Human beings die at all ages.
There is no way that RBG, back in Obama’s first two years, could have known she’d die just before the 2020 election.
All these feelings of anger at RBG might better be directed at the US system which against all common sense lets Justices serve for their lifetimes. Civilized nations have term and/or age limits for their supreme courts. We should too.
But having the seat open before the election doesn’t really matter because Trump will still appoint someone before January if he loses. But, then again, I don’t expect Trump fans to parse that.
I agree. I don’t really get mad at McConnell for breaking legislative norms. I get more mad at the Democrats for playing by rules that the GOP doesn’t play by rather than fighting to win and improve the lives of Americans.
I just don’t think people should get their hopes up about McConnell blocking a SCOTUS nomination because of his personal election - I don’t think he is all that important.
My bold.
By that do you mean “fighting dirty”?
Why not both of the Obamas? It wouldn’t be the first time they worked together.
Yes, more or less. There are some bridges I wouldn’t cross such as election integrity, but if there’s a way that works technically in the rules to help Americans you should do it even if it’s slimy. If they end up with the Presidency and both houses of Congress they should nuke the filibuster. If they wind up in a future situation with a Republican president and a Democratic senate, they should block SCOTUS nominees.
I am very ambivalent about court-packing however, and I think that might be too far - plus it has the problem that it doesn’t actually accomplish anything long-term.
“Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year.”
That was McConnell’s quote. The caveats made me wonder, has there ever been a Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential election year when the opposite party controlled the Senate?
Dang! I wish I had thought of all four of them. No minimum age requirement and you don’t need a law degree.
Hundreds gather outside the Supreme Court to pay tribute (video in tweet).
One thing’s for sure: Voter turnout is going to be sky-high on both sides because of this.
I think they don’t need 60 votes anymore. I think Harry Reid made seating justices a strict up or down vote in order to get past Republican filibustering and obstructionism. I was worried about that at the time but I also didn’t see another viable choice.
Which means the GOP wins on pure majority.
But hey, Romney is already saying he won’t vote to seat a justice until after the next inauguration. Now of course I can’t find where I read that.
I just wanted to say that my parents were in law school with her and they remained friendly if not very close throughout her life. They have never had anything but good things to say about her. She was not only a great judge, she was also a nice person who helped my parents transition when they moved to DC. The last time I saw her she was the featured speaker at a religious service but went out of her way to stop my mother and chat when they passed in the hall.
FWIW, I don’t recommend stacking the court. I have no doubt McConnell will force a vote but you never know how judges will act once they are actually on the court. I just hope for a judicial scholar and not a political hack.
I don’t think I’ve ever before seen anyone claim (or even imply) that Mitch McConnell is selfless.
Sure it does - it makes it even more crystal clear that SCOTUS is dead as a non partisan institution, and if we as a country want to resurrect it, we need to fundamentally change how justices are chosen, such that the political stakes are eliminated.
That’s right, but at the time of the interview with RBG in the news story posted by the person I was replying to—2014—the rule for SCOTUS confirmation votes was still ‘minimum of 60 votes.’ So that’s what I was talking about.
You’re right about Reid going to ‘simple majority’ for judicial nominees (though not explicitly for SCOTUS); then in 2017 as I’d mentioned, the Republicans went ‘simple majority’ for Justices, too.
… specifically excluding Supreme Court Justice nominees. That addendum was all Mitch McConnell. Reid’s change was just the figleaf they used- if the Dems hadn’t made that change to get around Republican obstructionism, the Republicans would’ve.
Harry Reid exercised the “nuclear option” to eliminate the filibuster on all presidential nominees except for Supreme Court justices. As mentioned, McConnell extended that to Supreme Court nominations with the Gorsuch confirmation.
Wow, beaten by two people making my same reply. This may be the most active the board has been in a decade.
May she rest in peace. A pioneer of American women’s rights under the law, a legendary jurist and a heroine of mine. She will be missed.
And now, unfortunately, the vacancy on SCOTUS will become a political football of the first magnitude. A friend shared a tweet with me: “Who would have thought that the Constitution needed an 87-year-old load-bearing woman?”
It may be that just enough Republican senators in tight races will feel sufficient public pressure not to move forward in filling the vacancy that the seat will remain open until after the election. I bet we’re going to be hearing the name of Merrick Garland a lot in the next few months…
I agree. Gorsuch may be conservative, but he seems to be the real deal in that regard, not just some hack appointed for his political views.