# Ruth Bader Ginsburg's replacement nomination fight **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 25, 2017, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020 "2017-03-25T19:15:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2017, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/21 "2017-03-26T00:20:35Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > How don’t they? The plan is that they nuke the filibuster on Supreme Court justices, not the entire filibuster. So the Democrats can still block anything in the Senate. > > The Senate can easily flip again, and, without any filibuster, Republicans would be completely powerless in the Senate. Most of the reactionaries are in the House, not the Senate. And they’d need pretty much everyone on board to pull it off. > > If you try and eliminate that, then the solutions become extrajudicial. We will not let Evil take over our country. And that’s what your “textualism” is. It removes morality from the equation, which makes it Evil. “We will not let Evil take over our country,” is more of a mission statement. How, “extrajudicially,” might the Democrats proceed? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2017, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/22 "2017-03-26T00:49:32Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Ok, I’m going to come out as thinking that forcing the Republicans to nuke the filibuster now is a mistake. It would carry much more weight if that was done on the next nomination, supposing as the OP does that it’s to replace Ginsberg. > > If it was done now, the story gets swept into the Garland revenge story as a footnote. It gets overshadowed by full supreme court again and Trump’s first pick stories. It’s just uninspiring tactic generally. > > If it’s done when the court is about to be swung, it accentuates that story. Since the Dems don’t have the votes, they need hardcore public support and when the balance of the court is up for grabs, that’s when you push all your chips in. Also: how popular are the Republicans and Trump right now? Oh, sure, they’ve taken hits since the election; but, for some, they’ve still got that new-car smell. But how popular will they be – maybe years from now – when Ginsburg, or whoever, gets replaced? If you had to bet, would you bet on “more popular” or “less popular”? ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2017, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/23 "2017-03-26T00:54:46Z")
Depends on who’s president. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2017, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/24 "2017-03-26T01:10:27Z")
Isn’t Gorsuch taking over Garland’s seat already a pretty big shift in the court’s composition? And yes, I do call it Garland’s seat. The President nominated him, on the advice of the Senate (including Senators from the opposing party), and the Senate chose not to vote him down. According to the Constitution, he should be on the court right now. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2017, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/25 "2017-03-26T01:15:06Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > The President nominated him, on the advice of the Senate (including Senators from the opposing party), and the Senate chose not to vote him down. According to the Constitution, he should be on the court right now. According to the Constitution, he should get on the court with the advice and consent of the Senate. You say they gave advice; I don’t see where they gave consent. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2017, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/26 "2017-03-26T01:17:12Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Isn’t Gorsuch taking over Garland’s seat already a pretty big shift in the court’s composition? > > And yes, I do call it Garland’s seat. The President nominated him, on the advice of the Senate (including Senators from the opposing party), and the Senate chose not to vote him down. According to the Constitution, he should be on the court right now. The consent part? Look, insist away. But you’re like the sovereign citizen who claims he doesn’t have to pay income tax because Ohio isn’t really a state. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2017, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/27 "2017-03-26T01:33:02Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > huh? Wouldn’t Dems want the filibuster gone in that scenario? Sorry, I was unclear about that. I was thinking of the advantage to the Republicans. In that case, they could claim to have not done away with the filibuster. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2017, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/28 "2017-03-26T01:34:55Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Isn’t Gorsuch taking over Garland’s seat already a pretty big shift in the court’s composition? > > And yes, I do call it Garland’s seat. The President nominated him, on the advice of the Senate (including Senators from the opposing party), and the Senate chose not to vote him down. According to the Constitution, he should be on the court right now. And let’s not forget that Hillary won the popular vote!! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2017, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/29 "2017-03-26T01:45:49Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > And let’s not forget that Hillary won the popular vote!! And he’s wearing a Harvard tie. Like oh, sure, HE went to Harvard. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2017, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/30 "2017-03-26T02:44:55Z")
My assumption is that in the scenario described in the OP, the Democrats are screwed. ☹ So, **Bricker** , why do you ask? Are you suggesting the Democrats _shouldn’t_ filibuster Gorsuch? Because I’m not convinced that would change anything. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2017, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/31 "2017-03-26T02:47:26Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > My assumption is that in the scenario described in the OP, the Democrats are screwed. ☹ > > So, **Bricker** , why do you ask? Are you suggesting the Democrats _shouldn’t_ filibuster Gorsuch? Because I’m not convinced that would change anything. I’m trying to understand what tactics might unfold. ---
**Author:** ![RivkahChaya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rivkahchaya/32/8919_2.png) [@RivkahChaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RivkahChaya)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2017, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/32 "2017-03-26T03:07:37Z")
If Ginsburg can make it to the next round of senatorial/congressional elections, the composition of the legislature may change enough that Trump will have to nominate someone more liberal or nominees will continually be rejected. Ronald Reagan had to go through three nominees to get Justice Powell’s seat filled. Course, what we ended up with was probably worse than Bork would have been. I kinda wish Douglas Ginsburg had gotten the nomination, but it was the Reagan era, and even if you didn’t inhale, you were toast. ---
**Author:** ![RivkahChaya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rivkahchaya/32/8919_2.png) [@RivkahChaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RivkahChaya)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2017, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/33 "2017-03-26T03:10:24Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > My assumption is that in the scenario described in the OP, the Democrats are screwed. ☹ > > So, **Bricker** , why do you ask? Are you suggesting the Democrats _shouldn’t_ filibuster Gorsuch? Because I’m not convinced that would change anything. A lot of people think the Democrats shouldn’t use up all their ammo fighting Gorsuch, because he isn’t that different from the justice he will be replacing. Better to save the big guns to fight the NEXT nominee, who is likely to be replacing Ginsburg. Ginsburg must enjoy hearing all that. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2017, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/34 "2017-03-26T03:22:34Z")
> [@RivkahChaya](#): > > If Ginsburg can make it to the next round of senatorial/congressional elections, the composition of the legislature may change enough that Trump will have to nominate someone more liberal or nominees will continually be rejected. Ronald Reagan had to go through three nominees to get Justice Powell’s seat filled. Course, what we ended up with was probably worse than Bork would have been. I kinda wish Douglas Ginsburg had gotten the nomination, but it was the Reagan era, and even if you didn’t inhale, you were toast. Really? You think Bork would have been worse for the general progressive path of the nation’s jurisprudence than Kennedy was? ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2017, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/35 "2017-03-26T03:38:01Z")
> [@RivkahChaya](#): > > If Ginsburg can make it to the next round of senatorial/congressional elections, the composition of the legislature may change enough that Trump will have to nominate someone more liberal or nominees will continually be rejected. Ginsburg? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2017, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/36 "2017-03-26T03:50:17Z")
The Senate consented to Garland by virtue of choosing not to vote him down. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2017, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/37 "2017-03-26T03:59:20Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > The Senate consented to Garland by virtue of choosing not to vote him down. That’s not the usual definition of consent. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2017, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/38 "2017-03-26T04:09:54Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > The Senate consented to Garland by virtue of choosing not to vote him down. So why isn’t he sitting on the SCOTUS right now? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2017, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/39 "2017-03-26T04:17:51Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > The Senate consented to Garland by virtue of choosing not to vote him down. If you really believe that, then why are you posting in a thread about Gorsuch? The Senate hasn’t voted _him_ down; by your logic, that means he’s already a Supreme! ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2017, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020/40 "2017-03-26T04:28:38Z")
> [@RivkahChaya](#): > > A lot of people think the Democrats shouldn’t use up all their ammo fighting Gorsuch, because he isn’t that different from the justice he will be replacing. Better to save the big guns to fight the NEXT nominee, who is likely to be replacing Ginsburg. Ginsburg must enjoy hearing all that. Indeed, I’m aware people think that, which is why I thought perhaps that was where **Bricker** might be going with this. But I think the folks who think that are wrong. If the Republicans are willing to nuke the filibuster for Gorsuch (and I’m pretty sure they are) then I believe they’ll be willing to nuke it for the next nominee, too. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-replacement-nomination-fight/783020.md?page=3)