Exactly. I would not put money on it.
Someone will likely point out to Trump that there may be YUGE advantage to not confirming a Justice before the election. Justices are finicky. Congressional Representatives less so.
Suppose the election is contested and ends up in the Supreme Court. Conflicting lower court rulings in different states need to be resolved to determine the winner. A tie vote in SCOTUS lets the lower court rulings stand. That could toss the election to the House of Representatives.
The House votes by state. One vote per state. So long as the Republicans control a majority of state delegations The Donald wins.
Right now it’s 25 Republican delegations, 24 Democrats, and one tied/split (Pennsylvania.)
If it winds up as a 25-25 tie, does Pelosi become the new prez?
The Senate votes on the VP, so if the House is unable to determine the winner of the Presidential contest by January 20, the Senate-elected VP would become president.
I could definitely see this happening. We all know Trump is all about himself and couldn’t care less who is on the Supreme Court. He sees his poll numbers against Biden and knows he’s the underdog in November. He also knows most Republicans in D.C. can’t stand him, barely tolerate him, and use him as a means to work their agenda.
If he gives the Republicans their nominee they get what they want and then they say bye-bye to him Nov.4.
If he plays it for himself he tells them “You want your nominee? Then you work your ass off to get me my second term. Second term, nominee. No second term, no nominee.”
I think this will come down to individual senators voting in their own interests, not necessarily the party’s. As a party, sure, the GOP wants to jam through another conservative on the bench, but some Republican senators need moderate support while simultaneously needing their base, so senators like Collins of Maine, for instance, are in a tricky spot. She will do what’s best for her, as will other senators, which may not 100% align with what’s best for McConnell, and that is something that could inadvertently boomerang back to McConnell himself in a close race.
I was too stunned to write coherently last night, but that’s how I see things this morning. This is definitely a game changer, and it’ll be interesting to see the impact on the polls and how both Biden and Trump react. This is the biggest game-changing event of the campaign other than the pandemic itself, and I can’t help but think that this gives Trump at least some hope now.
If I understand it right, the majority right now is 5-3 and would be 6-3 after Trump’s choice. Both look comfortable enough for conservatives. Or am I countig liberals and conservatives wrong? I mean, what you call liberal and what you call conservative in the USA we in Europe call conservative and reactionary, respectively, so I may be confused.
Neat plan. Of course, you know what would happen, right? The Democrats would suspend those campaigns, and then on the appointed day, they would vote for Trump’s nominee anyway.
As in the case of President Montez.
It is a reflection of how Chief Justice Roberts is understood to not be reliably on the partisan line, due to care about the institutional reputation and legacy --e.g. he found a way to not declare ACA flat out unconstitutional. For what that’s worth, Trump-appointee Justice Gorsuch has given indications that he is a strong conservative but a believer in following proper legal form and precedent if he can.
Unfortunately the conservative justices tend to close ranks on election issues. However, putting another conservative in there would be insurance. I think it would be tough for them to get a 5-3 majority in some really blatant cases, but it might be easier to get a 5-4 majority with 1 defector.
I think several republicans will feign the moral position of waiting till after the election, see, they’re NOT hypocrites! But then ram through Trump’s choice before Biden takes office.
Why would they do it any other way?
I also think this election could see the highest voter turner in memory.
Here’s an interesting piece by Conservative writer David Frum. I think Trump will certainly rush to fill the seat and McConnell will ignore his 2016 rule.
I agree fully.
Any of the four retiring Republican senators looking for a new job, maybe a cabinet position? A little Lincoln-esque horse trading might be in order. If confirmation slips past the election there might (hopefully will) be some additional soon-to-be unemployed Republican senators looking for their next gig…
The Arizona senate race also has a big bearing on the timing. Unlike the other Senate races, in which the winner doesn’t take office until January, the Arizona election (to replace the dead McCain) is a special election, and the winner takes office immediately upon winning.
So if the D’s win in Arizona, that would reduce the Republican Senate majority from 53 to 52 immediately, which could make an immense difference in the Supreme Court confirmation vote.
So with that in mind, it would be in the R’s interests to rush through the nominee now before the D’s have a chance to win in Arizona. They will be watching polling very closely now, no doubt.
As was mentioned in another thread, under Arizona law the earliest that the winner of the special election can be certified is November 30. So tight, but still enough time for McConnel to get a vote through after the election.
Ah OK, I stand corrected.
Yeah, it’ll probably be Barrett, but he should see if he can just dangle her out there and say it’s contingent on him winning.
Which of course is contingent on him conning people that he loses the nomination if he loses the election. I’m not sure how difficult that would be.
Of course they will try to nominate someone now. Appointing a justice is one of the most important things a president gets to do, and will change the court for a generation. From a purely political standpoint, it’s a slam-dunk: Why would you give up power now for the chance you might get to exercise it later?
I also understand why Democrats would be furious about it, but have absolutely no doubt they would do the same thing if the positions were reversed. In fact, they tried to do that with Merrick Garland, and if they had controlled the Senate he would have been appointed. All politics is hardball now.
The stakes are higher for the Democrats. After all, if Trump loses and a leftie is picked for the courts it doesn’t change the left-right balance of the court, replacing one leftie with another. But if Republicans replace Ginsburg with a conservative, they will have a conservative majority for a very long time - especially since Stephen Breyer is 82 and likely the next justice to go. If Trump wins again, there could be a 7-2 conservative Supreme court and could stay that way for a decade or more, since the oldest conservative on the court is Clarence Thomas, and he’s only 72.
On the other hand, if Trump doesn’t appoint someone and then loses, the Democrats will get two picks, and even though the balance wouldn’t change they could ‘refresh’ their side with younger justices and set the stage for Democrats to swing the court back to the left in a few more years.
So the stakes are sky-high, and I expect the Republicans to try to appoint someone, and the Democrats to go balls-to-the-wall to stop them.