Filling Supreme Court Vacancy

[ChuckB]

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/517189-what-senate-republicans-have-said-about-election-year-supreme-court-vacancies

 

[Donkey]

This isn’t even up for debate.

President Trump said he is moving forward and Mitch McConnell said the Senate floor is open.

Period.

Lame duck period is between the time it is determined that there is a new president and the first week of 2021.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Since the history of our country,we have had 29 SCOTUS nominations under similar circumstances ,like the one we have before is now.We have the majority and it is well within the presidents‘ rights to nominate now. If anyone thinks the Dems wouldn’t do the same, they fooling themselves.
Now the usual RINO tired wish washy suspects will resist Murkowski,maybe. Collins certsin.y Romney and maybe even !indsey Graham.
It will hinge on all the others to get on board

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Since the history of our country,we have had 29 SCOTUS nominations under similar circumstances ,like the one we have before is now.We have the majority and it is well within the presidents‘ rights to nominate now. If anyone thinks the Dems wouldn’t do the same, they fooling themselves.
Now the usual RINO tired wish washy suspects will resist Murkowski,maybe. Collins certsin.y Romney and maybe even !indsey Graham.
It will hinge on all the others to get on board

I just wished the Republicans had been more honest in their reason for not voting on Merrick Garland. Instead of saying “It is not right to vote on such a nomination so close to an election”, they could have been honest and admitted, “We are doing this because have the power. Period.”

 

[Jeanne_S]

Ok I can agree with that…

 

[Victoria33]

I just wished the Republicans had been more honest in their reason for not voting on Merrick Garland. Instead of saying “It is not right to vote on such a nomination so close to an election”, they could have been honest and admitted, “We are doing this because have the power. Period.”

The right of the Senate not to take up the matter of the president’s judicial nominations was asserted repeatedly by then-Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Biden – now inconveniently for the White House the vice president of the United States – during the administration of President George W. Bush, who watched impotently as a number of his nominations to the federal bench languished in Congress’ upper chamber – many of whom were eminently qualified and held in the esteem of their colleagues in the legal community – without a hearing and without a vote.

Other precedents the Democrats are making much of include Garland’s having been confirmed to his current post by a vote of 97 to 0, a margin that included, as aforementioned, seven Republicans currently in the U.S. Senate. That does not, as the Democrats have shown year in and year out, bind anyone currently serving to vote for him again. If they think it does, then they’ve been caucusing too much in Colorado – if you get the drift of the smoke.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blog...-take-up-obamas-nomination-of-merrick-garland

Well well, what do we know. By the way, I"m not sure if the original quote is true or even proper to say.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The right of the Senate not to take up the matter of the president’s judicial nominations…

But that is not the reason the Republicans gave at the time of Merrick Garland. If they did, they wouldn’t look so hypocritical now.

 

[ReaderT]

It all goes back to our Constitution - the Constitution doesn’t say anything about “waiting in an election year”. I thought the Senate was wrong to do it in 2016 when they could’ve just voted down Garland (Republicans had the majority), and we’d be wrong to create waiting periods now.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

There is a practical side to this: it takes time for the Senate to go through the confirmation process. Anywhere from 51 to 90 something days since the 1990’s according to an article I saw somewhere. But only 45 days until the election.

The problem is that with Ginsburg gone, there is the danger that the Court could be deadlocked 4-4 on the election cases when a majority one way or the other would be preferable for moving on. In the case of a tie at the SC level, the appeals court verdict stands. But what if there are conflicting appeals courts decisions? A real mess here. No solution present that doesn’t rile up the faithful on one side or the other.

The problem with power grabbing maneuvers is that the other side can and will take advantage of them. Fingers pointing back at Harry Reid here. So the Democrats have already promised us they will kill the filibuster entirely when they get control of the Senate again. With that threat hanging over everyone’s heads, Trump and McConnell may choose to go ahead so they can ensure the Court can decide the inevitable election cases. As in if they’re going to lose the Senate anyway, they may as well get some shots in.

 

[ProVobis]

In the case of a tie at the SC level, the appeals court verdict stands. But what if there are conflicting appeals courts decisions? A real mess here

Had this been the case in 2000, the count of votes would have been completed in Florida.

 

[ProVobis]

I just wished the Republicans had been more honest in their reason for not voting on Merrick Garland. Instead of saying “It is not right to vote on such a nomination so close to an election”, they could have been honest and admitted, “We are doing this because have the power. Period.”

Actually, according to Dershowitz, Obama had the power to just swear in Garland to the Supreme Court. The Senate is just there for “advise and consent,” which can be interpreted in several ways.

More Dershowitz: Obama should have had Garland sworn in and dared Republicans to remove him

hotair.com

 

[ChuckB]

There is a practical side to this: it takes time for the Senate to go through the confirmation process. Anywhere from 51 to 90 something days since the 1990’s according to an article I saw somewhere. But only 45 days until the election.

The problem is that with Ginsburg gone, there is the danger that the Court could be deadlocked 4-4 on the election cases when a majority one way or the other would be preferable for moving on. In the case of a tie at the SC level, the appeals court verdict stands. But what if there are conflicting appeals courts decisions? A real mess here. No solution present that doesn’t rile up the faithful on one side or the other.

I hadn’t thought about that.

This dumpster fire of a year just keeps getting better and better.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Zzyzx_Road:

In the case of a tie at the SC level, the appeals court verdict stands. But what if there are conflicting appeals courts decisions? A real mess here

Had this been the case in 2000, the count of votes would have been completed in Florida.

You are correct about that point.

In general, when the Supreme Court reaches a deadlock in any case heard by it, that means the appeals court decision stands. But that means that the decision does not set a precedent for similar decisions because an appeals court decision in one jurisdiction does not require other jurisdictions to fall in line. Other jurisdictions can consider it, but only as a guideline, not as a precedent they have to follow.

I hadn’t thought about that.

This dumpster fire of a year just keeps getting better and better.

Trump is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. Judging from his initial words about it, he is stirring the pot to get his opponents frothing at the mouth. The Democrats have already all but promised a revolt after November 3rd so why not get them to jump back on the streets now? Then they look bad again as they did with the riots going on.