The Republicans were mostly listless and a dead ship in the water last year until the Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation battle, which revved up much of the base and sent Republicans to the polls at a rate 25% higher than normal GOP turnout for a midterm (if I recall right.)
With the recent anti-abortion laws (which likely still won’t have their moment in the Supreme Court until after 2020,) a Ginsburg departure from the Supreme Court prior to Election Day would be immensely consequential. It could give pro-lifers the majority they need to overturn Roe (assuming Roberts won’t overturn) - along with, of course, all the other consequences that arise as a result of replacing the Court’s most liberal justice with a Gorsuch type.
I think such a Ginsburg departure would be more likely to revv up Democratic voters, though, because the Alabama and Georgia laws are so severe that they aren’t popular with even many Republicans. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court was perhaps the biggest issue dear to Trump voters in 2016 and an opportunity to fill in another vacancy would remind many Trumpers of why they want(ed) Trump.
I would bet she is not going to quit before 2020 unless she is very ill. And even then she may not quit. If a Dem wins in 2020 and the Senate stays in GOP control, they probably won’t confirm anyone leaving the seat empty. .
I suspect the Republicans would push hard to nominate & confirm a conservative justice, either prior to the election or during the lame duck session, at least if they thought there was a risk of them losing the White House or the Senate (and there is a risk).
Of course it will happen, but it also would happen if Clarence Thomas died.
The only difference it would make is how many more anti-Trump voters would be fired up enough to vote. And I can’t believe there is anyone on either side who cares about the Supreme Court who isn’t already fired up.
Well if she dies or steps down in 2020, we’ll just have to wait until January 2021 since we simply don’t confirm justices in election years. Mitch McConnell said so himself. And he wouldn’t lie, would he? WOULD HE?!
There’s a saying that people are more motivated to avoid what they fear than gain what they desire; wonder if this means anti-Trumpers would be more fired up to prevent SCOTUS from going further right than Trumpers are to push the court right.
In 2020, with a hypothetical Ginsburg vacancy looming over the country, it’s hard to guess, but in 2016 most of those that said SCOTUS was important to their vote, voted for President Trump:
It would guarantee even higher turnout on the GOP side and give Trump a much larger electoral victory than he got in 2016. The principal reason being the right would see it as a chance to pack the court with enough votes to definitely overturn Roe and Obergefell, Lawrence v Hardwick and possibly even Loving and Brown v Board of Education, and establish the white, Christian autocracy many of them think they want.
There is a hateful, vengeful and racist mindset rising on the right and I don’t see any reason to think it is even close to cresting.
I think Trump has a high floor but a low ceiling. My guess is that even with an empty SCOTUS seat hanging over the election that Trump’s ceiling is the 2016 map plus Minnesota and New Hampshire. OTOH I guess his floor is 2016 minus PA, MI, and WI.
I’m probably in the liberal minority, but SCOTUS was tops in my mind when I favored Hillary as the pragmatic candidate in 2016. After Gorsuch and Kavanaugh I expect a lot of liberals will become similarly focused, but the Senate map being what it is, I’m not optimistic.
So we will have the very real possibility of having a Democratic President and a Republican Senate unwilling to confirm any nominees as the Supreme Court dwindles down to a single person in some sort of twisted tontine of partisanship. Just as the framers intended, conservatives.
Yeah. It will be some dark fun watching Mitch McConnell make a rule that that Democrat presidents shouldn’t get to nominate SCOTUS justices within the last 3 years of their term, and half the country goes “sure, rules are rules I guess.”
Come on. Let’s be real. Overturn Brown v. Board of Education? Please. With all respect, this is insanity. Where do you get the idea that is what your opponents want?
You think Thomas and Gorsuch would vote to overturn Brown? Loving? Lawrence? Obergefell? Well, maybe Thomas would overturn Lawrence and Obergefell because he generally does not respect stare decisis, but fucking Brown?!?
As I said, I believe continued appointments to the Court by this President will definitely result in Lawrence, Obergefell and Roe being overturned. Their is already a 5 justice majority that has shown they have no respect for stare decisis.
Read Breyer’s dissent from the last week in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt. He certainly believes the Roberts 5 will willingly throw precedent out the window when it suits their political beliefs.
And I said the overturning of Loving and Brown would be possibilities. I still stand by that. I agree doing it would indeed be insanity. Doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen.
Conservatives have been trying to pack and politicize the court for years in an attempt to overturn various culture-war decisions, the biggest of which is* Roe v. Wade*.
The necessary first step is chucking out stare decisis , which the conservative majority just did with Nevada vs Hall.
Now that all 5 conservative majority have signalled they don’t give a shit about stare decisis, what would stop them from overturning Brown? That they’re totally nice trustworthy guys?
