Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
Ginsberg dead >

Ginsberg dead

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Ginsberg dead

Old 09-21-2020, 10:03 AM
  #21  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 6,150
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  
Old 09-21-2020, 10:14 AM
  #22  
Giant Nontypical
 
Gm54-120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 5,433
Default

The dems were all for it happening when O'bummer was in the White House. RBG was all for it back then so since it is her seat, we should head her 2016 opinion on the matter.
Gm54-120 is offline  
Old 09-21-2020, 10:48 AM
  #23  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 17,553
Default

All actions do come with risk. Having said that, I think it wisest to push forward. Pushing forward might rile libs up but they're already pretty riled up. Using Alsatian's examination process, what would happen if Trump waited? I don't think any libs would simmer down but I can see some of Trump's supporters getting a little discouraged at a perception of Trump bowing/yielding to libs, leftists, etc. If Trump stays the course (nominates a replacement now), Trump is playing his own game instead of following dictates/rules from Schumer, Pelosi and leftists. I say go for it.
CalHunter is offline  
Old 09-21-2020, 10:50 AM
  #24  
Nontypical Buck
 
Valorius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 1,746
Default

There is no way in hell the dems wouldnt fill this seat in the same circumstances.

If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.
Valorius is offline  
Old 09-21-2020, 01:00 PM
  #25  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 6,150
Default

Originally Posted by CalHunter View Post
All actions do come with risk. Having said that, I think it wisest to push forward. Pushing forward might rile libs up but they're already pretty riled up. Using Alsatian's examination process, what would happen if Trump waited? I don't think any libs would simmer down but I can see some of Trump's supporters getting a little discouraged at a perception of Trump bowing/yielding to libs, leftists, etc. If Trump stays the course (nominates a replacement now), Trump is playing his own game instead of following dictates/rules from Schumer, Pelosi and leftists. I say go for it.
O! There's no question Trump is going to make an appointment and make it promptly! What I see on-line says he'll announce his appointment by Friday or Saturday. THAT is gonna happen! If anyone thinks he isn't going to do that, they are crazy. I add that this does NOT run contrary to what is always done. The only question is how does the Senate handle it, given the election is near.
Alsatian is offline  
Old 09-21-2020, 01:05 PM
  #26  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 6,150
Default

Really, I think this is the way to see this. What would Democrats do? They would do what suits the interests of the Democrat party.

I wonder how many times this particular situation has arisen in the recent history of the US -- say since 1900? Situation is (1) supreme court vacancy occurs close to a presidential election (4 months or less before the election), (2) Senate has a narrow majority and is of the same party as the President, and (3) the president appoints and the senate votes BEFORE the new slate of senators/president are inaugurated following the election (for Senators this is early January, for Presidents this is January 21 or thereabout)?
Alsatian is offline  
Old 09-21-2020, 01:17 PM
  #27  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,683
Default

anti-life, misogynist, thought recounting was good until Gore won .... I cannot support much of her views/beliefs but she did live a life for certain
Ranger77 is offline  
Old 09-21-2020, 01:41 PM
  #28  
Super Moderator
 
Bocajnala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Trumbull County, Ohio
Posts: 8,108
Default

What happened in 16 under obama? How are the situations similar and different?

-Jake
Bocajnala is offline  
Old 09-21-2020, 02:29 PM
  #29  
Nontypical Buck
 
C. Davis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Kountze, Texas
Posts: 4,768
Default

A good reason to push forward with the nomination is it forces Democrats to be themselves up to election day. They will not have a chance to blow smoke over the electorate like they always do trying to appear reasonable. This will firmly attach them to their crazy selves all the way to November 3rd.

C. Davis

C. Davis is offline  
Old 09-21-2020, 02:47 PM
  #30  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 17,553
Default

That's sort of a loaded question Jake. A short answer just comparing 2016 and 2020 misses out on the Senate history of cloture and a key change that Schumer instigated in 2013. If you compare 2016 and 2020, they are similar but not quite the same.

In 2016, Obama was in the last months of his 2nd term in office and could not be elected to a 3rd term. Obama nominated Marrick Garland in March of 2016 for a vacant seat on the SC court due to Justice Scalia passing a month prior. Republicans were upset about Obama nominating a lib to replace a conservative and refused to schedule a vote on Garland. Dems were PO'd about it because they were worried that a Republican might succeed Obama as the next President (the Presidency often goes to the other party after a President is termed out) and wanted their chance to pack the court and change its' ideological direction. Mitch McConnell (Senate Majority leader) refused to hold a vote until after Trump was worn in. After Trump was sworn in, he nominated Neil Gorsuch who was confirmed 54-45 with Dems working hard to defeat Gorsuch's appointment.

In 2020, RBG died in September, approximately 2 months before the upcoming Presidential election. Dems want to wait to nominate a replacement because they hope Biden can pull it off. Dems are also not happy because Trump will nominate a conservative to replace a definite liberal on the SC. This is pretty much what Obama did in 2013 so the concept isn't new and the opposing side's irritation about it also isn't new. Interestingly, Mitch McConnell is still the Senate Majority Leader like he was in 2016. He's going to go forward with Trump's nomination and the Dems are not happy.

As you can see, the respective situations in 2016 and 2020 are similar but not quite the same. That was the short answer. And as I previously said, it doesn't provide a complete answer or understanding of the situation. For that, you have to go back to the 1975 Senate rules and then move forward to 2013.

In the beginning of 1975, a minority party could filibuster a nomination and it required a motion called "cloture" to override a filibuster and proceed to vote up or down on a nomination or bill. At the time, cloture required a 2/3rds vote of senators present (67 if all 100 senators were present). So if one party nominated someone or proposed a bill, you needed 67 (or 2/3rds of the Senators present) to override the minority party's objection and filibuster. Later that year (still 1975), the Senate changed the cloture amount to 3/5ths of the Senators (60) and that was the rule until 2013. Even with this reduction, you still needed to get some senators from the opposing political party to support your nomination, etc.

In 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid changed the 60-vote (3/5ths) rule with a rarely used parliamentary move called the nuclear option that changed the rules so that federal judicial nominees below the SC (think Appellate level) and Executive Office appointments could be advance to confirmation by a simple majority vote of Senators present (51 if all 100 senators were present). In 2012, the Dems had 51 Senators and after the 2012 November election, the Dems had 53. Both #'s were a simple majority but did not meet the 3/5ths requirement. President Obama wanted to get some Appellate Court Justices confirmed so Reid used that nuclear option and changed both the rules and Senate history. People said it would bite Reid in the keister but he said he didn't care.

The Dems were PO'd in 2016 when McConnell wouldn't schedule Obama's nomination of Garland for a vote. But that was nothing compared to when McConnell used the same nuclear option to override cloture with a simple majority vote (51) when Trump nominated Gorsuch for the same vacant spot (Scalia's seat) that Obama had tried to fill with Garland the year before. Gorsuch was confirmed 54-45 and the Dems weren't happy but it was a conservative Justice replacing a previous conservative Justice.

The very next year, Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh (definite conservative) to replace Justice Kennedy (a liberal and swing voter on the court). The Dems cried foul and pulled out all the stops to defeat the confirmation process. We had that idiot professor try to pull a fast one and (IMHO) a lot of Dem Senators perjure themselves but you know how that goes (no accountability there). Kavanaugh was confirmed by a simple majority of the Senate (50-48). there's that pesky cloture rule change that Reid foolishly made.

Dems began hoping (not many of them pray ) that RBG and the other liberal Justices would outlast Trump as President so they didn't have to risk the court swinging conservative ideologically. Then RBG passed away a few days ago and now they are extremely worried. They know how the new rules work (thanks again to Harry Reid ) and know they have next to no chance of defeating Trump's nominee. If you thought Kavanaugh's hearing was bad, stand by to stand by.

So now you know a bit more about the differences between 2016 and 2020 and, more importantly, some of what's behind those differences.

Last edited by CalHunter; 09-21-2020 at 02:56 PM.
CalHunter is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.