Not that it matters Sen. Murkowski from AK says she won’t vote for anyone until after the election.
If Murkowski had said, “not until after the inauguration,” that would have been one thing. But with this sort of wording, she could wait until after Election Day, when Biden has defeated Trump, and then when on-his-way-out Trump nominates a replacement in Nov or Dec, still vote for Trump’s appointee.
In other words, no practical difference.
But it also means some could vote nay, no longer fearful of the wrath of the wingnuts. [/eternal optimist]
I believe she said that she wouldn’t fill it before 2021. Apparently Grassley isn’t either. Most likely scenario is that the GOP already has their free votes, and they’re going to get everyone else on board, but maybe there’s a tiny sliver of hope.
There’s also the outside chance that some senators who are up for reelection and know they have no chance at winning will oppose it. But I’m not really holding out hope.
EDIT: This is also all from before this news, so we’ll have to see if they change their minds.
Both of these need to happen (my bolding in the quote). Civilized nations have either or both, to prevent precisely the insanity the USA goes through on a regular basis.
Could Democratic senators walk out, and deny McConnell a quorum?
Quorum is 51.
Only if a few Republican senators also went along with it. The Constitution requires a minimum of 51 present for a quorum. Since Republicans hold 53 seats, they can make quorum even if all Democrats boycotted and walked out.
It’s possible that Collins, Murkowski and Romney would join a walk-out. But I wouldn’t bet on it.
I may think we are fucked in regards the Supreme Court but that certainly isn’t going to stop me from voting to get rid of Trump. I’m even more enthusiastic about that now than ever before (and I didn’t think that was possible).
If anything, I’m more fired up to get out and vote early. I will most likely call our county’s Democratic Party office on Monday to see what I can do to help the cause.
The political calculations are complex.
It’s actually good for Trump if the nomination process (including hearings and vote) is announced to take place according to McConnell’s 2016 “principle”—that is, after the election. That motivates Trump voters to the polls, to be sure their preferred reactionary gets confirmed and installed.
But it’s better for McConnell if it all takes place before November 3, because then it’s a done deal and Kentucky Democrats are so depressed that they don’t bother voting for McConnell’s opponent Amy McGrath, and McConnell gets to keep cashing in on that sweet sweet power.
If it all happens after November 3 then McGrath voters will be extra-energized to bring all their eligible friends and neighbors to the polls, to give Mitch the heave-ho and prevent him from doing the damage to the nation that he longs to do.
One one hand, remind me: when has Trump ever made a smart move on anything?
OTOH, yes, if his cunning wiles see this as leverage for reelection, he’ll exploit it to the full. The fact that he’ll probably lose and this will screw the Republicans will not be of the slightest concern to his self-obsessed narcissism. He has no ideology or loyalty of any kind.
But 2020 has certainly turned out to be the year of the shits.
Well there’s also the cartoon villain theory that if you put a complete hack on the SCOTUS they might have the deciding vote to potentially rule in some election court case and seal it for Trump.
Right. If we are headed for a repeat of 2000 Bush-Gore, Trump would want to have the new Supreme Court balance already put in place, waiting to rule in his favor.
the issue is more that even if rh. democrats win in the coming years their agenda items could be overturned by the Supreme Court.
expansions of health care, voting rights, women’s rights, minority rights, green new deals etc could be overturned.
There are three Senate Republicans retiring at the end of this session (Pat Roberts, Mike Enzi and Lamar Alexander), as well as whichever incumbents lose their elections in November. Theoretically, these Senators would no longer have electoral concerns to worry about in a lame duck session, but a vote against Trump’s nominee would impact them enormously. They would be burning bridges that they spend their whole careers building, they would be cut off from employment in Republican-friendly lobby shops, foundations, etc. They would spend the rest of their lives being harassed as traitors by right-wing nut jobs. I’d be very surprised if more than one or two Republicans voted “no” in a lame duck, and Mitch can afford to lose three.
There is some complex psychology afoot. If Trump successfully gets his replacement confirmed onto the Supreme Court shortly before Election Day, is it likelier to revv up Democratic anger and motivate them to vote, or to deflate them and make them more sullen and listless about voting?
No, it’s going to fire people up even more. Count on it.
This is the basis on which I asked my previous question.
“America is dead/fucked” isn’t exactly an attitude that drives voters to the polls.
That’s hyperbole - I think the real attitude is “we were on the edge of the cliff, and now we’re hanging by our fingers… but it’s not over quite yet”.