I wish Mitch McConnell and others would stop saying that no Senate not controlled by the President’s own party has confirmed a SCOTUS nominee in a presidential election year since 1888. It’s just not true. Both William Rehnquist (1972) and Anthony Kennedy (1988) were nominated by Republican presidents and confirmed by Democratic-led Senates.
It’s just a fig leaf. They know it doesn’t have to make any sense. It’s the best argument they can come up with and no incentive to have to try to think of another one.
Can’t wait until next year (assuming a Biden victory) when Republicans start caring about upsetting institutional norms again.
Which was introduced after the Serrano/Gonzalez-Colon HR 4901 the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act which proposed a straight statehood Y/N vote and is thus understood in PR internal politics to be a reaction to prevent such a Y/N vote. But yes, the point is both of these show how the idea that “PR statehood now” is some sort of Dem plank for Senate control is looking at the issue with the eyes of those not affected by it.
Will be glad to follow up any further in a thread for that purpose
It’s interesting to note that the late Justice Scalia told Obama’s top advisor to add Elena Kagan (liberal) to the Supreme Court.
Seems like a fairly principled thing to do: ask a guy who’s basically diametrically opposed in terms of political affiliation and constitutional jurisprudence to appoint a woman who’s also basically diametrically opposed in constitutional jurisprudence to the Supreme Court.
Oh please. 
History is so old and boring. And, by definition, out of date, amirite?
Not quite, but Trump could appoint someone even worse (more conservative or more partisan). Yes, Trump could always find someone worse. In particular, someone much younger who would be there for a long long time to come.
An even more nightmarish scenario would be is Breyer were to die (he certainly wouldn’t retire) before January.
I’m counting on the catholics. The argument is that they are willing to put up with all the evil that trump represents in order to save millions of babies. But once the court is as red as its going to get, they don’t have to hold their nose and vote for trump anymore.
Plus they could have their second-ever Catholic President by voting for the other guy.
But then, by this logic, they wouldn’t stop supporting Trump until, say, Breyer also dies and can be replaced by a conservative.
Why stop at a 5-4 majority when you can have 6-3?
FWIW, My stepsister is a devout catholic, and she’s one of those people stand in front of Planned Parenthood clinics, with signs, I guess. I don’t know how obnoxious she is - I never asked and never saw her. Anyway, she hates Trump with the fire of 1,000 suns, and will not be voting for him. Considering how active she is in the church, I wonder how many of her church friends think like her.
Replacing rbg would give them a 6-3.
There is a higher than average catholic population in most of the swing states.
Virginia is not a swing state but the catholics I know here will not vote for trump is the court is secured with an rbg replacement.
I placed money on biden today.
The senate confirmation vote for Rehnquist was in 1971, not during the election year. You are right about Kennedy though.
To be fair, back in 2016 Mitch McConnell specifically talked about both nomination and confirmation during an election year, not just confirmation (my emphasis).
Of course, now that quote works against him. Not that it really matters.
Thanks. I see the Rehnquist vote was in December 1971 and he took office in January.
Oh I wouldn’t. This is a golden opportunity for Romney to regain some conservative cred and he can’t be accused of hypocrisy because he wasn’t a senator when Garland’s nomination was blocked.
Romney has no desire to help liberals, he just can’t stomach Trump’s antics. All he has to do is claim that he would’ve stood up against McConnell back in 2016. He’ll say he doesn’t think it’s right for any party to delay the nomination for any reason. Then he’ll go on about his Constitutional duty to “advise and consent.”
I think he’ll be one of the strongest voices in favor of immediate confirmation. He’s a staunch conservative and judicial nominations are pretty much the only facet of Conservatism that Trump hasn’t hijacked and subverted.
It’s the pay-off in the grand bargain - and even though they negotiated a lousy deal that doesn’t mean they won’t take the crumb they’ve been thrown.
Couldn’t have said it better on Romney – I’m baffled why so many people think he’s going to ride in on a white horse and save the day. He’s been a consistent vote for conservative judges and as you note he can’t be accused of personal hypocrisy. And if he does argue that he believes any President should get a vote on his nominee, even in an election year – he’ll be 100% correct!
Never forget that the crime here was the Garland nomination. It’s understandable that Democrats want to hold Republicans to the same standard that they used to block Garland, but that “standard” is bullshit. There’s absolutely no reason why a President should not get a vote on his nominee in an election year. Mitch invented it out of whole cloth, and while it’s diverting to see Republicans squirm their way out of their previous position, it would be a mistake for Democrats to now embrace the “McConnell Rule” as some sort of binding precedent on this and future nominations.
Sorry if this was mentioned before and I missed it, but contributions to Democratic candidates totaled $30 million in the hours after RBG’s death.
So, a question about Pelosi’s suggestion that the House impeach Trump again and again as a way to delaying the Senate’s action on Trump replacing Ginsburg…
Couldn’t McConnell just force an immediate Senate vote each time (convict or acquit Trump - which would certainly fall short of the 2/3 required) - which would put an end to each House impeachment attempt in five minutes? Or just ignore such House articles of impeachment until the Trump nominee is rammed through?
It’s 43 days till election day.
Putting aside Mitch’s history and everything else…
IS it appropriate to nominate and vote on a justice now?
If yes - how close is too close?
On the assumption that “the shortlist was already prepared” (RBG death is no surprise after all), what sort of calculus SHOULD come into effect? Or is the simple idea of “reasonable” representatives giving an honest appraisal in the advise and consent supposed to be enough?
As I recall from that last impeachment (Jesus Christ, was that really just eight months ago?!?), under Senate rules impeachment is a privileged matter that must be dealt with immediately. Still, I believe that the majority could just immediately bring it to a vote, or shunt it off to a committee to investigate further, and continue about the business of advancing Trump’s nominee.