Yeah that's what I was saying, hold off on the vote until after the election. That's called the "lame duck" session right? That way if she loses, well... hell hath no wrath like a scorned woman. One last vote for the team. Of course this stuff is not my wheelhouse, but Mitch is shrewd in the ways of politics, so it seems to me that would be the smart move; get a strong nominee and vet them now, but hold the confirmation until after 11/03. That way all these close race Pubs can do what all these people do best anyway... ride the fence and say whatever it is they think their electorate wants to hear. Then do whatever the f they're told to do by their lobbyists. There are lots of job opportunities post Capitol Hill after all. Side note: I just saw the clip of where they informed Trump right after his rally. He surprisingly didn't step on his crank and say something stupid. He actually handled it with class. Said a bunch of nice things about her. He probably knew it was pending though, more so than the general public would, so his team probably told him to be ready and be nice.
Well said. However, let’s look at what our judicial system represents. Specifically, the Supreme Court and their determination whether challenged laws enacted by Congress are Consitutional or not. Now remember, I am uneducated truck driver about to argue legal principles so this is for entertainment purposes only. Perhaps Constitutional Attorney El OchoCinco will bail me out. The above is not relavent to any argument whether Republicans are ethically justified in breaking the long established status quo of not appointing a new Supreme Court Justice before the election and going against their own argument in 2016. Let’s explore why this long standing policy was set up in the first place. It may have been deemed to be akin to stepping on the toes of a potentially new administration. If the current administration gets reelected, there would plenty of time to get a new justice through confirmation hearings. Each side would have sufficient time to determine the candidates competence. Considering that many Senators are running for reelection makes it even more difficult to properly validate any potential appointee. Politics are always about character. Or by today’s standards, relative character. The difference makers in the election will be undecideds, most of whom are Independents who think for themselves. These voters are looking for a representative that, well, represents them. Hillary lost because her “Deplorables” comment aligned with what Conservatives have been saying all along: Nasty woman. I believe Trump attempting to appoint a Supreme Court Justice under unethical circumstances in an attempt to gain political power contradicts Trump’s “Clean up the Swamp” campaign promise. The Democrats will have an decisive advantage on an issue that is important to undecided voters. The only strategy that makes sense to me is Republicans going all-in, ethically of course, to win reelection. The beauty with mail in voting is there is physical evidence of a vote, as opposed to electronic voting. Further, there is no opportunity for voter iintimidation, and if done correctly, less chance of someone voting multiple times. However, there are potential issues of people acquiring someone elses ballot and voting for them. Some people may mail in their ballot and “Forget” on election day and vote again electronically. The key would be to require Valid ID to be scanned in and cross referenced electronically. Further, automatic statistical validation practices should be implemented. We must insure the integrity of the vote. Far more important than which party represents us. This is speculation. If it happens, we will deal with it. This is not a valid justification for ignoring a long term established custom of not appointing a Supreme Court Justice during election season. When it comes down to it, most if not all, laws, whether criminal, civil, or administrative, are based on a lie of some sort. Promissory Estoppel: failure to do what you said you would do. This can be explict, as in “We will not nominate a Supreme Court justice during elections” and then you go do it anyway, or implicit, as in committing a murder. The point is we must make sure our Supreme Court free as possible of political bias and will solely decide on the merits of a case based on whether it is Constitutional. Yes, the Democrats politicized the FBI and there were blatant political bias as shown on agent texts. Yes, there was FISA fraud by partisan investigators and perjury traps set by partisan prosecutors. Yes, there was evidence and witness tampering by corrupted partisan FBI interrogators and leadership. Yes, there was, and still is, in some Democrat led jurisdictions outside the FBI that failed to prosecute. Yes, there were attempts, some successful, in breaching attorney-client priviledge under questionable circumstances. Yes, there were long standing conflicts of interest where the department head refused to step down. However, none of these are a valid reason for unethical conduct by Republicans. Lead by example by being above board while pointing out the well established unethical conduct by the other side. This is how to win over the undecideds and sap enthusiam out of their base. It takes skill, perhaps more than the Replublicans can muster. Again, the number one issue is ensuring the voter confidence in our elections. A perceived politically “Stacked” Supreme Court in the event of a contested election, destroys any legitimacy Trump may have with at least half the country. This would have a much more far reaching effect on our country than TDS. Hillary followed the principle of accepting the election results, even though she received more votes than Trump in 2016, and accepted the results presumably because she felt voter confidence in our election process was more important than her political ambition. Hopefully, if Trump faces the same circumstances Hillary did, he will do the same.
There isn't enough time for Republicans to get this done by election day even if they had the votes, and they don't have the votes under the circumstances. Best they can hope for is Trump wins big, they hold the senate. In that case we see a confirmation by years end with Democrats doing the business and usual whining about it. Worst case scenario is Biden wins, Democrats take the Senate and a leftist Judge replaces a leftist judge. Yawn, the world keeps spinning. The more likely scenario is Trump wins a razor thin victory, Republicans lose a couple seats in the Senate and it's a fever pitched battle for months, even years before the seat is filled. Bottom line, this ain't happening before the election.
In fairness to Susan though, she may be a rino but she took the lead on getting Kavanaugh appointed when that whole process had gone south, and now she is losing in Maine as a result of it. Just giving her her due on the way out. When she rose to defend Kavanaugh, she knew there would be a heavy price to be paid for it. She does not sit down when she pees as Romney does.
At some point the ugly words "recess appointment" will come up and all the pundits will churn the legal implications of that. Give it a while but it is coming, especially if Trump wins and they try to punish him by not filling the position or excessively dragging it out. Maybe during Christmas recess or something. Full disclosure, I am not up on all the legal ins and outs of recess appointments. Neither are the pundits, but I can smell it in the air, and even if it does not happen it will get its 15 minutes of scary talk at some point It is more likely to be talked about- as I said- if Trump wins but they won't confirm anyone. I suppose he could also make a recess appointment as a lame duck too, the full senate has to vote within a year or the end of the session or whatever so he could only mess things up for a while if the pubs do not fully control the senate. Otherwise, it would be undone.
It can still happen before the election. Mitch McConnell needs to convince Susan Collins to vote for the nominee. Then, the Republicans can afford to lose Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney and still confirm the nominee. The big problem is that November 3, 2020 is coming and there is a pretty good chance that with mass mailing of ballots in Democrat states, there could be in a couple of them, mass voting fraud? What then? You have a US Supreme Court which is tied 4-4 and cannot rule on the issue of mass voting fraud and what to do with it? You know if they have not determined the election by a certain date, certain things kick in including, Nancy Pelosi as the House Speaker being your President? This is the reality which is why Republicans need to try and move the nomination as fast as they can and put it to a vote. Democrats leave out the part that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed the fastest in 42 days? Give it a shot and try and get the confirmation thru before November 3, 2020. Senator Ted Cruz is urging to move the nominee forward and try to get it to a vote for the same reason, which is election turmoil that could happen and the US Supreme Court being unable to resolve the dispute?
The campaign should be, "would you not prefer to returning to hearing about your president and parties in the news every few days maybe?". So now acting unethically with the appointment is charging his base.
The Biden rule doesn't apply here. The Biden rule applied when the presidency and the senate were controlled by different parties. That's not the case here. Elections have consequences. And a special thanks to Harry Reid. *giggle*
A 42 day appointment was a long time ago in a very different world. Can't see that in 2020 politics. Romney and Murkowski are absolute no. Collins is a solid 90 percent no. There are at least 3 to 4 fence sitters. What that means is uncertain outcome and Mitch won't bring a vote to the floor without absolute certainty. To risk losing the vote on the floor pre election would have devastating consequences across the board. The court is now at 8 but isn't necessarily an even split. Only 3 are lockstep left. Yes, it could all get very messy and some ugly consequences may result. It's 2020, so expect abject stupidity to reign supreme. Finally, Mitch and his gang boxed themselves in with the way they handled Garland in 2016. People can twist themselves up like a pretzel saying this is different, but it's hypocrisy any way you slice it. I think the best move politically and ethically is to wait until after the election. It's the right thing to do. Besides, this train goes off the rails next year regardless of who wins, so get yourself ready for some ugly times.