Ruth Bader Ginsburg's replacement nomination fight

“We will not let Evil take over our country,” is more of a mission statement. How, “extrajudicially,” might the Democrats proceed?

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”?

Depends on who’s president. :slight_smile:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

My assumption is that in the scenario described in the OP, the Democrats are screwed. :frowning:

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.

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.

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.

Really? You think Bork would have been worse for the general progressive path of the nation’s jurisprudence than Kennedy was?

Ginsburg? :confused:

The Senate consented to Garland by virtue of choosing not to vote him down.

That’s not the usual definition of consent.

So why isn’t he sitting on the SCOTUS right now?

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!

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.