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

[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.

Sorry, it was NOT to the Supreme Court; it was Stephen Breyer to the Court of Appeals. It happened on Dec. 10, definitely after Carter was defeated.

[mamselle]

If Trump strings out a refusal to accept defeat, it may all be moot, anyway.

M.

[kaysixteen]

The best argument against Barrett lies in her definitively asserted opposition to the Affordable Care Act, something she has unambiguously done in print.  This is especially true given that SCOTUS is set to have another hearing on the Trump admin's latest attempt to have the court nuke it just one short week after the election.  I have been, and will continue, to try to convince all my pro-life friends and coreligionists that it is just not accurate for someone to assert that they are 'pro-life', when they support removing health insurance from 22million people (not to mention the other negative consequences of nuking this law).  And the GOP, led by Moscow Mitch, seems to have forgotten that their party got shellacked in the 2018 house elections largely because of efforts to scuttle the law.

[writingprof]

I have been, and will continue, to try to convince all my pro-life friends and coreligionists that it is just not accurate for someone to assert that they are 'pro-life', when they support removing health insurance from 22million people (not to mention the other negative consequences of nuking this law).

"Pro-life" is a term of art with which one signifies one's opposition to elective abortions.  It does not follow that the "pro-life" person must support every government intervention meant to ease the burdens of the poor.  Many don't work; others make the problem worse; still others lead to empty shelves, hyper-inflation, and enforced famine used as a political weapon.  (We must eliminate the Kulaks as a class, etc.) 

Also, on a personal note, I implore you to consider that you can give all the ground you want, but the Left--including the leftists on these fora--will still hate you.

[little bongo]

I have been, and will continue, to try to convince all my pro-life friends and coreligionists that it is just not accurate for someone to assert that they are 'pro-life', when they support removing health insurance from 22million people (not to mention the other negative consequences of nuking this law).

"Pro-life" is a term of art with which one signifies one's opposition to elective abortions.  It does not follow that the "pro-life" person must support every government intervention meant to ease the burdens of the poor.  Many don't work; others make the problem worse; still others lead to empty shelves, hyper-inflation, and enforced famine used as a political weapon.  (We must eliminate the Kulaks as a class, etc.) 

Also, on a personal note, I implore you to consider that you can give all the ground you want, but the Left--including the leftists on these fora--will still hate you.

"Hate"? Geez.

I've gone to this classic movie quote before, but I think it bears repeating--from Casablanca (1942):

Ugarte: You despise me, don't you?

Rick: If I gave you any thought, I probably would.

ETA: I think this sums up my feelings about the specific question. It's a bit over 20 minutes, but worth a listen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1265&v=pkpfFuiZkcs&feature=emb_logo

[mahagonny]

I have been, and will continue, to try to convince all my pro-life friends and coreligionists that it is just not accurate for someone to assert that they are 'pro-life', when they support removing health insurance from 22million people (not to mention the other negative consequences of nuking this law).

"Pro-life" is a term of art with which one signifies one's opposition to elective abortions.  It does not follow that the "pro-life" person must support every government intervention meant to ease the burdens of the poor.  Many don't work; others make the problem worse; still others lead to empty shelves, hyper-inflation, and enforced famine used as a political weapon.  (We must eliminate the Kulaks as a class, etc.) 

Also, on a personal note, I implore you to consider that you can give all the ground you want, but the Left--including the leftists on these fora--will still hate you.

I think as a simple statement about one's self-knowledge regarding moral questions, if you would save the life of an unborn you would also save the life of the sick, long as it's within your power. Whether that means everyone has the right to live to 101, don't ask me. This question will only get more vexing as we go along.
on edit: It's time we started understanding that maximum duration of life is not always good for us, and may be unnatural. Some people's religion requires it, but that's their affair. They should be able to pay their own way if they want to live to 101. We are not a religion state.
the exchange between kaysixteen and writing prof about sums up the typical way it's discussed among learned folk. I wish there were other ways. there probably are but I'm not that well read. So there. Beat you to it.

[writingprof]

Judging by today's hearing, the answer to this thread's title question is a hearty yes.

Also, Democratic attempts to conflate filling this existing seat with "packing the Court" are sweet, in a my-five-year-old-has-poop-on-the-back-of-his-legs kind of way.

[dismalist]

Judging by today's hearing, the answer to this thread's title question is a hearty yes.

Also, Democratic attempts to conflate filling this existing seat with "packing the Court" are sweet ... .

When words lose their meaning, people lose their liberty.

--Attributed to Confucius

[mamselle]

When Bush II was elected, I was doing research in Europe, and suggested my state might just want to cut along the dotted-line of the state boundaries and start rowing for France.

Now, I don't even know where to start rowing.

M.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Hard to imagine a more self-destructive scenario for Republicans electorally: An unpopular congress confirms an unpopular judge in an unpopular context (right before an election), instead of passing a Coronavirus stimulus package. 

[dismalist]

Do the Republicans know this?

[writingprof]

LOL, the same could have been said about the passage of Obamacare.  An unpopular congress passes an unpopular bill in an unpopular context (a few months before the midterms), instead of blah blah blah.  People got over it and learned to like the damn thing. 

And the real similarity is in what happens next.  Democrats got "shellacked" in the election, then Republicans failed in their turn, then Democrats got elected again.  Republicans will get shellacked in this election, then Democrats will fail, then Republicans will be back in office.

[mahagonny]

LOL, the same could have been said about the passage of Obamacare.  An unpopular congress passes an unpopular bill in an unpopular context (a few months before the midterms), instead of blah blah blah.  People got over it and learned to like the damn thing. 

And the real similarity is in what happens next.  Democrats got "shellacked" in the election, then Republicans failed in their turn, then Democrats got elected again.  Republicans will get shellacked in this election, then Democrats will fail, then Republicans will be back in office.

As Thomas Sowell says 'there are very few solutions. Mostly tradeoffs.'

[dismalist]

I sampled some video of Amy being interrogated today.

The high point was at or near the beginning when Senator Hirono asked her if she had ever sexually assaulted anybody!

For Kavanaugh there was an accusation. For Amy, they had to ask.

Gimme a break.

[writingprof]

The high point was at or near the beginning when Senator Hirono asked her if she had ever sexually assaulted anybody!

I saw this reported but assumed I had stumbled onto a parody site.  Why on earth would she ask that?