Will Trump be able to get a justice to replace RBG before the next inaguaration?

[mamselle]

Part of McConnell's RBG statement on Friday:

"In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia's death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president's second term. We kept our promise. Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president's Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year.

By contrast, Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary. Once again, we will keep our promise.

President Trump's nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate."

https://www.republicanleader.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/mcconnell-statement-on-the-passing-of-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg

"...expanded it in 2018 ..."

Really? Hmmm....I didn't read it that way....

M.

[Cheerful]

Part of McConnell's RBG statement on Friday:

"In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia's death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president's second term. We kept our promise. Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president's Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year.

By contrast, Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary. Once again, we will keep our promise.

President Trump's nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate."

https://www.republicanleader.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/mcconnell-statement-on-the-passing-of-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg

"...expanded it in 2018 ..."

Really? Hmmm....I didn't read it that way....

M.

He's talking about the Senate majority.  In 2018, U.S. House gained 41 Dems, U.S. Senate gained 2 GOP.

[Cheerful]

Both parties engage in politics, of course. 

Lindsey Graham, Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee has changed his mind on waiting for the newly-elected president to make the Supreme Court nomination.  He's noted several reasons:

1.  In 2013, then-Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) changed Senate rules to a simple majority vote for circuit court nominees:  51 votes to confirm, no need for 60 votes to break a filibuster.

2.  Senator Chuck Schumer (D) "and his friends in the liberal media conspired to destroy the life of Brett Kavanaugh and hold that Supreme Court seat open."

Similar to McConnell's statement, Graham says: 

"Merrick Garland was a different situation. You had the president of one party nominating, and you had the Senate in the hands of the other party.

In 2017, Senate GOP Majority applied the same 51-vote majority rule to Supreme Court appointments.

[writingprof]

The president has the right to nominate someone.  The Senate has the right to confirm the nomination, vote it down, or ignore it altogether.  Any other standard, historical allusion, appeal to the calendar, or nod to the voters is sleight-of-hand meant to veil the fact that the process is--and is meant to be--an exercise in power politics.

[jimbogumbo]

Nah, more disaggregated, and world-wide. There's lots of other stuff to be held constant, such as natural resources, and so on.

That was the point of my USA snipe.

[kaysixteen]

I've been thinking on this one.   The Democrats could try this: having Nancy Pelosi tell McConnell and Trump that holding a vote before the election will mean 1) she will play hardball in the House wrt the upcoming necessary vote on continuing the funding for the fed govt, trusting that the GOP will be blamed for it and 2) remind them that doing this will guarantee the Democrats will pack the court, should they find themselves in complete control of the govt in Jan.

[dismalist]

The possibility to pack the court is open whenever a single party controls both houses of Congress and provides the President, but only then. There is no binding deal that can be struck between parties. Nothing can prevent packing.

[larryc]

Yes, Trump will get his justice. This is an exercise in raw power. McConnell has the votes.

The only card the Democrats have is to say that if there is a Republican appointment made, arguably the second illegitimate appointment the Republicans have made, the Democrats will appoint four additional justices in January. We will need the Senate to do that but that is looking good. And we need then to abolish the filibuster, and this display or raw power from the Republicans will be enough to convince every Democrat to do that.

Four justices in January. And announce it now--it *might* give a couple of Republicans enough pause to step back.

[financeguy]

Trump has already said it will be a woman. When the candidate on the right is already accepting the identity premise this means it is obviously the norm going forward. I haven't decided if I'm happy with the recent honesty on both sides or not. Biden says right of the bat that has VP and SCOTUS picks will be based on pigment and plumbing. Up until very recently everyone was using the rhetoric that they chose the best candidate that just happened to be from group x, not that you would ever consider that unless a total tie, in which case definitely go with group x. Now the quiet part is out loud and normalized. I wish an academic job would just say this.

[Treehugger]

Yes, Trump will get his justice. This is an exercise in raw power. McConnell has the votes.

The only card the Democrats have is to say that if there is a Republican appointment made, arguably the second illegitimate appointment the Republicans have made, the Democrats will appoint four additional justices in January. We will need the Senate to do that but that is looking good. And we need then to abolish the filibuster, and this display or raw power from the Republicans will be enough to convince every Democrat to do that.

Four justices in January. And announce it now--it *might* give a couple of Republicans enough pause to step back.

I think packing the court is a horrible idea. If what the Republicans have done is a naked power play, packing the court would be a naked power play x 10. Ends justifying the means of an entirely different order of magnitude.

Also, after you pack the court by adding four new justices, what are you going to do? Top the power play off with a constitutional amendment capping the number of justices at 13? If you don't, what's going to stop the Republicans from adding more when they are fully in power? If you do, Democrats will never be able to complain about Republocans unethical power plays unless they want to look like total hypocrites.

[Parasaurolophus]

The point of packing is to use tit-for-tat retaliation to constrain Republican overreaches. Republicans have obtained a Supreme Court majority that cannot be broken by Democrats, barring extraordinary measures, despite losing the popular vote in seven of the last eight elections. This is not a democratic outcome, and it does not reflect the American public. In fact, we know that SCOTUS is far to the right of the American public already.

So: packing ends when Republicans stop breaking norms. It continues for as long as they retaliate. To capitulate to their naked power plays is to undermine what's left of the institution.

That said, I'm not confident Democrats will follow through, especially without leadership--which Biden certainly hasn't offered, on this issue.

EDIT: Hypocrisy doesn't check the Republicans, and complaining hasn't helped the Democrats. There's no advantage to be gained from sitting there and accepting Republicans' bad behaviour.

[Treehugger]

The point of packing is to use tit-for-tat retaliation to constrain Republican overreaches. Republicans have obtained a Supreme Court majority that cannot be broken by Democrats, barring extraordinary measures, despite losing the popular vote in seven of the last eight elections. This is not a democratic outcome, and it does not reflect the American public. In fact, we know that SCOTUS is far to the right of the American public already.

So: packing ends when Republicans stop breaking norms. It continues for as long as they retaliate. To capitulate to their naked power plays is to undermine what's left of the institution.

That said, I'm not confident Democrats will follow through, especially without leadership--which Biden certainly hasn't offered, on this issue.

EDIT: Hypocrisy doesn't check the Republicans, and complaining hasn't helped the Democrats. There's no advantage to be gained from sitting there and accepting Republicans' bad behaviour.

Sure, you can rationalize it however you like. Short and medium term it might be a good idea. Long term, it will be a disastrous precedent.

[Sun_Worshiper]

I doubt Democrats could get the votes to pack the court, even if they have a senate majority. In fact, I doubt they could get the momentum going to even get a vote on packing the court.

[ciao_yall]

The point of packing is to use tit-for-tat retaliation to constrain Republican overreaches. Republicans have obtained a Supreme Court majority that cannot be broken by Democrats, barring extraordinary measures, despite losing the popular vote in seven of the last eight elections. This is not a democratic outcome, and it does not reflect the American public. In fact, we know that SCOTUS is far to the right of the American public already.

So: packing ends when Republicans stop breaking norms. It continues for as long as they retaliate. To capitulate to their naked power plays is to undermine what's left of the institution.

That said, I'm not confident Democrats will follow through, especially without leadership--which Biden certainly hasn't offered, on this issue.

EDIT: Hypocrisy doesn't check the Republicans, and complaining hasn't helped the Democrats. There's no advantage to be gained from sitting there and accepting Republicans' bad behaviour.

It seems it would be very difficult for Biden to be taking a stand on this issue before the election. He needs to focus, big picture, on what the D's can bring to the American people - health care, living wages, education, etc. Scrapping about court-packing isn't a fight he needs to waste airtime on.

That said, would Biden have much to gain putting out names for a Supreme Court justice at this point?

[mythbuster]

If Biden comes out now with a court packing threat the Dems will lose the election.  It's that simple.