History Is on the Side of Republicans Filling a Supreme Court Vacancy in 2020

Ok, so if this was the end of Trump's second term, should he nominate a justice?

 

No, because the people have no recourse should they not approve of his pick.

 

Of course. Never expect a politician to do tomorrow, what he said he would do, today. That's now how they operate.

 

First off, that is your personal reason. But that isn't McConnell's stated reason. McConnell's reason is that since we are in the mist of an election process, the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in by picking the president. This reason applies in all presidential elections.

Second, there is recourse. The American people can vote out the Senators who approved the appointment in the mid-term election. They can't vote out the president, but the Senate's person is required so this works perfectly well.

And by your reasoning, the president shouldn't execute any executive order or appointment of any kind since there is no recourse.

 

Ok, and what about 2016? Should Obama have nominated a justice?

 

Yes, and he did.

What McConnell did in 2016 was to be expected. It's quite sleazy, and he probably won't pay for it. Some republican senators up this year, who are also in tight elections, may pay the price. That is TBD.

Politicians change their stated position on a topic more frequently than their underwear. They go wherever is most politically expedient. There's absolutely no reason for them to change the way they play the game. They get re-elected at a 90%+ rate. Would you change your approach at work if your boss kept saying, "GOOD JOB!" at every performance reivew?

 

Obviously McConnell lied about his reasons. He just doesn't want to appoint a non-conservative justice. The result is that a president will need his party controlling the senate for Supreme Court nominations to be filled. The democrats will probably control the presidency most of the time due to demographics. But since every state has the same number of votes, and the Republicans have a lot of small states, they will probably control the Senate most of the time or half the time. We are seeing this pattern where new presidents get elected with control of the Senate, and the House. They quickly lose the house, and then later on lose the Senate. They will be able to appoint justices in their first term, but not so much in their second.

 

I'm frustrated by the Republican senators who are saying they have the votes to confirm Trump's pick. He hasn't made a pick yet, but they're already lined up to confirm. Why go through the process that has become little more than grandstanding (from both sides) if the decision is already in?

 

If the Dems hold the Senate why would he?

 

The 5 names have been announced for awhile.. Are you suggesting they are not familiar with them as they were on the same list as during the previous SCOTUS nomination..... Or were you to busy thinking liking Beer made someone a horrible choice?

 

I was likewise frustrated by Democrat senators who had already decided they were going to oppose whoever President Trump nominated, but it happens, especially when we get to the "short list" phase and all the plausible possibilities are known. I agree that the televised hearings and floor speeches are just grand-standing.

 

They will, if Trump picks anyone they don't want Democrats are free to do a Kavanagh job on her, as well as voting against Trump for a second term. Trying to compare it to current events is just plain silly. Trump will win or lose based on his pick.

Good luck with that antifa running wild in blue states will only harm the party in power.

Overthinking it will.

 

Here is the fact. Republicans didn't consider Obama's nominee because they didn't want a conservative replaced with a centrist left person. That thing about not nominating a justice during an election was just an excuse and their actions today prove that.

It used to be that nominees were chosen based on qualification not on politics. Sure, there was some partisanship but nominees used to get overwhelming bipartisan support. But gradually over time that support faded until now its based on party lines.

In the future, the president and the senate will need to be of the same party for justices to be appointed. This is more likely to be true during the president's first term but not the second. Also, when one party feels the other stole an appointment, it will likely add some Supreme Court seats to balance things out when it re-takes control.

What the Republicans did in 2016 eliminated the president of bipartisanship with Supreme Court appointments and you can't expect democrats to vote for Republican nominees when the Republicans aren't voting for democratic nominees.

 

We wouldn't be in this mess of Democrats weren’t corrupt &)@;@:ers and asked her to step down 1 or 2 years ago after she was in the hospital for the upteenth time and was obviously too fracking old and sick to work. Seems all those “reports” about her being fine the past couple years were all total BS. AND WHY? Because Dems put their politics over doing what was right.

 

Apparently you haven't heard the Democrats talking about them "packing" the supreme court.

 

Who cares about History?

All they need is 50 Votes. They have the 50 Votes.

They will ram it through, with nothing to stop them.

End of story.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/magaz...form-ideas-term-limits-rbg-age-packing-421203

 

Well, they are certainly justified now that the GOP cheated them out of a Supreme Court Seat. They can make that case pretty convincingly to voters now.

 

So what you're saying is it's OK for the left to replace a conservative justice with a leftist, but it's not OK for the conservatives to replace a leftist Justice with a conservative? Elections have consequences, you are about to find out just how big in November.

 

Nobody was cheated out of anything. Obama was a lame duck President, Trump is up for re-election. If Trump picks someone the majority doesn't like they'll vote for Biden......simple as that.