Ginsburg dies; Amy Coney Barrett confirmed

[Neurotic Guy]

the Democrats seem defeated on this issue. So sad, such a weak party. They know what is coming. Trump will nominate a conservative to Justice Ginsburg's seat. The Republicans that truncated Merrick Garland's nomination will confirm.

The truth is Trump has right to nominate. Any Democrat that argued that Obama had the right to a vote on Garland but  now argues Trump does have the right to an up or down vote on his nominee is a hypocrite, driven by politics and devoid of moral clarity.

What really needs to be done is a reformation of the Apex Court. No institution should be as powerful as the SCOTUS.

Sort of.  It’s important to note that Scalia died in February.  There would have been almost a full year on the court and most certainly would not have been confirmed by a lame duck Senate.  The degree of hypocrisy is certainly mitigated by her death being 6 weeks prior to the election.

And the republican hypocrisy would be likewise exacerbated.

[libermaniac]

The truth is Trump has right to nominate. Any Democrat that argued that Obama had the right to a vote on Garland but  now argues Trump does have the right to an up or down vote on his nominee is a hypocrite, driven by politics and devoid of moral clarity.

Trump has the right to nominate, but the real hypocrisy is obviously in the hands of the Republicans who argued otherwise last time around when there were 11 months remaining.  There is such a thing as a moral compass.  And, if the Republicans confirm Trump's appointee, it will be clear which party is lacking in that area.

[Ogaju]

the Democrats seem defeated on this issue. So sad, such a weak party. They know what is coming. Trump will nominate a conservative to Justice Ginsburg's seat. The Republicans that truncated Merrick Garland's nomination will confirm.

The truth is Trump has right to nominate. Any Democrat that argued that Obama had the right to a vote on Garland but  now argues Trump does have the right to an up or down vote on his nominee is a hypocrite, driven by politics and devoid of moral clarity.

What really needs to be done is a reformation of the Apex Court. No institution should be as powerful as the SCOTUS.

Sort of.  It’s important to note that Scalia died in February.  There would have been almost a full year on the court and most certainly would not have been confirmed by a lame duck Senate.  The degree of hypocrisy is certainly mitigated by her death being 6 weeks prior to the election.

And the republican hypocrisy would be likewise exacerbated.

I agree but I am not intersted in relativism. A president's term ends the January after election not the February before election or the September before election. There is no Scalia seat on the Court like the Republicans argued. That was nonsense. The Dems let them get away with it. Just because they were and are weak does not mean the Republicans owe them anything.

[Ogaju]

The truth is Trump has right to nominate. Any Democrat that argued that Obama had the right to a vote on Garland but  now argues Trump does have the right to an up or down vote on his nominee is a hypocrite, driven by politics and devoid of moral clarity.

Trump has the right to nominate, but the real hypocrisy is obviously in the hands of the Republicans who argued otherwise last time around when there were 11 months remaining.  There is such a thing as a moral compass.  And, if the Republicans confirm Trump's appointee, it will be clear which party is lacking in that area.

You would be right if the Dems agreed with the Republicans on that issue but they didnt. They kept arguing that Obama had the right to a floor vote and that the seat was been approrpriated by the Republicans.

[Erik]

I love when people are shocked that a party will do what is in their best interest. If the Reps push through a young conservative, it will be a very long time before Dems can get Revenge.

Here is one small distinction between Garland, fwiw.

Obama couldn’t have been re-elected but Trump can. I’m guessing that will be the argument.


Make no mistake about it. No party has a moral compass. Until you switch political affiliations, you’ll never see it.

[Ogaju]

I love when people are shocked that a party will do what is in their best interest. If the Reps push through a young conservative, it will be a very long time before Dems can get Revenge.

Here is one small distinction between Garland, fwiw.

Obama couldn’t have been re-elected but Trump can. I’m guessing that will be the argument.


Make no mistake about it. No party has a moral compass. Until you switch political affiliations, you’ll never see it.

The argument that Obama couldnt be re-elected so his presidential powers stop 11 months before the end of his term is nonsense and you know it. Both parties are political and hypocrites, no need trying to sugar-coat it.

[Erik]

I love when people are shocked that a party will do what is in their best interest. If the Reps push through a young conservative, it will be a very long time before Dems can get Revenge.

Here is one small distinction between Garland, fwiw.

Obama couldn’t have been re-elected but Trump can. I’m guessing that will be the argument.


Make no mistake about it. No party has a moral compass. Until you switch political affiliations, you’ll never see it.

The argument that Obama couldnt be re-elected so his presidential powers stop 11 months before the end of his term is nonsense and you know it. Both parties are political and hypocrites, no need trying to sugar-coat it.

Am I allowed to speculate on what the republican argument will be without being accused of agreeing with it?

[jambr380]

the Democrats seem defeated on this issue. So sad, such a weak party. They know what is coming. Trump will nominate a conservative to Justice Ginsburg's seat. The Republicans that truncated Merrick Garland's nomination will confirm.

The truth is Trump has right to nominate. Any Democrat that argued that Obama had the right to a vote on Garland but  now argues Trump does have the right to an up or down vote on his nominee is a hypocrite, driven by politics and devoid of moral clarity.

What really needs to be done is a reformation of the Apex Court. No institution should be as powerful as the SCOTUS.

Sort of.  It’s important to note that Scalia died in February.  There would have been almost a full year on the court and most certainly would not have been confirmed by a lame duck Senate.  The degree of hypocrisy is certainly mitigated by her death being 6 weeks prior to the election.

And the republican hypocrisy would be likewise exacerbated.

I agree but I am not intersted in relativism. A president's term ends the January after election not the February before election or the September before election. There is no Scalia seat on the Court like the Republicans argued. That was nonsense. The Dems let them get away with it. Just because they were and are weak does not mean the Republicans owe them anything.

You have no idea what you are talking about - it’s embarrassing. Since the Rs had a Senate majority, there was literally nothing Obama could do to ‘push through’ Garland. And you use the word ‘weak’, my goodness. Rs would be devious, hypocritical jerks if they do this; but I guess that makes them ‘strong’ in your book.

[President Red]

People tend to forget that Senate Republicans scuttled Garland's nomination because of the proximity of the presidential election and the fact that the nomination was by a president of the opposing party.  Reasonable people can disagree as to whether that was appropriate, but the situation was significantly different than the situation before the Senate now.  Moving forward on a nomination now would not be hypocritical, although reasonable people again can disagree as to whether it would be appropriate or unduly partisan.


I wonder if an appointment by Trump, or the promise by the Senate that it will vote on Trump's nominee before the end of the term, actually would remove a basis for some of the Republican/conservative support for his reelection. 

I did not vote for Trump, and find him personally repellant for many reasons.  However, I generally am pleased with his judicial appointments.  There are exceptions, of course, but I think most of the judges were well-qualified (irrespective of ABA opinions on the subject).  At the Supreme Court level, I'm lukewarm on Kavanaugh, but so far Gorsuch shows signs of being one of the best Supreme Court appointments in a long time.  I don't always agree with his opinions, but I find them well-reasoned on the whole.  (For context, I'll note that I've been an attorney for about twenty-five years and an adjunct law professor for the last thirteen, so I have reason to read more opinions than most people do.)

I have struggled with what to do with my vote in the upcoming election.  Should I hold my nose, vote for Trump, and hope that he is in a position to put another good (from my perspective) justice on the high court?  Given Justice Ginsburg's age and health issues, it was very likely that she would pass or retire in the near future, and Justice Breyer is not much younger.

If, however, the current Supreme Court vacancy is filled by a "good" appointment this term, this lessens my concern about a "bad" appointment by a President Biden.  Correspondingly, there is less of a reason for me to vote for Trump.  I wonder if the many lower court appointments combined with three Supreme Court appointments would satisfy some those who wanted changes in the federal judiciary, and would remove or reduce the justification for suffering four more years of Trump.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Wow. Disagreed with her on many things, but I respect her humanity and I feel for her family. It would be nice if everyone could take just a few days to mourn and remember her, all politics aside, but I'm sure that won't happen.

[Ogaju]

I love when people are shocked that a party will do what is in their best interest. If the Reps push through a young conservative, it will be a very long time before Dems can get Revenge.

Here is one small distinction between Garland, fwiw.

Obama couldn’t have been re-elected but Trump can. I’m guessing that will be the argument.


Make no mistake about it. No party has a moral compass. Until you switch political affiliations, you’ll never see it.

The argument that Obama couldnt be re-elected so his presidential powers stop 11 months before the end of his term is nonsense and you know it. Both parties are political and hypocrites, no need trying to sugar-coat it.

Am I allowed to speculate on what the republican argument will be without being accused of agreeing with it?

yes

[tarheelsxxiii]

If the GOP hypocritically pushes a nominee through after what they did to Merrick Garland there will be no peace. We will literally be on the brink of another civil war.

This is the absolute worst thing that could have happened to America right now. The GOP has a chance to extend an olive branch and show they still care about our democracy and the Constitution. I hope they make the right choice.

They will make the same choice that Democrats would make in the reverse situation.

Absolutely.  They were happy to ruin the economy and kill (at least) tens of thousands of seniors to make a run at the presidency.  No one with a sound mind places sick individuals (of any kind) in nursing homes, among our most vulnerable.  They will stop at nothing for power.

[indeedproceed]

the Democrats seem defeated on this issue. So sad, such a weak party. They know what is coming. Trump will nominate a conservative to Justice Ginsburg's seat. The Republicans that truncated Merrick Garland's nomination will confirm.

The truth is Trump has right to nominate. Any Democrat that argued that Obama had the right to a vote on Garland but  now argues Trump does have the right to an up or down vote on his nominee is a hypocrite, driven by politics and devoid of moral clarity.

What really needs to be done is a reformation of the Apex Court. No institution should be as powerful as the SCOTUS.

Sort of.  It’s important to note that Scalia died in February.  There would have been almost a full year on the court and most certainly would not have been confirmed by a lame duck Senate.  The degree of hypocrisy is certainly mitigated by her death being 6 weeks prior to the election.

And the republican hypocrisy would be likewise exacerbated.

I agree but I am not intersted in relativism. A president's term ends the January after election not the February before election or the September before election. There is no Scalia seat on the Court like the Republicans argued. That was nonsense. The Dems let them get away with it. Just because they were and are weak does not mean the Republicans owe them anything.

They don't owe them the honor of their word?

[Erik]

Similar story. My personal take is to vote for whoever best aligns with your policy preference. I don’t really care about “presidential” speech, morals, honesty, or what not. This person needs to run the country, not be my spouse.

As a centrist, I voted for Trump in protest in 2016, because Hillary. Now in 2020, I’ll be the first one in line to vote for Trump because his policy decisions are aligned with my current outlook.

IMO, party loyalty is a joke. Pick the candidate that will do the things you want.

[kraidstar]

If the GOP hypocritically pushes a nominee through after what they did to Merrick Garland there will be no peace. We will literally be on the brink of another civil war.

This is the absolute worst thing that could have happened to America right now. The GOP has a chance to extend an olive branch and show they still care about our democracy and the Constitution. I hope they make the right choice.

They will make the same choice that Democrats would make in the reverse situation.

No, I don't think there is any vague equivalenve between the parties at this point. Your party is deep in bed with Trump. Own it.

Liberals aren't going to lay down and take this. Either make it right or there will be a big problem. This isn't a game. People are at their limit.