You are talking about Trump supporters. They will fall for it in a second.
Democrats should make it clear that Trump is going to fill this seat one way or the other. It might make single issue voters who hate Trump but say they are forced to vote for him realize their pet issue is pretty safe now and stay home.
So Trump is saying that he’ll announce his pick this coming week, and it’ll be a woman. Amy Coney Barrett and Barbara Lagoa seem to be the consensus candidates of the chattering class.
Whoever it is, what are the odds that he can restrain himself from commenting on her looks during the announcement?
I don’t think the main strategic question that is being asked in this thread is whether they fill the opening or not. It is whether they fill it before the election or after the election, but before the new president and congress is seated.
There are advantages and disadvantages to both from an R POV. But if I was the Republican strategist in charge, I’d wait until after the election to help motivate the Republican-leaning voters that are wavering on voting at all because they somewhat dislike Trump. It also gives a tiny bit of cover for the handful of Republican candidates looking for crossover votes in the upcoming election. Trump however has no patience for that kind of delayed gratification, so that seems like it isn’t going to happen.
I think it will be Barret. She’s the most attractive of the candidates and Trump is that kind of ahole.
And she’s been vetted to death.
I am expecting Lagoa.
She is Hispanic and from Florida. She also represented Elian Gonzalez’s family pro bono during that little dustup. That will play with Cuban American voters old enough to remember the case. Trump desperately needs to win that close race in Florida. Every little bit helps. Even a small tweak to Hispanic voters could also help in the less important AZ race.
She also limits some of the attacks during hearings compared to Barrett. Barrett went through a contentious and partisan confirmation in 2017. The vote out of the Judiciary Committee was a straight party line vote. Only three Dem Senators voted to confirm. Lagoa, on the other hand, went through a pretty bipartisan confirmation. The vote out of committee was 18-4. Her confirmation vote was 80-15. That is going to mute a lot of Democratic voices in the hearings. It is hard to paint her record as evil incarnate when they thought she would a fine Appeals Court judge less than a year before.
Now Trump is going to Trump. He may not actually listen to those on team Lagoa. I bet McConnell is one of those voices recommending her in private though.
Collins issued a statement late Saturday that whoever wins in November should fill the vacancy.
Murkowski did the same about an hour ago.
If Romney were to follow suit, who would be likely to be number 4?
Kelly getting elected and seated is likely too late to do any good.
The problem with Lagoa is that her record is pretty thin, and the primordial fear of the right is getting “Soutered.” I.e. a Republican appointee that turns out to be moderate or liberal. That bipartisan vote would actually be tremendously suspicious to many conservatives. Throw in that she was first appointed as a judge by Jeb Bush and conservatives could pitch a fit.
Here’s the crux: Is it politically possible for a lame duck president to appoint a judge with a narrow Senate majority? I don’t think so. As it is, the Republicans will have to scramble to hold a voting majority, with three Republicans likely to bolt already.
If Trump were to lose in November, I think more than 4 Republicans would bolt. This is especially true if Democrats win some seats, as the losing Republicans would have no reason to maintain party discipline. And the judge would look illegitimate if appointed by a lame duck and voted on by Republicans on their way to losing the Senate.
So I think an appointment could only happen after November if Trump wins, and the only reason for holding after November but before the inauguration would be if Trump wins but loses the Senate. In that case, expect a flurry of legislation after the election.
For those reasons, I think a new Justice will either be appointed before the election, or after the inauguration. The only scenario for a post-election, pre-inauguration appointment would be the remote case where Trump wins but loses the Senate.
I think they’ll try to appoint someone now if they can whip the votes together, and if they can’t they’ll announce a delay in the vote until after the election to show ‘good faith’, even though they had no choice. And if they do delay it, it’s going to be a massive election issue.
Unless, this being 2020 and all, something even bigger comes along in the next month.
Mike Pence could break a tie, couldn’t he?
Yeah this is what matters. She’s a reliable conservative and the party knows it.
I wouldn’t take a couple of carefully-caveated statements from Collins and Murkowski – and the assumption based on nothing he’s said that Romney will oppose this – as evidence that three Republicans are “likely to bolt.”
They would have EVERY reason to maintain party discipline. Cory Gardner (46) and Martha McSally (54) still have to think about their political future, and if they entertain dreams of ever running as a Republican again they need to vote for Trump’s nominee. Thom Tillis is “only” 60, and he presumably isn’t ready to go fishing for the rest of his life. Even if he doesn’t intend to run for anything again, voting against Trump’s nominee would cut him off from cushy appointments to Republican-aligned foundation boards or high-paid “consulting” work. Susan Collins may be ready to call it a career, and she’s clearly the most likely to follow through with a “no” vote, but even she has to weigh being harassed to her dying day as a traitor by conservative activists.
Oh, bless your heart.
Yeah - I’m REALLY gonna rely on Collins and Murkowski to do the right thing in a tough situation!
/sarcasm
Another thought: Democrats could use nomination hearings to their advantage if they can find a way to turn her into a corporate fangirl. I also think that the country generally gets squeamish whenever one side has too much power on the bench. The country - at least historically - has been centrist when it comes to the SCOTUS. Americans have typically viewed the high court as the one place that can still call balls and strikes. This might not quite be the political disaster for Democrats that they fear, but they’ll need to mobilize the resistance immediately.
Yes he can. That would be the case if only three take this stance.
If four take the position it is up to the winner of the election, then McConnell is stopped.
I’m not betting the farm this will happen, but it is a possibility. Remote yes, but still a possibility.
If McSally loses, she will only get a vote if a nominee is brought to the floor before November 30.
I guarantee Mitch will schedule the vote by November 30 to make sure McSally votes on it. Why wouldn’t he?
Exactly. I said as much in another thread.
On the contrary, the losing Republicans would now have no reason not to give the D’s a middle finger by voting for Trump’s nominee. The D’s would do them no favors, they’d hardly be in a conciliatory mood after having lost an election, and they’d burn bridges by voting against a Trump nominee, so why not?
Here is the likely order of events:
The result of 3 will have no effect on 4.
Republicans gain nothing and put a lot of senators running in tight races in tough spots if they put 4 before 3. The empty seat gets a lot of R voters to the polls and/or gets them to hold their nose and vote for Trump.
There is little to no reason for them to do things any other way.