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

[writingprof]

No. 
If asked, the reason to turn it down would not be security.  It would be the 'Borking' that would make the job not worth it, i would think.

Amy Coney Barrett has already been through it once, on a smaller scale, when she was appointed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.  (Dianne Feinstein made an ass of herself, to borrow the recent language of this thread.)  Barbara Lagoa knows that being Hispanic (sorry, "Latinx") will protect her from the worst the Left has to offer. 

[mahagonny]

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.

I'm only half an academic, but....down with men! We suck.
As well, it would be a man who decided we need a woman. So why trust him.
Reminds me of the study Andy Rooney mentioned that shows that three out of four people living in the USA need psychiatric treatment. Which would mean, 75% of the people who conducted the study are nuts.

[financeguy]

I actually thought again about that statement. I don't think Trump actually believes in the identity politic aspect and decided to choose a woman for that reason. It's far more likely that he understands this is the only way to avoid a last minute me too allegation as a means to derail the candidate. Since this one will be seen as a likely decider on many abortion issues, that particular aspect may be less controversial when handled by a woman, which is a nice bonus but nothing compared to the possibility of a middle aged white guy who any person on the planet can come out and slander in the last minute to extend things beyond swearing in January.

[dismalist]

Well, maybe jumping the gun a little, looks like it'll be Amy, a female Scalia, as one wit said! :-)

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/25/politics/donald-trump-amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court/index.html

[Parasaurolophus]

Well, maybe jumping the gun a little, looks like it'll be Amy, a female Scalia, as one wit said! :-)

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/25/politics/donald-trump-amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court/index.html

Yup, looks like I was wrong about Rao.

[writingprof]

A superb pick.  Note to Democrats: Attacking her weirdo Catholicism is a losing strategy.  Better hope she flew with Epstein or something.

[permanent imposter]

Being concerned for the rights of the accused is not an "ass" position, by any means.

"Get your rape allegations ready" is an ass thing to say.

"I shall try to remember to go with 'r-pe' in the future" is an ass thing to say.

Mocking anyone's genuine distress over a too-flippant reference to rape and sexual assault is an ass thing to do.

It's a bit like lighting a bag of sh-t, throwing it on my porch, and then mocking me when I object to it: "It's absurd for you to be upset about sh-t, because there is sh-t in the world."

Clear?

+1

[dismalist]

A superb pick.  Note to Democrats: Attacking her weirdo Catholicism is a losing strategy.  Better hope she flew with Epstein or something.

There is no way this woman can be Kavannaughed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irtm9gITJhA

[Economizer]

Ms. [Mrs.?] Barrett surely will be thoroughly evaluated as to her moral, religious, and political views as well as her jurisprudence. From my perspective, well, she appears to be a pretty darn attractive woman.
Although, some of you thought I spelled her name wrong!

[writingprof]

Ms. [Mrs.?] Bennett surely will be thoroughly evaluated as to her moral, religious, and political views as well as her jurisprudence. From my perspective, well, she appears to be a pretty darn attractive woman.

Though I, for one, would be thrilled to see Mrs. Bennet, the mother in Pride and Prejudice, on the Supreme Court, I'm not sure that's who's been nominated.

There is no way this woman can be Kavannaughed

No, but she can be Borked.  The only possible line of attack here is a series of Ted Kennedy-style "in Amy Coney Barrett's America" speeches.  Surely, surely even the American Left will be too smart to accuse her of crimes without evidence or explicitly complain, on the Senate floor, that she adopted children from Haiti.  We know you hate her for that, guys, but try to keep it in the cloak room.

[jimbogumbo]

This is a done deal. The Senate will confirm her with little fanfare, and it should based on her qualifications. The Democrats will (rightfully, in my opinion) protest in some way, but it will happen. I think their plan is to hammer  the issue of precedent and how important it is or isn't to her.

To be clear, I don't think the process should go forward. President Carter nominated and had a Justice confirmed late in his term, and I think that was wrong. I believe Merrick Garland should been considered. The fact that he wasn't was wrong. Considering anyone at this time, particularly since voting is already underway is wrong. However, what I believe is of little consequence.

[clean]

This is a done deal. The Senate will confirm her with little fanfare, and it should based on her qualifications. The Democrats will (rightfully, in my opinion) protest in some way, but it will happen. I think their plan is to hammer  the issue of precedent and how important it is or isn't to her.

To be clear, I don't think the process should go forward. President Carter nominated and had a Justice confirmed late in his term, and I think that was wrong. I believe Merrick Garland should been considered. The fact that he wasn't was wrong. Considering anyone at this time, particularly since voting is already underway is wrong. However, what I believe is of little consequence.

I think Jimbogumbo's remarks pretty much sums up my thoughts on this issue. I will add that I think that the train has left the station and it would take more than the democrats have to stop the train. It is a done deal at this point, I fear.

[Sun_Worshiper]

This is a done deal. The Senate will confirm her with little fanfare, and it should based on her qualifications. The Democrats will (rightfully, in my opinion) protest in some way, but it will happen. I think their plan is to hammer  the issue of precedent and how important it is or isn't to her.

To be clear, I don't think the process should go forward. President Carter nominated and had a Justice confirmed late in his term, and I think that was wrong. I believe Merrick Garland should been considered. The fact that he wasn't was wrong. Considering anyone at this time, particularly since voting is already underway is wrong. However, what I believe is of little consequence.

I agree with all of this. Baring something extraordinary, the only thing that could go wrong is if Republican senators in swing states get cold feet, but even if they lose a few people they can get to 50 votes with Pence breaking the tie. There is also some possibility that a Democrat or two votes for her (someone like Doug Jones or possibly Manchin), but that only seems possible if the vote is after November 3rd and Trump has won the election.

[writingprof]

President Carter nominated and had a Justice confirmed late in his term, and I think that was wrong. I believe Merrick Garland should been considered. The fact that he wasn't was wrong.

What's the principle?  If confirming Carter's nominee was wrong, then confirming Garland would presumably have been equally wrong.  If confirming Garland was right, then why was it wrong to confirm Carter's nominee?  I'm confused by your stance.

[jimbogumbo]

President Carter nominated and had a Justice confirmed late in his term, and I think that was wrong. I believe Merrick Garland should been considered. The fact that he wasn't was wrong.

What's the principle?  If confirming Carter's nominee was wrong, then confirming Garland would presumably have been equally wrong.  If confirming Garland was right, then why was it wrong to confirm Carter's nominee?  I'm confused by your stance.

The Carter confirmation actually occurred (if I'm correct) after the election in which he was defeated. I'll check, but that is what I believe. So to me that confirmation and the current are the same (or at least very similar) and Garland was different.