Right. I have no idea how long it takes a House to come up with articles of impeachment - a few days? - but it’s certainly longer than the five minutes it would take McConnell to do an immediate floor vote on the Senate each time to rinse it away.
To be honest, the House should just shut up and let the Senate do this already. A quick pre-election confirmation likely helps both Biden and the Dems’ Senate chances. A confirmation delayed until after the election still probably helps Biden, although it probably throws a monkey wrench into the Dems’ chances of taking the Senate.
Let the Republicans perform their skulduggery now, make them pay out the ass after January.
And have a rock-solid-conservative Supreme Court for a generation? No, thanks.
-
You’re not going to stop them from nominating and confirming. Let this fuel voters (suburban women, progressives, moderates) to vote for Biden. Impeachment nonsense just has the potential to turn the headlines and public opinion against the Dems when we need the headlines and public opinion to be against Trump and the Pubs…
-
I said make them pay out the ass after January. What I meant by that is follow through on eliminating the filibuster and adding 2-4 justices to the SC.
And let’s not forget the Ginsburg Rule, established by Joe Biden and Ruth Ginsburg during the latter’s confirmation hearing, which says a Supreme Court nominee has no obligation to answer questions about her personal opinions or issues that might come before the court.
~Max
I’m not sure what you wrote there, but just to clarify, I’m a fan of that rule and I think it’s a good part of her political legacy.
~Max
Me too. I quoted something she said, but it was basically the same thing as what you wrote.
What choice do you have?
McConnell doesn’t give a shit about your preferences and neither do his constituents.
Trump doesn’t give a shit about your preferences and neither do his supporters
I don’t understand. What does “packing the courts” refer to?
Increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court. There’s nothing in the Constitution that specifies how many justices there shall be on the Supreme Court (or any court, for that matter).
My question is: just how much delaying can Democratic senators engage in between now and January 2021? Impeachment seems like a non-starter, but what other procedural cloggings are available? Can some senators go old school and filibuster in person all day, every day for 4 months? Are there other means for slowing the process down? Even if it is far-fetched, it seems like right now is the moment to lay it all on the line to stop this vote from happening.
The Senate standing rule XXII, as currently interpreted, allow a bare majority (50 Senators) to invoke cloture. Nevermind that the text of rule XX clearly reads “three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn” - the actual rule is ignored or bypassed on obscure procedural grounds. After that procedure, no Senator may speak for more than an hour at a time and a vote on the matter (of confirming the nominee) must take place within thirty hours.
~Max
Just sent to my GOP U.S. senator, Rob Portman, who’s already said he’ll consider, and vote before the election, on any Trump nominee. I’m pretending I don’t already know that:
I know you join me in mourning Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an accomplished pioneer of feminism early in her career and a giant of American law in her long, wise and honorable service on the Supreme Court.
In March 2016, when President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court early in a presidential election year, you said after meeting with him, “I believe the American people should have a voice in this debate. This is a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations, and I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in. Instead of having a nomination fight in this partisan election-year environment, I believe awaiting the result of the election will give the nominee more legitimacy and better preserve the Court’s credibility as an institution… After the election, I look forward to considering the nominee of our new president.”
I hope and expect that you will take the same approach with this new vacancy. To do anything else, so much later in another presidential election year, would be to reveal yourself to be an unprincipled hypocrite, and surely you would not want that. The eyes of history are now upon you.
I look forward to your response.
Never mind, mistake.
There is a really good reason why tornp should not pick a justuce: He is acting crazy and is impeachable. Why isn’t that enough?
Is there no objection the nation can make to slow the machine for a few weeks in light of his behaviors?
I’m reminded of our erstwhile friend Bricker’s description of what he called “The Free Parking Monopoly Principle”. To sum up: many people play Monopoly with a house rule that taxes and fines get placed on the middle of the board and are claimed each time someone lands on Free Parking. This is nowhere in the official rules, and makes for an inflationary and prolonged game, worse for all. But if those are the rules that the game is going to be played by, there is no good reason to deny yourself the spoils of that rule, giving yourself a disadvantage just to sit on principle. So if that’s the rules that the Senate is going to play under, well then, let’s play ball.
Traditionally, “principle” is the good reason.
~Max
The last time “Tradition” meant anything in politics was the last time a production of Fiddler On The Roof was in DC.
December? That can’t be right.
ETA: Kate McKinnon, who played Ginsburg on Saturday Night Live, remembers meeting RBG during last year’s Fiddler On The Roof tour.
~Max
He’s quick, folks. Ya gotta give him that.