I recognize there are lot’s of variables, but McConnel has said he will fill a SCOTUS vacancy regardless of when it occurs.
Would there be a meaningful public outcry - people in the streets - marches on Washington? Or would it make the news for a couple of weeks and then be forgotten?
If the Democrats take the White House, the Senate, and McConnell’s seat in November, and the vacancy occurs on Christmas, Republicans will rush through a right wing selection in the lame duck period. The public will shrug and some will say “well, both sides would have done it”. Plus some would argue that black presidents are only entitled to 3/5 of a term.
Trump’s base would have no problem with GOP hypocrisy–McConnell refused to hear confirmation when Obama submitted Gorsuch, saying wait until after election, but would do so for Trump
There’ll be some protest but it won’t amount to anything.
The Republicans will ram the judge through. The Democrats will be powerless.
Taking to the streets doesn’t solve Jack Shit and I’m tired of it. The Republicans would ram a judge though even if the Democrats win the presidency and win the Senate.
The Republicans will ram the judge through. The Democrats will be powerless.
Taking to the streets doesn’t solve Jack Shit and I’m tired of it. The Republicans would ram a judge through even if the Democrats win the presidency and win the Senate.
Democratic Court-packing will become an inevitability. Right now it’s only a likelier than not outcome.
And let’s face it. The USA doesn’t really do protests and really hasn’t since the 1960s. The Women’s March right after Trump was inaugurated was nice and helped motivate some people to get involved who were previously ‘Both are the same’ types. And, unseasonably warm weather throughout the country really helped turnout.
The not so recent protest I remember the most was the WTO protest where a bunch of a anarchists decided that smashing Starbucks windows was a way to destroy global capitalism. Capitalism is still here.
If replacing Thomas or one of the republicans, there will be protests and that sort of thing, but no biggie.
If replacing RBG or one of the liberal appointed judges, then there will be bigger protests, but still nothing to come of it.
Elections have consequences, which is something that needs to be learned by all of those who take our democracy for granted and waste their vote by either not voting, or by voting for a candidate with no chance to win.
Our democracy didn’t fail because Trump got elected. Trump got elected because our democracy failed.
In addition, no matter how intense the protest, the side being protested still has zero incentive to comply.
Imagine if 10 million Americans launched huge protests to bring back black slavery. No matter how intense, sincere and widespread the protests were, no presidency could cave in on something like that. (Extreme example, but you get my point)
The media only covers protest is there is some sort of violence or other controversy.
This means that the only protests that most people ever hear about are the ones where violence or destruction were committed.
where are the vacancies coming from for them to do 'court-packing"? Only Thomas and Ginsberg seem old enough to retire.
I think he means, the Democrats outright packing the Supreme Court. Like, expanding its size to 15 or 17.
This.
The alternative to Court-packing is jurisdiction stripping or just outright ignoring SCOTUS decisions. None are great options, but actually filling any vacancy this year will ensure eventual Democratic Court-packing, which is the easiest option.
I’ve heard court packing thrown around quite a few times and I’m aware of what it means,
My question is, what’s the procedure?
Does POTUS just pick up a pen one morning and jot on a post-it that the members of SCOTUS shalt be fifteen. No more. No less. Fifteen shalt be the number they shalt be, and the number of the members shalt be fifteen. Sixteen shalt they not be, nor either be they fourteen, excepting that that then proceed to fifteen. Seventeen is right out. Once the number fifteen, being the fifteenth number, be reached, then, begin they their deliberations.
“How would the public respond to SCOTUS appointment before Nov? Between Nov and Jan 2021?”
Broadly speaking there are three classes of voting citizen:
(a) Trump lovers. These will be delighted with anything the GOP does.
(b) Trump haters. They will hate it.
(c) The unwashed masses who decide our elections. Their reaction will be “Hunh? Wutz teh Spreem Cort?”
Situation reversed, the GOP wouldn’t hesitate.
But the Democrats are much too candy-ass to change the Court’s size. I strongly doubt they could get even 35 votes for it, let alone 50.
As others have noted, here on this Board and in the mass media, Trump & Co. have so overwhelmed the nation with their non-stop barrage of lies, scandals, outrages, and corruption, and the people of the nation are utterly exhausted. Nobody can even keep up with it – not the media, not the people, not the courts.
So if they do as OP says, there will be a few scattered little protests and little more. The people are just too damn worn out to react more than that.
Democrats will not pack the court. Even FDR couldn’t pull it off. Just because one party is crooked while in power does not imply that the other party would be too.
Congress passes a bill changing the number of seats. That’s it. Procedurally, it’s very simple; the hurdles are all political.
You’re right that the Ds are too candy-ass to do it.
But why do you think it’s appropriate to bring Emily Post’s Etiquette to a knife fight? 