the voters to have a say, and it was his and the Senate GOP’s right to insist on it. If Schumer were Senate Majority Leader today, he'd do the same thing now. If Obama had a Democratic Senate in 2016, Merrick Garland would be on SCOTUS. But he didn’t, so it didn’t happen. It’s pretty simple.

The Democrats’ strawman conception of the McConnell Rule, which they now want enshrined, is premised on the idea that when the President nominates someone, the Senate just rubber stamps it, so the Rule is needed to give the voters a say in who is the President that makes that determination. Which is ironic given their history since Bork and Thomas and up to Kavanaugh.

tim in vermont said...

I am not sure with Mit "Benedict Arnold” Romney supposedly on our side that Republicans can win a vote though.

hombre said...

It’s just politics governed by law as it should be. Biden is just another Democrat attempting to override the law part with his politics. It’s what they do.

I suppose Mittens the Asshole will be imposing his monstrous ego on the process a la McCain.

Mary Beth said...

Of course, as I was commenting that Obama was saying to wait, the post was updated to show that info.

chuck said...

they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in.

Bzzzt! Wrong, it came with the additional condition that it applied when the Senate and Presidency were held by different parties.

Susan said...

The voters did pick a President. There is a President in office on this very day.

So let the President, who is in office this very day, pick a nominee for Supreme Court Justice.

I am unaware of the "we don't like the current president so we think he shouldn't get to perform the duties of the office" clause of the Constitution.

It must be one of those pesky prenumbra clauses.

tim in vermont said...

Didn’t Obama also once say that “elections have consequences”?

Birches said...

Yep. Trump can make the pick. The Senate can decide whether or not to take a vote. But the pick can definitely happen.

Tom said...

They invented the precedent that if the president is of party A and the senate is controlled by party B, then then the senate can block the appointment of a 15-30 year SCOTUS justice until after the presidential election. Party B is president and party B controls but he Senate. So, the criteria for the precedent doesn’t exist. It’s a basic LSAT logic problem.

Original Mike said...

Obama: "A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment."

You mean like ballots must be postmarked by election day?

BidenFamilyTaxPayerFundedCrackPipe said...

Dear biden,

We did pick a president, you ass.

Your corrupt party has done nothing but harass him with lies.

Your corrupt party actually impeached our president on the premise that it's illegal to even talk about YOUR international family corruption.
Signed,
Real people who despise what has become of the modern democrat party.

Mr. Majestyk said...

News flash: nominating a person to be a Supreme Court Justice is an exercise of the Executive's power, not a legal determination by a judge.

alanc709 said...

What I see funny is that TRUMP is accused of always lying, but BIDEN keeps getting caught in lies.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

What’s different this time is that either the hearings will be rushed or the vote will occur in the lame duck session after the 2020 election.

Yancey Ward said...

All the Republican-controlled Senate did in 2016 was refuse to give Garland a hearing- something Senates have done to federal court nominations since the beginning of the Republic. It has even been done to SCOTUS nominees in the past. There are no principles involved here- it is all about who has the power to act or not act as the case may be. Right now, the Republicans have the power to act, and will likely do so. I fully expect Trump to announce a nominee before the scheduled first debate given the court's new term starting in October, and I expect the Senate will act before the new Senate is sworn in January.

All this talk about waiting until next year to keep the Democrats from packing the court in the event of a Biden victory is just more horseshit- the Democrats will do this anyway, even if the Republicans don't replace Ginsburg- just like the Democrats used the nuclear option on appeals court nominees after bluffing the Republicans out of using it in 2005-2007.

I am coming around to the idea that McConnell should hold the hearings and votes before the election. Take it off the table.

doctrev said...

"We're going to put the President in jail, pack the Supreme Court, eliminate the filibuster, and CRUSH HATE SPEECH!"

Also the left: "waaah please don't nominate a new judge, it was RBG's dying wish"

Buddy, even if we were the Make-A-Wish foundation, we reserve dying wishes for adorable 10-year olds with terminal leukemia. John Althouse Cohen is a soft-brained moron, so he'd have the GOP surrender. Which would make a Supreme Court decision throwing the election to Biden that much more likely.

Tremble and despair, biiiiiiiiiiiitches. Your last hope of scamming the election died, even if by some miracle the Senate backstabs us, AGAIN.

Bob said...

I can imagine Jill texting that on Joe's behalf.

I can also imagine Biden, on hearing about Ginsburg's passing, looking puzzled and saying, "Ginsburg? What state did he represent?"

Larry J said...

Obama nominated Garland to fill the vacancy, as was his prerogative as president. The Senate declined to act on that nomination, as is their prerogative as a separate but equal branch of government. Then as now, the Senate was under the control of Republicans and, as Obama pointed out, elections have consequences.

James Pawlak said...

Tuesday, August 02, 2016
Judge Merrick Garland
Judge Merrick Garland is not a "Moderate Jurist"---Unless you would use the same term for Mr. Justice Hugo Black [Once a member of the KKK who ignored the intent of the authors of the First Amendment in assigning a false meaning to "the free exercise of religion"] or to the tyrannical Judges George Jefferys and Ronald Freisler.

It appears that Judge Garland supports a false interpretation of the Second Amendment (With its "shall not be infringed" clause)---In violation of the Founders' intentions and in favor of the judges "making law from the bench" and, thereby, taking from the People the authority to amend the Constitution by its internal-and-prescribed, democratic, means.

Not having the time or skills to do so, that anti-liberty position directly leads me to wonder if his other judicial positions are likewise in violation of what the Constitution's true place as our most basic law must be.

However, I do support: The Senate holding hearings on Barrack Hussein Obama's nomination of Judge Merrick; AND, its use of theDemocrat developed methods as inflicted upon Judge Bork.

n.n said...

Biden... [Democrat] party has done nothing but harass him with lies.

From conception, through birth, in progress, and liberalized to target private parties, communities, and whole cities. 50 shades of neo-...

Temujin said...

I see the question has been answered a dozen times above and will be answered 100,000 times over the next couple of months. But, like most things, the Left sees and hears what it wants to see and hear. The rest of the time they have their hands over their ears, blinders on their eyes, and their mouths are shouting out groupthink phrases, so they cannot see, hear, or read another opinion.

mccullough said...

Republican candidates for US Senate won in Florida, North Dakota, Indiana, and Missouri.

Dem candidates won in Arizona and Nevada.

That’s a net two seat pickup in the Senate for Republicans.

In 2014, the Republicans gained 9 seats. They have been in the majority since.

The people have spoken.

Ginsburg should have retired before January 3, 2015.

Drago said...

readering: "Timing completely different."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Let's make it easier for those, like readering, who are a tad on the slow side:

DEM (Lame Duck) WH + GOP Senate = 0
GOP (Incumbent) WH + GOP Senate = 1

Days taken to confirm appointment:

John Paul Stevens: 19 Days
Sandra Day O'Connor: 33 Days
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 42 Days

In 29 instances where a President had an opening on the SC in the last year of a term of office, Presidents made an appointment 29 times.

That's 100% of the time.

But only 100% of the time.

Drago said...

YW: "I am coming around to the idea that McConnell should hold the hearings and votes before the election. Take it off the table."

No other action remotely makes any sense at all.

Drago said...

Left Bank of the Charles: "What’s different this time is that either the hearings will be rushed or the vote will occur in the lame duck session after the 2020 election."

The lies roll off so easily now after 4 years of russia collusion, hoax dossiers, underage gang rape accusations against Kavanaugh, Sham-peachment, charlottesville hoax lies, drinking bleach lies, etc.

The wonder of it is why you would think its still effective to keep up the lies 24/7/365.

tim maguire said...

1) This will all blow over in a few days after some polling is done and the Republicans decide that, for the good of the country, they will wait until after the election to vote on RBG’s replacement.

2) Nobody’s impressed by the careful parsing of the McConnell (or Biden, whatever) rule to show why this time is different. It is a position masquerading as a principle. Obama was the president (“lame duck” is not a constitutionally recognized phase of office) and the Senate should have given Garland a vote.

3) Let’s not overlook how we got here. Ginsberg should have resigned years ago when she was no longer able to perform the duties of her office, but she was determined to die in office and she did and now we have to deal with the mess she created.

Drago said...

Mr Wibble: "I hate the "McConnell Rule". It's silly to see both sides trying to parse out increasingly convoluted reasons why the "rule" they applied in one situation is not applicable in another."

I always enjoy it when folks pretend that the clear distinctions are just so gosh darn subtle or convoluted that gee whiz why can't we just get past all that and just give the dems what they want.

Narayanan said...

I have had this thought for sometime wondering when "Rule of Law" will become LAW OF RULES

and the time is now.

rehajm said...

The funny thing is that rank and file will spin on a dime and take the exact opposite position they did on Garland

Of course, and I accept it as part of the political game. The President can say a tax is not a tax except when it is. SCOTUS calls in bounds. Okay by me...

...what sucks is when SCOTUS applies their power to interpret the words to read the mind of a vocal President.

Republicans have an opportunity to fix that...

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

“What’s different this time is that either the hearings will be rushed or the vote will occur in the lame duck session after the 2020 election.”

So, not much time to throw together a gang-rape hoax? How unfair....

rcocean said...

This is all so dumb. Can we please cut the hypocrisy and just state the truth. There's no reason why a same party president and Senate can't fill a SCOTUS vacancy no matter when it occurs.

The Garland dispute was an answer to a different question. Namely, when is it legitimate for the Senate to not fill a vacancy? I think we all agree that the Senate can't let vacancies go unfilled (confirmed) just because the president is from the opposite party for 2 years, 4 years, 8 years. But what if it's an election year? Isn't it OK to delay the hearings till AFTER the election? Its a delay of at most 11 months. think it is.

But this has NOTHING to do with the current situation. We have a vacancy and the American people voted in a R Senate and a R President to put their judges on the court. The timing doesn't matter.

William said...

I'd file this under mendacity rather than hypocrisy but consider this: the same people who not so long ago assured us that RBG was indefatigable, indestructible, and possibly immortal are now telling us that Joe Biden has had no loss of mental acuity.

rcocean said...

The D's have already said they are OK with getting rid of the filibuster, and many are talking about "packing the court" to obtain a D Majority. So, what is the point of listening to them? How can they complain about McConnell letting "the ends justify the means", when that's their philosophy?

Of course, Miss Lindsey couldn't keep his mouth shut. The Dumbo has to constantly chatter about EVERY issue before the country. Its impossible for him not to have an opinion on everything and go on tv or before the press and say it.

We're lucky in that Sasse, Collins, Graham, are all up for re-election and if they try to sabotage this they will lose. We already know lisa Murky will vote to delay, we've seen her begging Diane Feinstein for a pat on the back. that leaves Mittens and some unexpected R backstabber (Alexander? Garner? Grassley?) in play.

Scott said...

Scenario: Trump defers nomination. Democrats litigate a close election. Goes to Supreme Court. What if an eight-member SCOTUS was forced to decide another Presidential election; and they voted 4-4 on either side of the issue?

We would not have a metaphoric "Constitutional crisis," we would have an actual, literal, real one. The state governors would have to resolve it in a Constitutional convention, in which they can do anything they want. Presently there are 26 Republican governors and 24 Democrats. Of the 35 seats being decided in 2020, 11 are in play, according to Five Thirty Eight.

Suppose the Democrats flip enough governorships to dominate. Do you want them rewriting the Constitution? Eliminating the Electoral College? Gutting the First Amendment and eliminating the Second and Tenth?

Achilles said...

We are way past the point of arguments based on hypocrisy or any actual principles.

The Democrats are out and proud revolutionaries. They have lied for 4 years and refused to accept the results of the 2016 elections.

They have been doing anything for power for decades.

They have sold us out to China.

The essential requirement of community is suppression of the incompatible. These people are incompatible with a Constitutional Republic.

Kalli Davis said...

It is fair... If the Democrats controlled the Senate they could block Trump's appointee.

Original Mike said...

"All this talk about waiting until next year to keep the Democrats from packing the court in the event of a Biden victory is just more horseshit- the Democrats will do this anyway, even if the Republicans don't replace Ginsburg"

Yeah, they've said as much. That's the problem with going bat-shit crazy and "burning it all down". You can't burn it all down twice.

Kalli Davis said...

It is fair, if the Democrats controled the Senate, they could block Trumps appointee.

Achilles said...

Left Bank of the Charles said...

What’s different this time is that either the hearings will be rushed or the vote will occur in the lame duck session after the 2020 election.

And Trump will have 400 or so electoral college votes after election night.

But democrat governors will refuse to certify elections and seat electors to the electoral college demanding that truckloads of "mail in ballots" be counted.

The democrats will force everything into the courts and try to put the election of the president to the House.

And the election will end up in the Supreme court.

Then it will end up in the streets because John Roberts, Mitt Romney, Murkowski and the rest will betray us again.

Prepare.

jim said...

Ridiculous, February vs September.

If the Republicans do this there will be no more filibusters and 11 justices.

Kalli Davis said...

Dem' will have to control the House, Senate and the Presidency to "pack the Court" its an empty threat.

Howard said...

Democrats need to accept the inevitable and use it to sell themselves harder to take the Senate and Whitehouse. Fundraising is already up.

Narayanan said...

Scott said...
Scenario: Trump defers nomination. Democrats litigate a close election. Goes to Supreme Court. What if an eight-member SCOTUS was forced to decide another Presidential election; and they voted 4-4 on either side of the issue?

We would not have a metaphoric "Constitutional crisis," we would have an actual, literal, real one. The state governors would have to resolve it in a Constitutional convention, in which they can do anything they want. Presently there are 26 Republican governors and 24 Democrats. Of the 35 seats being decided in 2020, 11 are in play, according to Five Thirty Eight.

Suppose the Democrats flip enough governorships to dominate. Do you want them rewriting the Constitution? Eliminating the Electoral College? Gutting the First Amendment and eliminating the Second and Tenth?
------------=============
you left out ratification by the necessary three-quarters of U.S. states,

cyrus83 said...

Trump won the election and has the power to make a nomination at any time while he is President. Democrats know this, and also knew the best way to thwart this power was to win back the Senate in 2018, in which case they could and would have prevented any Trump judges from being confirmed in the current congressional term.

Not only did Democrats not win back the Senate, the voters gave Trump's party a larger majority in the Senate, despite having seen Trump already make 2 Supreme Court picks. There is no reason other than civility bullshit to propose the idea that the President or Congress be lame ducks a full year before presidential elections to honor the will of the voters. We elect Presidents for 4 full years and each Congress for 2 full years, and both are entitled to the full exercise of power from the first minute to the last minute of said terms.

tcrosse said...

It is fair... If the Democrats controlled the Senate they could block Trump's appointee.

If Democrats controlled the House and Senate they could Impeach and Remove Trump for any reason or no reason. Same with Pence.

Mr Wibble said...

I always enjoy it when folks pretend that the clear distinctions are just so gosh darn subtle or convoluted that gee whiz why can't we just get past all that and just give the dems what they want.

I want the GOP to push the vote through before the election. I just hate all stupid parsing of the "McConnell rule." Far better for our country to be honest and say, "We were elected to advance conservativism, and this will do so. Hence, we're going to hold the vote."

Bruce Hayden said...

"But also be clear about this: Was Barack Obama wrong to nominate Merrick Garland? You must clearly say that he was or I won't "let you" be clear."

No. I don’t think he was wrong. Maybe the Dems could have bluffed the Republican Senators into confirming him. Wouldnt have take that many turncoats.

I blame Harry Reid, blowing up the filibuster on lower court nominations. There are roughly 870 authorized Article III judgeships. Rounding up for convenience, that means that Reid blew up the Senate filibuster for 99% of Article III judges, and Mitch McConnel just finished it off for the last 1%.

I should add though that something was going to give, even if Obama, Reid, and the Senate Dems hadn’t gotten greedy. Two Dem Senators alone were controlling the political orientation of the huge 9th Circuit through the Blue Slip process. Feinstein and Boxer (at the time) controlled nominations of the CA judges on the 9th Circuit, who alone made up by far the largest contingent on the court. In an era of national injunctions, that couldn’t be allowed to continue. The Dems seemingly tried to argue for its continuance after blowing up 99% of the filibuster for judicial nominations, and were, essentially, laughed at, because the only thing that had protected Blue Slipping of appeals court judges had been the judicial filibuster.

Mary Beth said...

All I can think is that they might become convinced that it will help them win Senate elections if the issue is left open for the election.

And it might help them win by letting people see them to the job they were elected to do. I think there are a lot of people who feel that it's just as well to have the opposing side in power as it is to have your side there but not doing what you elected then to do.

Matt Sablan said...

"What’s different this time is that either the hearings will be rushed or the vote will occur in the lame duck session after the 2020 election.'

-- Justices have been confirmed in about the same amount of time... Justices like Ginsburg. So, what does "rushing" mean to you? We saw what happened if we give people time; we get the Kavanaugh circus. Shorter confirmations are probably better for the body politic than drawn out, slanderous affairs.

Matt Sablan said...

"I am coming around to the idea that McConnell should hold the hearings and votes before the election. Take it off the table."

-- I am begrudgingly of the same take; if I thought that Democrats really wouldn't try and pack the court either way, and I thought that by adhering to the Garland precedent of not pushing someone through in an election year, we'd get a more stable political climate, I'd say do it. But, I think no matter what, Democrats will pack the courts as they promised. So, why should Trump and the Senate follow rules and norms that would not be respected when the shoe gets on the other foot?

Scott said...

"you left out ratification by the necessary three-quarters of U.S. states,

IANAL. :)

So that's 38 states. That's possible if not probable.

USA Today says that if no President takes the oath of office by January 20, the interim Presidency would not go to Nancy Pelosi -- it would go to Chuck Grassley!

I feel better now. :P

BidenFamilyTaxPayerFundedCrackPipe said...

funding is up.
soros just kicked in another hundred million.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

Obama before

some stats GIF

Joe Biden: The Senate’s Duty on a Supreme Court Nominee

Drago said...

jim: "Ridiculous, February vs September."

LOL

Both 2016 Barack Obama and 2016 Joe Biden completely disagree with you....and unfortunately for you and your BS "argument", they said so publicly....and emphatically.

Of course, I'm sensing you are on the left and since those comments are more than 15 minutes old you have probably already washed them down the dustbin of history.

Matt Sablan said...

"If the Republicans do this there will be no more filibusters and 11 justices."

-- I mean, we were already promised that before Justice Ginsburg died. So... what exactly is the threat here?

MD Greene said...

I know this will sound silly, but if we had functional parties and not two teams battling over every single stupid point in the ping pong game, the president and judiciary chairman could sit down together, trade preferred names and try to come up with one nomination who is marginally acceptable to both.

But we don't have that. Biden, Mr. Voice of Reason, told George W. Bush not to expect any help getting a Supreme Court opening filled before the end of his term -- and I'm pretty sure he meant it, although there was not an empty seat to put his strategy to work. The Republicans told Obama the same thing and did it.

Both these parties should split in two because both are riven by fundamental disagreements on policy. But neither will do it because the only goal is the survival of the party, no matter its relevance. Their members like being self-important gasbags. We beed a better class of elected officials.

Now can we PLEASE have a "none of the above" box on every ballot for president and Congress?


LilyBart said...

This is a game - there are rules, and there is strategy. Even at the end of his/ her term, the President can nominate and the Senate can vote. or not.

Dem Obama had a Repub Senate, which made his 'turn' tricky. At the end of his second term, He nominated Garland, reportedly a moderate Dem, in hopes that the Repub Senate would vote him in rather than take the chance that Hillary (expected to win) would nominate someone more extreme left. The Repub Senate rolled the dice and passed. I think we can be reasonably sure that if Obama had a Dem Senate his nominee would have been voted on and been confirmed - they would not have been 'fastidious' about the timing. I think he'd also have chosen someone more reliably leftist to nominate.

MayBee said...

The American People did pick a president. His name is Donald Trump.
The American People also chose Senators to represent them. They are currently a Republican majority.

And so, this round, the president will pick a nominee and the Senators will schedule a vote if they can.

That's what the constitution lays out. If Trump wins, and the Democrats win the Senate, they can do all they can to keep him from seating the *next* SCOTUS pick.

But the people we have in office are still in office until January. They don't have to wait for some future vote, some future voter, and some future politicians. We've got perfectly legal ones in place.

MayBee said...

I wonder if Merrick Garland would have preferred they have hearings, turn him into a drunk and a rapist, and then vote him down.

What happened was much kinder.

gspencer said...

But, Greedy & Corrupt Joe, the people have chosen their president who is following the Constitution by nominating someone to fill a federal office.

You have no beef.

T.S.

Sebastian said...

"why did Senator Kamala Harris vote against Neil Gorsuch?!

Why did Senator Barack Obama vote against John Effing Roberts?

At least the Dems are transparently shameless. Do the Althouses of America care? Do they care more than about their precious "moral autonomy" protected by "reproductive rights"?

Skeptical Voter said...

What would Slow Joe and Obama be without rank hyporcrisy? But then that applies to virtually the entire political class.

The Supreme Court should be kept at full strength.

Seamus said...

Ramming through a nominee before the election would be foolish. It would energize the Dems, and if they win the White House and Congress, the first thing they'll do is enlarge the Court and fill the two or three new seats with the likes of Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama.

So unless Trump has a time machine that let's him know he's going to win 45 days from now, he'd be making a bet he can't afford.

Big Mike said...

And Trump will have 400 or so electoral college votes after election night.

I keep coming up with only 330, give or take a few.

Bruce Hayden said...

“All this talk about waiting until next year to keep the Democrats from packing the court in the event of a Biden victory is just more horseshit- the Democrats will do this anyway, even if the Republicans don't replace Ginsburg- just like the Democrats used the nuclear option on appeals court nominees after bluffing the Republicans out of using it in 2005-2007.”

“I am coming around to the idea that McConnell should hold the hearings and votes before the election. Take it off the table.”

I might go the other way, have hearings, but not the vote, before the election. I don’t think that Trump really wants it all the way off the table. If all that is left is an up or down vote in the lame duck session, if the Dems manage to flip both the Presidency and the Senate, McConnell schedules the vote as the first order of business, and it passes, because voting against it would be political suicide for Murkowski, Romney, etc. Vote counts may let them abstain, but not vote against the nominee. Collins and Murkowski are unlikely this time (with the probable nomination of a woman) to have the political cover to even abstain (after all, women wouldn't lie about rape, or even drunken teenaged fumbling around, would they?)

As I suggested last night, Biden/Harris are unlikely to propose their own nominee if they win, and that would put them in a position of opposing Trump’s nominee with nothing, but the appearance of dithering.

GingerBeer said...

rcocean: "...when is it legitimate for the Senate to not fill a vacancy?" When Ds held the Senate and Rs the WH Harry Reid had an answer to your question while blocking wholesale W's judicial nominees. “The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give Presidential nominees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.” The Ds objections continue to be McConnell's use of D tactics and words against them.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4581302/user-clip-reid-duty-give-nominees-vote

Drago said...

The absolute panic on the part of the dems/left/LLR-left is because they already knew they had Roberts in the bag for ALL post-election lawsuits and their lefty advantage in the lower courts would ensure ultimate legal success in the case of 4-4 ties at the SC.

An RBG replacement completely blows up that entire dem/lefty/marxist/LLR-lefty strategy unless....the dems can work over Sen Burr and a couple other bought and paid for RINOs to get them to defer.

Burr is bailing out of the Senate because Warner paid him off to help set up the Russia Collusion lies (a role picked up by Rubio) and NC republicans are fully aware of what a FakeCon worm he is and reelection was never in the cards after that.

Same for Romney in 2024. He's done.

Drago said...

jim: "If the Republicans do this there will be no more filibusters and 11 justices."

Before RBG passed, the dems had already committed to statehood for DC and Puerto Rico AND court stacking.

Before RBG's death.

rcocean said...

Nobody in 1968 had a problem with Lame-Duck LBJ filling an open SCOTUS slot. But they did have a problem with Fortas (who was a crook). Nobody in 1932 had a problem with Hoover filling the open Scotus lot, or with Wilson filling *TWO* newly opened SCOTUS slots in 1916. Finally, Ike appointed Blackmun when another justice resigned in 1956. No one had a problem with it.

There is ZERO history, of a party controlling both the presidency and the senate DELAYING it till after the election. ZERO.

Somerschool said...

From a purely political, short-term perspective...

Trump should nominate Barbara Logoa, Cuban-American from Florida.
McConnell should hold hearings.
Democrats will protest, if not riot.
McConnell holds a vote 7-10 days before the election.
Collins votes no, on principled grounds. Murkowski and Romney vote no, just because.
The election happens; IMMEDIATE results show a lot of Trump votes cast, a lot of absentee ballots outstanding.
McConnell holds a new vote.
Collins votes yes.
The Supreme Court is able to decide election-related litigation with a 6-3 majority.

wholelottasplainin' said...

tim maguire said...
1) This will all blow over in a few days after some polling is done and the Republicans decide that, for the good of the country, they will wait until after the election to vote on RBG’s replacement.
****************

What if we have a massively contested election and find ourselves with only eight SCOTUS members? What then?

You think the Dems won't claim that until the new POTUS is determined, that Trump can't choose a successor to RBG?

Hah

CWJ said...

"Timing completely different."

Yep. One was February, 2016. The other is September, 2020.

So true. So very true.

Mike of Snoqualmie said...

Scott scenario about a Constitutional crisis is a non-crisis. In the event of no one getting a majority of the Electoral votes, the House and Senate decide the issue. Each state has one vote and a majority vote is required to elect the President by the House and the Vice President by the Senate.

As of today, the House would vote Republican as would the Senate.

Chennaul said...

Blogger jim said...
Ridiculous, February vs September.

If the Republicans do this there will be no more filibusters and 11 justices.


****************

What is with all of the threats? First as is stated in the blog post Hillary says to never concede the election. That immediately reminds everyone of Bush v. Gore. Then a Senator who might have crossed the aisle, Rand Paul is harassed in the streets by a mob and no one from the Democratic Party defends Rand Paul’s right to literally walk freely. Then the Democrats are already pushing electoral rule changes through the Pennsylvania court system and through other state courts. Add to that Chuck Schumer brags about how when they get the Senate majority they will get rid of the filibuster. All this with the background of Leftist protests in the streets that more often than not trend towards violence. It all does not bode well. I know the argument that it is Trump that makes you do all this but the Democrats have to look capable of some level of control to govern others, even if it is something as simple as self control that does not impede the rights of others.

Kevin said...

Shorter Dems to USA: "It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again!"

Bilwick said...

Ypu know the old saying "Is it good for the Jews?" It was meant to poke fun at a kind of old-Jew tunnel vision about politics. Well, I'm a Gentile Old Whig, tracing my ideological genealogy back to the Radical Whigs of the 18th Century; and my political litmus test is, "Is it good for liberty?" It's clear giving the Hive a chance to put another RBG-type statist on the Court would be bad for liberty. So let's not.

Kevin said...

Are you telling me Harry Reid cannot be reached for comment?

NMObjectivist said...

When Joe Biden says "Let me be clear," he just means, "Here's the thing." He throws words and phrases around for effect without understanding their actual meaning. And if you take issue with him he'll say, "Come on man!"

Joel Winter said...

This is the problem on "both sides," and why we the electorate are so suspicious and tired of our "leaders."

1) If Obama opposed what the Right did do him in his final year, why isn't he supporting MeConnell's "return to sanity," letting the President nominate a justice today?
2) If McConnell's "Garland" actions truly had solid principle behind them, it'd be clearer today why changing or tweaking that principle would be justified. It's not that clear--and is easily cast as a principle of convenience.
3) If both sides would spend more time formulating and defending their own principles rather than trying to hold their opponents to their (their opponent's "principles") we'd have more confidence in them.

William said...

The die has been cast. Trump will nominate and the Senate will attempt to confirm his nomination. What is debatable is whether they will succeed in their attempts and whether such efforts will lose or win votes in the Presidential and various Senatorial races....I return to my earlier point: Trump should demand that Biden name his choice for the Supreme Court. Biden's choice would be as divisive for his own campaign as Trump's actions are for his.....As a side note, I would recommend that Trump choose the hottest possible chick for his choice. Unlike psychology and medicine, hot chicks are severely underrepresented in the legal field. (Present company excepted, of course.) 36-22 or fight should be the motto.

Rabel said...

Trump could nominate Anthony Kennedy (if he's healthy and willing) with an unwritten agreement that Kennedy would serve only until a replacement is selected after the election and inauguration.

He is a known quantity so no vetting or lengthy committee process would be required. He would likely be approved and even garner several Democrat votes. His presence on the court would resolve the 4-4 problem and give us a better chance of getting through the election without open warfare.

Just a thought.

Not Sure said...

McConnell should just say that it's necessary for the Senate to act on the nomination--and act quickly--because of Covid-19. It's the justification for every other divisive political move.

exhelodrvr1 said...

WWOD.

What Would Obama Do.

I think we all know.

Wince said...

Let me be clear: Nebulous Joe Biden.

Seamus said...

Another reason not to try to fill the vacancy before the elections: the Dems would ensure that the hearings would be another Kavanaugh-style shitshow.

BidenFamilyTaxPayerFundedCrackPipe said...

It will need to be a female nominee.

this just in from MSNBC: all the men on Trump's list are serial rapists who drank too much beer in high school.

exhelodrvr1 said...

"Ramming through a nominee before the election would be foolish"

Not nearly as much as an unfilled spot would. If the spot is filled, that takes away that incentive for them to vote for a POS candidate. If it isn't filled, that is one "valid" reason for them to vote despite the potential problems of Biden-Harris.

steve uhr said...

It will come back to haunt the Republicans IMO if they put in a Justice during a lame duck session following a Trump defeat. Perhaps Congress will add a few seats to the Court.

And the notion that McConnell and Graham are not hypocrites is worth ten Drago LOLs. The McConnell rule is that "If I can, then I will." That is the only consistency. What does that have to do with leaving it up to the voters? And Graham said:

“I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say 'Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.'

Seems pretty clear to me.

Original Mike said...

Blogger jim said..."If the Republicans do this there will be no more filibusters and 11 justices."

The dems have already shot their wad. They've declared that this is their intention if they win and Republicans should act accordingly.

CStanley said...

Much of this has been brought about by the abomination of Roe v, Wade. There have been many other decisions, some before I’m sure but mainly since .then, that have resulted in unelected officials making the law of the land.

THAT is why everyone now wants to “be clear” about how these unelected officials are placed into such power, giving some air of legitimacy to the selections based on the election of presidents and Senators. That’s fine as it goes, and that’s how the Founders intended it, but the importance that it’s taken on by the amount of power vested in these individuals has led to exploitation of the system.

The genie won’t go back in the lamp until such powers are returned to the legislatures. So let’s put it all out there this time. Amy Coney Barrett should be nominated and confirmed with the explicit understanding that she will be open to overturning Roe but only if there is a sound legal challenge to it. It should be made clear that the selection of such a jurist is being made as a much needed correction to the SC’s power and that the upcoming election is a referendum on the idea that this correction is needed. If Trump wins, the correction stands and if he loses, we know that the Democrats will pack the court so that the correction will not happen. At least let’s force them to be honest about why they intend to do that.

As for process, McConnell should point out that Ginsburg herself had criticized the recent confirmation hearings, and since Coney t was so recently vetted he will skip the hearings and just call for a vote.

Spiros said...

This is going to demoralize the woke mob. These people are used to having political leaders and media amplify their stupid demands. Trump is telling the mob "no more" and is doing so without any sense of guilt.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

Dear Joe,

We DID pick a president, and he WILL select a successor to Justice Ginsburg.

Sincerely,
The Voters

Leland said...

It is not just senate elections. Biden isn’t winning over voters. Harris never really has won over voters outside California. A promised SC nominee is a third candidate on their ticket and it may just motivate their base. The DNC needs a motivator and now RBG has given them a third chance. Third time might be the charm, or it could be the third strike.

Achilles said...

jim said...

Ridiculous, February vs September.

If the Republicans do this there will be no more filibusters and 11 justices.


I really hope that democrats do not force us to go there.

rehajm said...

His presence on the court would resolve the 4-4 problem and give us a better chance of getting through the election without open warfare.

That Elvis has left the building...

A recess appointment is easier. Gavel out. Gavel in. Ya?

rehajm said...

Not saying that will happen. Sounds like Mitch has counted heads already...

Jim at said...

Timing completely different.

Maybe you could point out just exactly where in the Constitution 'the timing' is detailed and addressed.

Michael K said...

Biden, Mr. Voice of Reason, told George W. Bush not to expect any help getting a Supreme Court opening filled before the end of his term -- and I'm pretty sure he meant it, although there was not an empty seat to put his strategy to work.

The Democrats did more than that. They saw Bush having two attractive candidates. A black woman and a Latino man, both of whom were highly capable nominees. They filibustered both when nominated for the DC Circuit. They blocked them so they would not be eligible for the USSC. Miguel Estrada gave up. He would have been the first Latino instead of Halfwit Sotomayor. Janice Rogers Brown would have been the first black woman.

Swede said...

The mouth foaming on twitter today is an excellent preview of what to expect when Trump wins re-election.

All of the impotent rage is made even more glorious to watch because Harry Reid and the Democrats built this.

And, as warned, its being used against them.

The best part, though? All the threats of violence.

Especially funny? The predictions of rioting if these pissbabies don't get their way.

How will we be able to tell the difference between the "You appointed a conservative to replace RBG before the election" riots over the Antifa/BLM/liberal temper tantrum riots?

Francisco D said...

This is a political issue not a legal one. Precedent has no bearing except to point out Old Joe's hypocrisy.

When Obama nominated Merrick Garland, as was his right and duty, Biden strongly endorsed the move. Now when Trump wants to exercise his right and duty as POTUS, it is inappropriate because ... ?

rehajm said...

That was a late tweet by Biden. His caregivers called a lid at 8:30AM so Joe could recover today. Probably tomorrow, too...

Francisco D said...

Blogger Left Bank of the Charles said...
What’s different this time is that either the hearings will be rushed or the vote will occur in the lame duck session after the 2020 election.

"Rushed" is a funny word in this case. Do you know how long it took from nomination to Senate vote for RBG to be confirmed after Whizzer White passed?

42 days.

And it was a damn near unanimous vote despite misgivings by some Republican senators.

BUMBLE BEE said...

What was it that Soetoro kid said?.... "WE WON". Now they plead "fairness" and "principle", though have demonstrated nothing of the sort. Fuck 'em in the ear and give 'em some brains.

Readering said...

Under the Constitution, McConnell can go straight to a vote without hearings.

Joe Smith said...

"Trump could nominate Anthony Kennedy...'

Did you not have your coffee this morning?

Kennedy was a solid, dedicated liberal.

Might as well bring back Souter...

Night said...

The key Democratic strategy is delay. The key Trump tactic is not to delay. The constitution and the laws of the land lean towards Trump. History also leans towards Trump being right here.

Insert politics and greed for power.

Drago said...

Biden in 2016:

"I would go forward with the confirmation process as chairman. Even a few months before a presidential election... just as the Constitution requires." https://t.co/r0WVdlitOK

That was for Li'l stevie uhr who is trying to convince everyone that republicans can only win by losing.

Li'l stevie believes this is a compelling argument.

Feel free to laugh at him.....again.

Michael K said...

As for process, McConnell should point out that Ginsburg herself had criticized the recent confirmation hearings, and since Coney t was so recently vetted he will skip the hearings and just call for a vote.

That is a good suggestion.

Martin said...

It might be nice if they were all honest enough to say that, "I have the legal power to do it, so I'm going to do it."

But, maybe not. Maybe we are better off pretending there are things more important than power, even when we honor them only in the breach.

"Hypocrisy is the homage which vice renders to virtue."--Rouchefoucauld

Narayanan said...

another approach! recess-appointment

FryingPanHead said...

Leland said...

The DNC needs a motivator and now RBG has given them a third chance. Third time might be the charm, or it could be the third strike.


Go big or go home. That's Trump and we, his voting base.

walter said...

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...this just in from MSNBC: all the men on Trump's list are serial rapists who drank too much beer in high school.
--
Serial flatulators!

wbfjrr2 said...

I'm with Mr Wibble on this--just tell it like it is.

Rabel at 1:05, what you suggest (appoint Kennedy) is called pre-emptive surrender to the enemy, and we are already at war, so try again please.

Rabel said...

"Kennedy was a solid, dedicated liberal."

That's not an accurate description and he voted in favor of Bush in Bush v. Gore.

Narayanan said...

CStanley said...

As for process, McConnell should point out that Ginsburg herself had criticized the recent confirmation hearings, and since Coney was so recently vetted he will skip the hearings and just call for a vote.
-----------============
can McConnell call for a vote without any hearings for any other nominee?

D's can always impeach later for /"nominee" now Justice/ colluding with Trump

Dagwood said...

Every interview or statement slow Joe makes indicates that he hasn't been clear about anything for some time now.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

I would make a list of all the things that Althouse has required Biden to do, but it’s getting quite long.

Kevin said...

It might be nice if they were all honest enough to say that, "I have the legal power to do it, so I'm going to do it."

It will be a nice change from Obama's "I don't have the legal power to do it, but I'm doing it anyway" on DACA.

Unknown said...

Are we coming to the point that no new justice will join SCOTUS unless POTUS and the Senate are controlled by the same party? Garland was a relatively moderate nominee. If not him, who? If not Garland, don't we have a failed state?

Bay Area Guy said...

@Readering sez:

"Under the Constitution, McConnell can go straight to a vote without hearings."

Good idea, thx. Mitch should do this.

h said...

It's all so crazy. I like to imagine this: Trump is reelected. Republicans hold at least the Senate. Republicans bring to the floor the Dem proposal to increase the size of the Supreme court. Then what do Dems do? Admit that they never really wanted to change the SUpreme Court, except as a power grab? or Vote for a law that would give Trump the ability to pack the court?

Goetz von Berlichingen said...

I imagine Biden will have to announce who he would nominate to the USSC...

Envelope please.

Barack Obama.

There goes Trump's black vote.

Goetz von Berlichingen said...

Hey LBC, all Althouse has been asking Biden to do is not lie and deceive us.

It's called intellectual integrity.

Too bad it is neither contagious or heritable.
You either got it or you don't.

Unknown said...

> If not Garland, don't we have a failed state?

Yes, Merrick Garland means we are a Failed State

Drago said...

Left Bank of the Charles: "I would make a list of all the things that Althouse has required Biden to do, but it’s getting quite long."

By "long list for Biden" Left Bank means approximately 2 things.

Unfortunately, that's 2 things more than Biden can handle these days.

They had to roust the poor sap last night to read a statement and pretend to be alert (fail) and that was it. At 8:30am ET this morning the Biden campaign announced a "lid" on the days "activities" for Biden.

That means they had to pump Biden up with chemicals for last night and felt it wasn't safe enough to do it again the next morning.

The daily regimen for getting Biden partially sentient for short periods of time probably requires intense calibration and scrutiny and I can only imagine how difficult it is crafting the 2nd grade level talking points he is asked to deliver during those brief periods of partial lucidity.

Drago said...

Leland: "The DNC needs a motivator and now RBG has given them a third chance. Third time might be the charm, or it could be the third strike."

You need to be more precise: motivating for whom?

I don't think the blacks or hispanics are going to be up in arms over the loss of RBG and the suburban gals are going to be witnessing ramped up violence all around their suburbs by the marxists.

Mark said...

Barack Obama was NOT wrong to nominate Merrick Garland.

And the Senate was NOT wrong in exercising its constitutional prerogative to reject the nomination.

Howard said...

Trump will get his appointment nominated and the borderline republican senators will have a tough choice to make. That's exactly how the system works. If the nominee is a girl, then that gives the bordertown repug senators an out, although the roe v wade supporters will go batshit crazy over a pro-life female nominee. The battle will take place in social and trad msm media prior to the election. I predict Trump will get the appointment approved. The dems can use this sit-rep to get out the angry womyns vote in swinger states to defeat Trump and take back the senate. Knowing the DNC, they'll probly fuck it up.

Mark said...

Let ME be clear Demented Joe -- The voters DID pick a president, and that is Donald Trump.

Mike of Snoqualmie said...

The Dems are already going batshit crazy over the possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade. My wife keeps exclaiming that "Brown v. Board of Education" will be the next decision to be overturned by the evil conservative SC. A conservative SC will not overturn that decision because it's rooted in the solid equal-protection text of the 14th Amendment, unlike Roe. If there's any overturning of Brown, it'll come from the Progressives and their racist policies, like affirmative action.

JAORE said...

Is there ANY subject the left won't lie about? The actual words are available for all to see. But the actual words are ignored. The truth is chopped, diced and tossed like a salad. All the time the distortions are repeated and shielded by media. The leftist voters nod in unison. And, thus, new "truths" are born.

Scary.

stlcdr said...

Let me be clear is always followed by something that isn’t clear.

JAORE said...

"Obama was excellent at hypocrisy. Come to think of it, that is almost all he was good at."

Well, to be fair, he bragged that he was really good at killing people. So there's that.

Obadiah said...

Why do politicians start a sentence with "Let me be clear"? It is such a meaningless phrase, and adds nothing to the sentence.

John Althouse Cohen said...

This post is written as if Obama or some other Democrats were being blatantly inconsistent about how to replace Ginsburg. But there isn't any inconsistency in saying all of this:

a) When Obama still had about 9 months left in his presidency, he should have gotten his choice of his Supreme Court Justice, subject to the normal Senate confirmation process. The Senate shouldn't have ignored the question of how well-qualified Obama's choice was and automatically blocked Obama's nominee from even being considered.

b) Now that Trump, who was elected in November 2016, has chosen the replacement of the Justice who died 9 months earlier in February 2016, it would be unfair for Trump to choose the replacement of the Justice who died on September 18, 2020 when the election is coming up in a month and a half on November 3, 2020.

There's no good explanation for why that should happen.

It isn't a good explanation to say what Republicans said in 2016: that it was so close to the election that we needed to wait until the election to let the people decide. We're much closer to Election Day this year.

It isn't a good explanation to say that Obama's party didn't have control of the Senate in 2016 and Trump's party does now. Just because the Senate has the legal power to block a Supreme Court nominee doesn't mean that power should be used. There's supposed to be some idea of deferring to the president's choice of Supreme Court Justice. (There are many examples: Ginsburg was confirmed 96-3, Scalia was unanimously confirmed, etc. The fact that that's been less true in recent years hasn't stopped it from being a good principle.) This isn't absolute — the Senate can reject a bad choice. But if each Senator rejects every choice by a president of a different party than that Senator, we could routinely have Supreme Court vacancies that go on for year after year. That would be bad for the court and the country.

If we want to call out someone for inconsistency in all this, let's call out Republicans. They're the ones who are blatantly contradicting their position from 2016. If Trump gets to replace Ginsburg before the election, that would mean Trump in his first term got to pick 3 Justices, even though only 2 Justices left the court during his administration (or anytime close to his administration), and that Obama in his whole two-term presidency got to pick only 2 Justices, even though 3 Justices left the court during his administration. There's no way around it: that doesn't make sense.

Drago said...

Goetz von Berlichingen: "I imagine Biden will have to announce who he would nominate to the USSC...
Envelope please.
Barack Obama.
There goes Trump's black vote."

LOL

The problem the dems already have is weak black support because obambi/Biden were such a disappointment.

Ralph L said...

Why do politicians start a sentence with "Let me be clear"?

It took years, but they finally realized "Make no mistake" was overused after 9/11.

Roger This said...

Nominate ACB. N hearing, straight vote. They had hearings 3 yrs ago on her. Already found her qualified, what has changed?

Ralph L said...

The Senate shouldn't have ignored the question of how well-qualified Obama's choice was and automatically blocked Obama's nominee from even being considered.

It was retaliation for all the Appeals Court shit the Dems pulled on W.
It would not surprise me if Hillary was secretly pleased and expected to resubmit a nominee to replace the hated Scalia. McConnell did risk having a worse nominee (and loss of the Senate) after the election.

Rabel said...

JAC said:

"it would be unfair"

How the Holy Hell can you raise a question of fairness in light of the bloody street war the left has been waging against Trump and his his supporters since he rode down the escalator?

Fuck that.

zefal said...

Remember Gov. Christie had his nominee to the New Jersey Supreme Court go years with no action taken by the democrat legislature. He would eventually withdraw the nominee. Not one f%@$k was given by the nonpartisan media.

zefal said...

Also obama tried to push RBG to retire when he was prez. So much for having any respect.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

the repubs are being consistent--

with what 0bama, Biden, schumer, pelosi (hell-throw in harry reid)
wanted in a similar situation.

"elections have consequences", "we won", and now
"you have to sit in the back"-

Karma will mete out the "fairness" you NOW desire

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Left Bank of the Charles said...
What’s different this time is that either the hearings will be rushed or the vote will occur in the lame duck session after the 2020 election.

It was 42 days from when RGB was nominated, to when she was confirmed

And she had not had a confirmation hearing less than three years ago.

So either RGB's nomination was illegitimately rushed, or else there's no problem with processing ACB's nomination before the election

Greg The Class Traitor said...

tim maguire said...
1) This will all blow over in a few days after some polling is done and the Republicans decide that, for the good of the country, they will wait until after the election to vote on RBG’s replacement.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/people-favor-confirmation-hearings-for-supreme-court-vacancy-in-2020-poll

A new poll conducted shortly before the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg revealed that an overwhelming majority of U.S. adults of all political stripes supported holding hearings for a nominee if a vacancy opened on the nation's highest bench.

Marquette University released the survey results on Saturday that showed 67% of adults believed the Senate should hold a hearing if a vacancy occurred during 2020's race, with only 32% opposition — and similar strong numbers across Republicans, Democrats, and independents, who supported holding confirmation hearings at 68-31%, 63-37%, and 71-28% respectively. The poll was completed three days before the death of Ginsburg, the 87-year-old liberal icon who was nominated by President Bill Clinton and confirmed in 1993. Ginsburg earned praise from Democrats and Republicans upon news of her death.

Any other questions?

rcocean said...

JAC:

1) You're mixing up two separate issues. Judging by history, there is no reason not to nominate and confirm a SCOTUS judge in an election years. That is the tradition.

2) The R's may have been wrong not to vote on Garland. But that doesn't mean he should have been confirmed. IMO, the R's should have simply taken the same tack as the D's do. "We'll vote against Judge that doesn't agree with us on Abortion or any number of key issues. And we'll keep voting against them until you -the President - agree". The R's could've then voted down 3-4 liberal justices and then when Trump won, stopped all confirmation hearings.

Bob said...

JAC,

1) Elections have consequences.
2) The steady expansion of the Federal judiciary -- never mind the entire Federal government -- into the minutiae of day-to-day American life is the cause of the political nonsense Supreme Court justice nominations have become. The observation has been made for decades. I'm just repeating the obvious.

If we would settle our differences at the ballot box instead of in the courtroom (as Justice Scalia repeatedly recommended), we could put a lot this ugliness behind us. But that ain't gonna happen.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

tim in vermont said...
The funny thing is that rank and file will spin on a dime and take the exact opposite position they did on Garland. It will happen in the comments here.

Stupid or just dishonest?

2012: Obama re-elected President
2014: America votes to give GOP control of Senate, and ability to block Obama's Supreme Court nominees
2016: GOP Senate does the job they were elected to do, and blocks Obama's Supreme Court nominee

2016: Trump elected President
2018: America votes to give GOP expanded control of Senate, after the Democrats fought tooth and nail to block Kavanaugh confirmation
2020: GOP Senate should do the job the voters gave to it, and confirm Trump's Supreme Court nominee

I take the same position I've take since 1994: GOP Senate should always block Dem nominees, and should approve any good GOP nominees.

Call it the revenge of Bork. But the Dems changed the rules, and they should get them good and hard

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Original Mike said...

Yeah, they've said as much. That's the problem with going bat-shit crazy and "burning it all down". You can't burn it all down twice.



Mike wins the thread

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Seamus said...
Ramming through a nominee before the election would be foolish. It would energize the Dems, and if they win the White House and Congress, the first thing they'll do is enlarge the Court and fill the two or three new seats with the likes of Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama.

So unless Trump has a time machine that let's him know he's going to win 45 days from now, he'd be making a bet he can't afford.


1: RGB dying has already "energized" the Dems. You can't energize them more by actually replacing her

2: If Trump loses, and the Democrats pick up 50+ Senate seats, and after that the GOP Senate confirms a Trump nominee, the Dems will pack the Court

3: If the Senate confirms a nominee before the election, and Biden wins w/ 50+ Dem Senators, they will TRY to pack the Court.

The GOP Senate TRIED to go nuclear on filibusters in 2005 -2006. They failed. I doubt that Joe Manchin would agree to pack in circumstance 3. I don't believe he'd have any choice but to pack in circumstance 2.

NOT taking this opportunity, not confirming ACB before the election, will seriously demoralize GOP voters, and energize the Dems.

Confirming would energize the GOP base, because teh GOP came through for them, and now they need to get out and vote GOP, so the Dems can't pack and reverse.

There is no good reason for the GOP not to confirm.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Bruce Hayden said...
I might go the other way, have hearings, but not the vote, before the election. I don’t think that Trump really wants it all the way off the table.

That's the thing, even with ACB confirmed, it's still not off the table. Because the Dem threat to pack the Court means that anyone happy about the ACB confirmation needs to vote straight ticket GOP President, Senate, House to keep the Dems from being able to flip the Court.

Don't let John Roberts let the Dems steal the election. Get ACB on the Court before the election

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Seamus said...
Another reason not to try to fill the vacancy before the elections: the Dems would ensure that the hearings would be another Kavanaugh-style shitshow.

Duh. That's a reason to hold hearings. Attacking Catholics and mothers will cost the Dems 3%+ in the election

Greg The Class Traitor said...

ohn Althouse Cohen said...
This post is written as if Obama or some other Democrats were being blatantly inconsistent about how to replace Ginsburg. But there isn't any inconsistency in saying all of this:

a) When Obama still had about 9 months left in his presidency, he should have gotten his choice of his Supreme Court Justice, subject to the normal Senate confirmation process. The Senate shouldn't have ignored the question of how well-qualified Obama's choice was and automatically blocked Obama's nominee from even being considered.


Instead, they should have lied about him, slandered him, and practiced character assassination, the way the Democrats did to Bork and Kavanaugh?

Get stuffed. It doesn't matter how "well qualified" the nominee is, that metric died at the Bork hearings, run by Joe Biden.

b) Now that Trump, who was elected in November 2016, has chosen the replacement of the Justice who died 9 months earlier in February 2016, it would be unfair for Trump to choose the replacement of the Justice who died on September 18, 2020 when the election is coming up in a month and a half on November 3, 2020.

There's no good explanation for why that should happen.


Elections have consequences.

Obama's nominee lost because there was a GOP Senate. Trump's nominees have passed because there's a GOP Senate. What part about this is "unfair"? The part whoever voters picked Republicans over Democrats?

Epsilon Given said...

"""The McConnell rule is that "If I can, then I will." That is the only consistency."""

This isn't so much "The McConnell Rule" as it is the Democrat Rule. The fact is, there is no hypocrisy on the part of the Republicans on this issue: we all know that if the Democrats had the Senate in the last part of Obama's last term, Garland would be sitting on the Supreme Court (and if not Garland, then someone more like RGB) -- and that if the Democrats were to have control of the Senate today, no judicial appointee from President Trump would see the light of day.

They only complain of unfairness in either situation because it's Republicans, and not them, who are acting as they would act. And it's disingenuous on the part of Democrats to pretend otherwise.

doctrev said...

You know, Cohen, I just realized. You are legendarily bad at your alleged job in multiple ways- dialectically, you fail by not being able to realize that the vastly different political situations lead to a major gulf in how factions approach politics. If Obama had preserved his Senate majority from 2013, he could have named FOUR judges to the bench- except Hillary had browbeaten him into agreeing that she should nominate the successor to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Not to mention that "choice" of justices died with Robert Bork, and to a much lesser extent Harriet Miers, which you would know if you had the capacity for historical analysis of the average goldfish.

Rhetorically, the fact that YOU cannot think of an explanation to a problem is only a confession of your own limitations, and no one else's. It is superfluous knowledge: so many people are kicking your ass up and down the Internet on a regular basis that I am forced to conclude your mother must have some SERIOUS blackmail against the entire Cornell faculty of law. I further assume that the unholy bargain involves whatever William Jacobson is using to stay alive amidst frothing Trump-haters. Therefore, I urge people with moderate intelligence/ zero scruples (aka typical law candidates) to go to her, hat in hand, to petition for inclusion into this coterie.

Fundamentally, the problem is that you blubber about life being FAAAAAIR while expecting anything but derision and constant kicks in the ribs. This not only marks you out as a particularly pampered little darling, but also explodes your mother's declarations about cruel neutrality. I advise her to write to Lucianne Goldberg, and get some tips on how to keep her offspring's manifest lack of talent from affecting her own considerable career.

DeepRunner said...

Noting that nothing is as fresh-smelling as the barnyard scent of Muttering Joe's liberal hypocrisy, Ann Althouse said...
"But also be clear about this: Was Barack Obama wrong to nominate Merrick Garland? You must clearly say that he was or I won't "let you" be clear."

Coupla thoughts. First, Muttering Joe channeling The Messianic O's "Let me be clear" is utter horse-hockey. Anything to clutch, grasp, and cling the edge of his fingernails to The Hallowed Sanctity (and Hallow Sanctimony) of O, who waited until no one was left before endorsing Biden.

Second, 2020 will end with the election quite likely in litigation. Assuming John Roberts goes with the liberal bloc and there is deadlock in a contested election, what becomes of The Republic?

DanTheMan said...

>>b) Now that Trump, who was elected in November 2016, has chosen the replacement of the Justice who died 9 months earlier in February 2016, it would be unfair for Trump to choose the replacement of the Justice who died on September 18, 2020 when the election is coming up in a month and a half on November 3, 2020.

>There's no good explanation for why that should happen.

There is an excellent explanation. It's the Constitution, which sets how SC judges get appointed and approved.
"Fairness" and "consistency" and how many days there are until the election are irrelevant.

Trump has every right to nominate someone. And if the D's controlled the Senate, they would have every right to refuse to hold a hearing on his nominee.

Having said all of that, I would prefer that Trump not nominate anyone unless he wins. He could name ACB as his choice and then force Joe to name who he would nominate.

Naming (either) Obama would be a great political move. Even better would be naming ex president Obama for Chief Justice to replace Roberts.
It might win the election outright for Biden.

President Biden and Chief Justice Obama would be a lefty dream come true.
It would be a total disaster for the SC, and the country.

Kirk Parker said...

CStanley @ 1:27 PM,

A sound legal challenge? Why would we need anything more than "Roe v. Wade is complete bullshit and everybody knows it, so let's stop pretending"?

BJK said...

The part of the analysis that gets left out is the game theory of the Garland nomination. Garland was not the strong lefty Obama would have tried to push through under normal circumstances, as much as he was the type of Judge which Obama calculated could get through a Republican Senate.

The Garland nomination was a veiled threat: confirm the weak nominee of a weak President, before Hillary gets the chance to nominate someone further to the left. It was a bluff, coming from a President who didn't know he was bluffing. That's why the sitting President (and his Vice President) expelled only token political capital trying to force a vote; what the Democrats - including President Obama - really wanted was the no-compromises Hillary nominee.


Trump getting 3 Supreme Court nominees in a single term is more a product of the left - President Obama and Justice Ginsberg herself, who could have retired safely under a 2-term Democratic President being complicit in allowing it to happen...all because they couldn't imagine Trump winning in 2016.

Nichevo said...

We elect Presidents for 4 full years and each Congress for 2 full years, and both are entitled to the full exercise of power from the first minute to the last minute of said terms.


Oh, and you know what? The Democrats robbed this President of two or three years of the full exercise of power what with the ginned-up scandals and the preposterous impeachment. No, Mister President, full steam ahead! Take it off the table, take the air out of the Democrats.

This is such a valuable issue for them, deprive them of hope. Why even bother voting, Howie's Own will sigh, we've already lost the Court. And it will light such a fire under R voters. Give them nothing, but take from them EVERYTHING!!!

wendybar said...

Michael K said...
Obama was excellent at hypocrisy. Come to think of it, that is almost all he was good at.

9/19/20, 10:58 AM

His majesty still thinks he is the boy king. HE did his best to ruin America and he almost got away with it. Thank God for Trump.

Danno said...

Drago said "I always enjoy it when folks pretend that the clear distinctions are just so gosh darn subtle or convoluted that gee whiz why can't we just get past all that and just give the dems what they want."

You are correct. Wibble must follow the BOHICA rule of politics.

Qwinn said...

"There's supposed to be some idea of deferring to the president's choice of Supreme Court Justice. (There are many examples: Ginsburg was confirmed 96-3, Scalia was unanimously confirmed, etc. The fact that that's been less true in recent years hasn't stopped it from being a good principle.)"

Cohen's entire argument boils down to Civility Bullshit. An attempt to make Republicans preemptively surrender, when everyone, absolutely everyone knows that if Obama had had a Democrat Senate, we'd have Garland on the USSC now, and if Trump had a Democrat Senate, his candidate would never get a hearing. But once upon a time Democrats didn't give *every* nominee the Kavanaugh treatment, and that would be better, so Republicans must pretend nothing has changed and Play By The Old Better Rules, and thus concede power to Democrats voluntarily, or else they are uncivil hypocrites.

Name me the Democrat nominee that was ever treated like Bork, or Thomas, or Kavanaugh. That got even 2% of the slander thrown their way. But it's incumbent upon Republicans to show *they* can be civil.

Civility Bullshit.

Birkel said...

Ann Althouse must live on top of a hill.
Because JAC clearly rolled a long way from that apple tree.

The Senate did not consider Obama's nominee in 2016 because they held the majority.
The Senate has its own institutional prerogative.
It still does.

The president in 2016 nominated.
The Senate did exactly what it wanted to do.
Same thing in 2020.

You're a silly man.

bagoh20 said...

The Constitution doesn't say "maybe". It says that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint". It doesn't say the "next President shall" or "it depends". So let's just do what the law says, rather than what somebody thinks is better. Is that too tough?

Obama was right to nominate, and the Senate was within their rights to refuse to jump on it until after the election. That's just a form of withholding consent, which it their right. That may seem unfair, but both acted within the law, even within the spirit of it.

bagoh20 said...

Going outside what the Constitution says is exactly what would be "unfair". To change the rules to the benefit of one side is the definition of "unfair". Or you could call it Democrat S.O.P.

Danno said...

Qwinn, thank you for mentioning the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearing. This was Joe Biden's finest moment, in orchestrating the Democrat's high-tech lynching of a very well qualified (but conservative) black man to the court. The Dems will do anything to keep blacks on the virtual plantation. It almost worked. This is the most demonstrative evidence of Joe Biden's racism.