RBG DDF shortlist and how it will shape the Elections

[YitzyS]

BTW, @jj1000 , are you making sure to keep your phone line open in case Trump is trying to reach you with an offer? 

[Am]

There’s a strong push for Barbara Lagoa.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/20/florida-republicans-lagoa-trump-419109

[shaulyaakov]

Right now, I believe every justice (alive) attended Harvard or Yale. I think RBG was the only Stanford alum on the court...

ETA: Actually, RBG studied in Cornell and Harvard...

Columbia and Harvard.

[BP16]

I think the Dems are going to win this one. Dem donors are very motivated these days. Murkowski and Collins are already Nay, Romney will for sure be Nay. The Dems need to find only 1 more contested senator to pay off somehow whereas the GOP would need to match support to all of them.

Collins said I do not believe that the Senate should vote on the nominee prior to the election! where did you see that they said they would vote nay if one is voted on? Are you sure Romney would vote Nay? he hates Trump but if voted on a new SCJ not sure if he would vote no. And what the Dems did to kavanaugh the Rs should get a new SCJ ASAP especially that the elections may come to the SC like Bush-Gore.

[zh cohen]

I imagine there's a demographic that would not vote for Trump but for the SCOTUS issue. Pro life suburban women?

If Democrats continue to threaten to pack the Court, that keeps those voters engaged even if the seat is already filled.

[cks33]

Would we call it packing the court?

Instead, they are helping the judiciary cope with the level of cases coming through.

Similarly, republicans had the numbers in the senate when Obama was president to refuse him a choice, and they do now, to vote on a nomination. If they feel they aren't being hypocritical to deny a democrat a choice due to Kavanagh or whatever reason, surely Dems can change the law when they control the levers of govt.  Similarly if republicans control the levers, they can add more/remove etc.

If I was a dem, I'd expand the judiciary, when I have the numbers.

[Lurker]

If Democrats continue to threaten to pack the Court, that keeps those voters engaged even if the seat is already filled.

The SC issue is much more of an election issue with an actual vacant seat that needs to be filled. Filling the seat takes some of the urgency out of it. The threats have been made before, and there are many who believe the Dems are more bark than bite on this, including some pundits on CNN. Changing the structure of the Court doesn't seem real to too many voters.

[S209]

Would we call it packing the court?

Instead, they are helping the judiciary cope with the level of cases coming through.

Similarly, republicans had the numbers in the senate when Obama was president to refuse him a choice, and they do now, to vote on a nomination. If they feel they aren't being hypocritical to deny a democrat a choice due to Kavanagh or whatever reason, surely Dems can change the law when they control the levers of govt.  Similarly if republicans control the levers, they can add more/remove etc.

If I was a dem, I'd expand the judiciary, when I have the numbers.

Ah. So the Republicans expanded the judiciary when they controlled all of the levers from 2016-2018? Don’t be ridiculous.

The Democrats are the ones who abolished the filibuster.

[Kobe Bryant]

The SC issue is much more of an election issue with an actual vacant seat that needs to be filled. Filling the seat takes some of the urgency out of it. The threats have been made before, and there are many who believe the Dems are more bark than bite on this, including some pundits on CNN. Changing the structure of the Court doesn't seem real to too many voters.

But definitely feels more realistic now then in the past.

[aygart]

Would we call it packing the court?

Instead, they are helping the judiciary cope with the level of cases coming through.

How does adding justices to SCOTUS help this in any way?

[Kobe Bryant]

How does adding justices to SCOTUS help this in any way?

It doesn't.

[Kobe Bryant]

MCCONNELL: "President Trump's nominee for this vacancy will receive a vote on the floor of the Senate."

"The American people are about to witness an astonishing parade of misrepresentations about the past, misstatements about the present & more threats against our institutions."

[biscotti]

MCCONNELL: "President Trump's nominee for this vacancy will receive a vote on the floor of the Senate."

"The American people are about to witness an astonishing parade of misrepresentations about the past, misstatements about the present & more threats against our institutions."

What does the second quote mean? Is he saying people shouldn't care about all the statements from 2016 because that was a GOP Senate opposing a nom from a Dem president? Those quotes aren't misrepresentations; their content applies universally. Their content stands apart from who controls the senate and the white house.

[aygart]

What does the second quote mean? Is he saying people shouldn't care about all the statements from 2016 because that was a GOP Senate opposing a nom from a Dem president? Those quotes aren't misrepresentations; their content applies universally. Their content stands apart from who controls the senate and the white house.

Why isn't it the Senate's choice whether or not to consider the nomination?

[yuneeq]

What does the second quote mean? Is he saying people shouldn't care about all the statements from 2016 because that was a GOP Senate opposing a nom from a Dem president? Those quotes aren't misrepresentations; their content applies universally. Their content stands apart from who controls the senate and the white house.

It also differs in that Obama was at the end of his 2nd term.

[biscotti]

Why isn't it the Senate's choice whether or not to consider the nomination?

I didn't say it's not their choice...

[Lurker]

It also differs in that Obama was at the end of his 2nd term.

The Biden Rule is from Bush Sr.'s first (and only) term. The key factor was that the President and Senate were from different parties, both in 92 and 16. That's not the case here, which is (one of the reasons) why the GOP feels the Biden Rule shouldn't apply.

[aygart]

I didn't say it's not their choice...

So then it is just a question of intelectual honesty which is not something I expect from Washington. Insert Barone Principle here.

[biscotti]

So then it is just a question of intelectual honesty which is not something I expect from Washington. Insert Barone Principle here.

yeah hypocrisy is to be expected. but with stakes this high there's also going to be more scrutiny of (and perhaps more accountability for) that hypocrisy.

Slightly more troubling is the particular way mcconnell is trying to get out of the hypocrisy. He seems to be telling people not to believe what they are told about what went down in 2016. To ignore reality, mistrust the facts, and choose to believe what they'd like to believe.

[shaulyaakov]

yeah hypocrisy is to be expected. but with stakes this high there's also going to be more scrutiny of (and perhaps more accountability for) that hypocrisy.

Slightly more troubling is the particular way mcconnell is trying to get out of the hypocrisy. He seems to be telling people not to believe what they are told about what went down in 2016. To ignore reality, mistrust the facts, and choose to believe what they'd like to believe.

It's amazing how little McConnell said about the fact that the senate was controlled by one party and the presidency by another. It's almost like that had nothing to do with it.