Thread: Ginsberg dead
View Single Post
Old 09-21-2020, 10:03 AM
  #21  
Alsatian
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 6,170
Default

I think this is the way things will go. I think Trump will make his appointment promptly. I think Trump is going to leave the strategy of how to move forwards with the hearing and vote to the capable hands of Mitch McConnell. I think there will be a vote before the end of December. All the rest is going to be Democrat spin doctoring. As the French would say dismissively: "c'est du cinema!" It is just drama, it is just Hollywood, it is just acting.

I don't know what the right strategy is. I FEEL that what makes most sense is to do this quick and have the vote BEFORE the election. There are too many imponderables that can go the wrong way. The only way it is BETTER for Republicans, in my not entirely informed opinion, is if Trump clearly wins and Republicans clearly extend their majority in the Senate. Any other outcome is going to be negative. If Trump loses, Democrats will insist the appointment go to the new president. If Trump clearly wins but Republicans lose a Senator, Democrats will insist that the appointment vote wait for new Senators to be sworn in. If the election results -- for either senators or the president -- can't be called before mid-December, then again the Democrats will insist that the appointment vote be deferred to the New Year. I just don't see a solid benefit for Republicans to slow-roll this thing. If it is hard to move this forwards to a vote before the election . . . most of the scenarios make it HARDER to get the vote done before the end of the year after the election.

I think I would look at it like this. The worst outcome would be Trump not being able to fill this vacancy on the Supreme Court with his preferred candidate. That is the worst outcome. I would try to avoid the scenarios that lead to that outcome as a possibility. Even if Trump is re-elected but his margin in the Senate declines this can mean he has to appoint some wishy-washy justice that really is a judge in the vein of Roberts (not very conservative, not an originalist).

I think they move this to a vote before the election and strong-arm the Republican senators to do a f-ing gut check and get it done. This idea that there isn't time or that the people need to decide is poppycock. The people who would make this happen if they voted before the election ARE the people voted in by the people to dispose of these responsibilities. There is no need to have another election before voting on the justice candidate, especially in the context of the very flaky voting procedures that apparently are going to be in play -- I refer to the fraud-prone mail in balloting system.
Alsatian is offline