RBG DDF shortlist and how it will shape the Elections

[Kobe Bryant]

[cks33]

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.

The republicans abolished the blue slip tradition, had an unprecedented level of obstruction for nominees, and are the ones who abolished the filibuster for the supreme court

logical next step is to abolish it for everything. period.

[Kobe Bryant]

Let's see how sick of it you are with VP AOC in '24.

That is likely to happen regardless. The Democrat party has shifted so far to the left...they are deep in Russian territory.

[Kobe Bryant]

The republicans abolished the blue slip tradition, had an unprecedented level of obstruction for nominees, and are the ones who abolished the filibuster for the supreme court

logical next step is to abolish it for everything. period.

Wow! Talk about obstruction of nominees.

[zh cohen]

Lol at how you guys are arguing whether or not either position here is hypocritical as if any of these differences are why they are taking their positions. If there weren't these reasons they would find a different one.

I agree that the justifications are just a pretext. My position is that the president can nominate whoever he wants and the senate can do (or not do) whatever they want.

As far as what they should do, I think they should work together to come up with a candidate that they can agree on (as Democrats forced Ronald Regan to do with Anthony Kennedy). Obviously that is a lot easier when they are both of the same party.

[zh cohen]

The republicans abolished the blue slip tradition, had an unprecedented level of obstruction for nominees, and are the ones who abolished the filibuster for the supreme court

And history started in 2016...

[aygart]

They can take a lot more cases? Split into sub teams like district courts do. Obviously it helps - now, it gets interesting to see what split goes on each case

LOL It is obvious to anyone who decided what they want to do and now needs a reason, but only if this is the stuff they cooked up.

[avromie7]

I agree that the justifications are just a pretext. My position is that the president can nominate whoever he wants and the senate can do (or not do) whatever they want.

As far as what they should do, I think they should work together to come up with a candidate that they can agree on (as Democrats forced Ronald Regan to do with Anthony Kennedy). Obviously that is a lot easier when they are both of the same party.

LOL

[aygart]

The republicans abolished the blue slip tradition, had an unprecedented level of obstruction for nominees, and are the ones who abolished the filibuster for the supreme court

logical next step is to abolish it for everything. period.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAH


On everything except the last part. Yes that is most definitely the logical end from the Dems abolishing the filibuster for nominees. For the rest you need to brush up on history.





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_slip

A report issued by the Congressional Research Service in 2003 defines six periods in the use of the blue slip by the Senate:

"From 1917 through 1955: The blue-slip policy allowed home-state Senators to state their objections but committee action to move forward on a nomination. If a Senator objected to his/her home-state nominee, the committee would report the nominee adversely to the Senate, where the contesting Senator would have the option of stating his/her objections to the nominee before the Senate would vote on confirmation.
"From 1956 through 1978: A single home-state Senator could stop all committee action on a judicial nominee by either returning a negative blue slip or failing to return a blue slip to the committee.
"From 1979 to mid-1989: A home-state Senator’s failure to return a blue slip would not necessarily prevent committee action on a nominee.
"From mid-1989 through June 5, 2001: In a public letter (1989) on the committee’s blue-slip policy, the chairman wrote that one negative blue slip would be “a significant factor to be weighed” but would “not preclude consideration” of a nominee “unless the Administration has not consulted with both home state Senators.” The committee would take no action, regardless of presidential consultation, if both home-state Senators returned negative blue slips.
"From June 6, 2001, to 2003: The chairman’s blue-slip policy allowed movement on a judicial nominee only if both home-state Senators returned positive blue slips to the committee. If one home-state Senator returned a negative blue slip, no further action would be taken on the nominee.
Since 2003, blue slip policy has changed several more times, as follows:

"2003-2007: A return of a negative blue slip by one or both home-state Senators does not prevent the committee from moving forward with the nomination — provided that the Administration has engaged in pre-nomination consultation with both of the home-state Senators."[4][5]
From 2007 to January 3, 2018: The chairman’s blue-slip policy allowed movement on a judicial nominee only if both home-state Senators returned positive blue slips to the committee. If one home-state Senator returned a negative blue slip, no further action would be taken on the nominee.[5]
January 3, 2018 - present: "The lack of two positive blue slips will not necessarily preclude a circuit-court nominee from receiving a hearing unless the White House failed to consult with home-state senators. Hearings are unlikely for district court nominees without two positive blue slips."[6]

[aygart]

LOL

That is what inevitably needs to be done when they are of opposing parties.

[Kobe Bryant]

I agree that the justifications are just a pretext. My position is that the president can nominate whoever he wants and the senate can do (or not do) whatever they want.

As far as what they should do, I think they should work together to come up with a candidate that they can agree on (as Democrats forced Ronald Regan to do with Anthony Kennedy). Obviously that is a lot easier when they are both of the same party.

Absolutely not. Trump made a promise to the American people to nominate someone from a list that he compiled before the election. The Senate should confirm based on the nominees qualifications, and if the other party tries to bork now as they did with Kavanaugh, I for one am rooting for the same result.

[zh cohen]

Absolutely not. Trump made a promise to the American people to nominate someone from a list that he compiled before the election. The Senate should confirm based on the nominees qualifications, and if the other party tries to bork now as they did with Kavanaugh, I for one am rooting for the same result.

If Biden wins but the Republicans have a majority in the senate, and Stephen Breyer retires, what should the senate do?

[YitzyS]

I agree that the justifications are just a pretext. My position is that the president can nominate whoever he wants and the senate can do (or not do) whatever they want.

As far as what they should do, I think they should work together to come up with a candidate that they can agree on (as Democrats forced Ronald Regan to do with Anthony Kennedy). Obviously that is a lot easier when they are both of the same party.

There is not one person in America right now who will get a unanimous vote, IMO.

[YitzyS]

I think, in the name of bipartisanship, McConnell should concede to Shumer's desire.

He should immediately put up a bill to expand the Supreme Court to 15 seats, in line with Shumer's request. I'm sure Trump could come up with 7 qualified justices. 

(It's a pity the House is in Dem hands...)

[YitzyS]

In light of the nomination process, and the purported possibility that Obamacare will be ruled unconstitutional (which I personally don't think will happen), I think it's imperative for Trump to put out his promised healthcare plan, as early as THIS week (before the first debate).

[shaulyaakov]

In light of the nomination process, and the purported possibility that Obamacare will be ruled unconstitutional (which I personally don't think will happen), I think it's imperative for Trump to put out his promised healthcare plan, as early as THIS week (before the first debate).

I think that would be tough given that there's no evidence it exist.

[Kobe Bryant]

If Biden wins but the Republicans have a majority in the senate, and Stephen Breyer retires, what should the senate do?

The same thing the Senate would have done now, if it were controlled by Schumer.

[zh cohen]

The same thing the Senate would have done now, if it were controlled by Schumer.

Agree, but why are you claiming to believe that

The Senate should confirm based on the nominees qualifications

[biobook]

Edited to change member to @biscotti

In the words of Tennyson (or some of his words, anyway):

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to be pinged then... ghost,
Than never to be pinged at all.

[shaulyaakov]

Wouldn't it be tough for McConnell to justify leaving a SCOTUS seat open indefinitely if Biden gets to make a pick in Year 1?