There are dirty tricks and there are dirty tricks. Some are dirtier than the others. I know that Democrats think that there is nothing Republicans won’t sink to. Republicans think that of Democrats as well. Both are wrong. There are limits. Although I don’t think we reached them yet 
It would be a gamble, but the republicans could perhaps convince him to retire as close to the midterms as possible. They then act like patriotic statesmen & say the American people should have a say in the process by choosing who controls the Senate. Presumably this would keep Republican voter turnout high in an election cycle that already favors Republican Senators.
Unlikely, but not exactly a risky move. After the Garland fiasco, I really wouldn’t put any Machiavellian scheme past Republicans at this point.
Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk
Both could happen. Trump / McConnell could leave the seat unfilled until after the election in November to (theoretically) motivate Republicans to vote, and then if disaster struck and they lost seats / control of the Senate, they could rush through a nomination after the election but before the new Congress is seated. FWIW, I think there’s very little chance of the Republicans losing Senate seats in 2018.
Kennedy strikes me as a justice who is unlikely to resign mid-term. If that is the case then the end of the next SCOTUS term would be the end of June 2018. That leaves plenty of time for Trump to present a nominee and the Senate to vote to confirm prior to the start of the new SCOTUS term in October 2018.
Sure this might mean that SCOTUS is fresh on the mind of voters come November 2018, but I do not think a vacancy is likely at the time of the election.
I’m not sure if Trump will again choose from the list of candidates he has made public. If so that may slightly speed confirmation since at least some bit of background review has likely already been considered.
Aside from what others said, you cited Boynton v. Virginia as a case on par with Dred Scott and Plessy.
Boynton dealt with a federal law that required interstate bus carriers to maintain their facilities and those controlled by them to not discriminate based upon race. In that case, a black man was charged with trespassing (for refusing to leave after being denied service) at a restaurant operated by a private entity inside the terminal.
This is a purely statutory question and has nothing to do with “morals.” Any judge who says “discrimination sucks anyways, so I’m going to do what is ‘moral’” is not doing the job of a judge.
I, uh, don’t follow. I mean, you’re quoting me before replying – but, unless I’m missing something, it’s almost exactly as if you’re posting in the wrong thread.
If a justice retires, I’d expect the president to name a nominee; and, if they’re asked, I’d expect every senator in office to vote ‘yes’ if they like said candidate for said job. How is that a trick? How is it a Would-They-Sink-To-That question?
You were presenting the possibility of the lame-duck Senate (presumably after the election that would make Republicans lose control of the Senate) conforming a SC justice. That is something unprecedentedly dirty.
Yeah, it’s a lot easier to hold your nose and vote for a fucking abominable person if the supreme court is on the line.
There’s only one morality: that which I recognize as moral is moral. Anyone who says otherwise is immoral or amoral.
Of course, not sure what we’re supposed to do if someone else feels the same way.
That’s a puzzler.
We might have to resort to the extreme measure of trying to agree on a certain set of principles and writing them down. But I doubt that would ever work.
The supreme court is *always *on the line.
It’s not always at a tipping point, like it is today.
(underline added)
If, and if, and if, means there is nothing the Democrats can do to stop the Trump/GOP nominee from becoming the next Supreme. Delay it? Maybe? Stop it? No.
Currently, neither political party is actually listening to what the other political party has to say. Unless the Democrats/news media outlets can convince elected Senate Republicans not to vote for their party’s choice (and that ain’t gonna happen) I believe it’s safe to say that the Trump/GOP nominee will be seated.
It would probably be better if their constituents convinced them not to vote for a far right trump appointee than democrats they have no reason to listen to.
People that conservatives thought were solid red voters are beginning to question their loyalty.
Or to vote for Trump instead of Bernie. Whatever it takes to keep ol’ Hillary from picking the next, or any, Supreme Court Justice.
According to whom? The polls? Mika Brzezinski?
Of course it would be better for the Democrats is more constituents thought, and voted, like Democrats. Wasn’t that a popular assumption before the latest special elections, and the general? Didn’t seem to turn out as expected.
According to the people showing up at the townhalls, when the republicans aren’t too afraid to leave their safe spaces to face their constituents, anyway.
And them hiding from their voters like the little snowflakes that they are isn’t winning them any votes either.
Do you even know why the latest special elections were held? They were held to replace people that left congress to join the trump administration. One of the reason that these districts were chosen is because they are very safe districts for republicans, traditionally going double digits in the +r column.
The fact that you guys had so much difficulty holding onto seats that you never would have thought would be challenged seriously should make you feel a bit less confident.
Republicans got elected this time around largely on trump’s lies. He said that he was going to bring back jobs, he said that he was going to make a wonderful healthcare plan, he said that he would defeat ISIS. People liked those things, so they voted for the guy who said them.
If those things are not done. If people jobs do not come back, and in fact, their job prospects become worse because things like job training get defunded, if they lose their healthcare when the ACA is repealed, if ISIS keeps growing under president WTF’s watch, do you really think that they will not notice this, that they will not vote against those who lied to their faces?
Is it your impression that ISIS has been “growing” this year?
Is that what I said?
Huh, no.
It is hard to say if they are growing or shrinking on any given day. We kill lots of people over there, and some of them may even be ISIS fighters, but people join their ranks every day, usually because we killed a family member or friend.
Is it your impression that we are “winning” the war on terror?
ISIS is losing territory, that much is clear. I don’t know that I have good enough information to offer an opinion on if ‘we are “winning” the war on terror’ or not.