If Ginsburg dies before January 2021 and the GOP still holds a Senate majority, and Trump nominates a far-right justice as her replacement, I don’t see any way the Democrats can stop the confirmation from proceeding except to persuade a sufficient number of Republican senators to defect.
The nuclear option has already been invoked, and while protesters could physically occupy the Capitol building to prevent a confirmation vote, that couldn’t go on forever. If the Democrats target specifically the Republican senators from blue or tossup states, and especially those with elections coming up in 2018 or 2020, might that suffice to get them to defect?
Apply maximum possible persuasion to Republicans under electoral threat, also appealing to their patriotism and integrity as required, in hopes they’ll join you in a No vote. Remind them they don’t have to do what McConnell says just because he says it and point out where he’s led them off a cliff lately.
McConnell can force a quorum with a quorum call. If they don’t come he can send marshals (I think marshals) to round them up and physically carry them to the senate chamber if they have to.
I can’t imagine any senator going into hiding for any length of time. Can’t miss those fundraiser cocktail parties. Hardship is not something any of that lot would abide for more than a few hours.
Their only hope would be to retake the House and Senate and then impeach Gorsuch on the grounds he was put there by improper means when the republicans refused to vote on an Obama nomination. Then hold out for someone they like.
Till then not much they can do and this is a long shot since they need a 2/3 majority in the senate to pull it off.
Could the GOP use another nuclear option for this, reducing the number needed for Senate confirmations to only (say, 50) senators to be present, rather than whatever the quorum is right now?
I think a Kennedy retirement is a more immediate worry than Ginsburg right now. And there is very little Democrats can do; there is a high likelihood that Republicans will be able to confirm someone like Gorsuch again which will set up a solidly conservative majority for at least the next decade.
If and when the Democrats regain the White House and Congress their only serious option will be court-packing which will arguably be justified by the Republican treatment of Garland but which will also set off a political firestorm and likely retaliation by Republicans when they get back into power.
If Ginsburg dies, I’ll try not to be as smug or crass about it as some Dopers were about Scalia’s passing, but I don’t see that they have many good options. Nothing they can string together into anything I’d call a plausible “strategy”. It seems a bit like the 7th Cavalry at Little Bighorn asking “Hey, LTC Custer, what’s the strategy?”
As soon as Ginsberg dies, one of the senators grabs the gavel, and calls for a confirmation vote on Merrick Garland, who never actually had a confirmation vote, and whose nomination is thus still in some sort of limbo. No, I don’t expect this would actually work, but it’d be fun to watch.
If court–packing requires only control of the White House and Congress, why isn’t the GOP giving it consideration right now? They may never have this opportunity again.
How far “right” would be too far for you? Are there any on that side of the scale that would be too much for you to accept…or is it all to the good as long as it pisses off those less conservative than yourself?
I think I’d probably be pretty happy with a court of 9 Clarence Thomas clones. It’s got very little to do with pissing off liberals, and a whole lot to do with restoring the government to (what I see as) a truer adherence to the original intent of the Constitution.
Can you think of some past justices to the right of Clarence Thomas that I should look into to see if they’re “too far” right for me?
Presumably the ones who voted against Dred Scott, the majority in Plessy v Ferguson, the dissent in Boynton v Virginia, and others on the wrong (IMO) side of Civil Rights cases.
In true conservative fashion, it would be an extremely efficient Supreme Court, just zipping through oral arguments in significantly less time than previous courts.
