General Question

crazyguy's avatar

Will RBG's replacement be confirmed before the election?

Asked by crazyguy (1112points) 1 month ago

As you know RBG passed away on Friday. Since there were just 46 days left to the election, there was a mad Ruch to get a replacement in place. Trump plans to nominate a candidate by Friday or Saturday, and McConnell expects to hold a confirmation vote this year. If he gets 50 committed “yesses” I am sure he will. What is problematic is whether he can hold the hearings and schedule a confirmation vote when Democrats are trying hard to delay the proceedings before the election. And, if the election goes badly for Republicans, could they confirm a lame duck’s candidate after the election? What do you think?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

24 Answers

Darth_Algar's avatar

I’m kinda of the mind that the Republicans will hold off on actual confirmation hearings until after the election, as this is something they can use to run on. Especially considering that control of the Senate, not just the White House, hangs in the balance.

seawulf575's avatar

I think she will be confirmed. I say this for a number of reasons. First, we know President Trump will nominate someone. That is his duty as POTUS, like it or not. It is then up to the Senate to confirm that nomination. Typically, there are Judiciary committee hearings to grill the candidate to ensure they are of the right caliber. And this is where the Dems have created real mayhem in the past. Look at Kavanaugh…waiting until all the questioning was over and then tote out bogus claims that he was a serial rapist in his past. It is done to try getting rid of a candidate they don’t want but who they can’t actually find a valid reason to not confirm. They are already gearing up for this on potential nominees. But that is where it gets a bit odd. The Judiciary Committee is not a Constitutionally required thing. All that is required is that the POTUS nominate someone and the Senate votes to confirm or not. So it might be that when President Trump nominates someone on Saturday, McConnell might just put it to a Senate vote then and there…to save time and eliminate the circus show designed to delay things and create mayhem. Whether they run the hearings or not really is unknown. But let’s think about this for a moment. The odds-on favorites for the nomination is Amy Coney Barrett, or Barbara Lagoa. Both are eminently qualified. So if they go into hearings, it would almost be political suicide for the Dems to try smearing either of these women. Barrett they would go after because she is Catholic. They tried that when she was up for confirmation to the 7th circuit Appeals Court. But she has 7 children…5 of her own and 2 she adopted who are Haitian. So they will try blasting (a) a woman who is (b) the mother of 2 children of color, (c) because of her Christian religious beliefs? Seems like they are willing to alienate half the country just to stop Trump. But let’s say they do that and then are handed Barbara Lagoa. She is Latino. She has top recommendations from the Bar Association and a good record. What here? Trying to paint her as a Communist? No…they would like that. But again…try smearing a minority woman just to stop Trump? Wow.

crazyguy's avatar

@Darth_Algar The problem with holding off on the confirmation vote until after the election is that both the White House and the Senate may have been flipped as a result of the election. Any vote to confirm the nominee of a lame duck President by a lame duck Senate may not carry much weight.

@seawulf575 As usual you have made some great points. I did not know that McConnell has the choice of not holding Judiciary Committee hearings. After reading your post I have confirmed the accuracy of what you wrote. However, the hearings will give a chance for some Democrats to hang themselves, as you also pointed out. In addition, if a hearing is skipped the Democrats will rightly cry “Foul” and that may help them in the election. So I am all for an expedited hearing, in which, I hope some Democrats will make fools of themselves.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@crazyguy

Yes, that’s a risk they’d be taking. But Republican control of the Senate and White House may be a bit shaky right now, and promising a confirmation, but not delivering before Election Day, may be enough to fire up enough conservative leaning voters to keep the White House and Senate.

crazyguy's avatar

@Darth_Algar That is definitely a possibility. However, I think the Republicans want a sure thing, in order to be certain of a center-right supreme court for decades.

Caravanfan's avatar

I don’t care. We just need to keep the eye on the ball and get Trump out of office.

crazyguy's avatar

@Caravanfan The election results will almost certainly be contested (the 2000 election comes to mind), and the Supreme Court will probably call it. So you should care.

Caravanfan's avatar

@crazyguy I’m going to be very, very clear here. I. Don’t. Care. The President has every right to nominate someone and the Senate can confirm her. Let them. It will expose their hypocrisy even more. If you’re going to use 2000 as an example, SCOTUS has the votes now anyway (5–3).

I’m FAR more concerned about issues such as Executive Branch lawlessness, concentration camps for migrants, the Trump family enriching themselves, sexual abuse, systemic racism, global warming, utter incompetence at the highest level regarding the COVID catastrophe, the tearing apart of families by deportation….

Shall I go on?

seawulf575's avatar

^So you hate Trump. Got it.

crazyguy's avatar

@Caravanfan You may legitimately blame Trump for some of the things you list; but blaming him for things that have been part and parcel of the US for centuries seems a little disingenuous. Im thinking specifically of

1. “Concentration camps” for migrants. I believe the so-called kids in cages program was started by Obama?

2. Sexual abuse: He is responsible for his own.But not for others’ (like Weinberg and Epstein).

3. Global warming: That started a long time ago. You can add a few more words here.

4. Systemic racism: When do you think that started?

5. “tearing apart of families”: By leaving them alone, don’t you send a clear message to future illegal immigrants?

crazyguy's avatar

@seawulf575 Don’t most people on Fluther fit your description?

seawulf575's avatar

@crazyguy Yes, but @Caravanfan used a whole lot more words to say it. I just summed it up.

Caravanfan's avatar

@crazyguy I see you pointedly kept off on your weak rebuttal to me the fact that 200,000 people have now died from Covid under Trumps watch. What is your excuse for that?

seawulf575's avatar

@Caravanfan and how many of those 200,000 people died because of idiot Democrats? You want to blame President Trump for everything because you are that eaten up with Trump-hate. But you obviously forgot Gov Cuomo that forced Covid positive patients into nursing homes, an act that killed thousands. You seem to have overlooked fools like DeBlasio telling everyone to continue on with their normal lives…going to shows, eating out, going to the movies, attending parades…in March. You don’t want to consider Pelosi telling people to celebrate Chinese New Year by attending the festivities in SF’s China town…on February 24th. To put things in perspective, things were getting so bad with the Covid at that time that Gov Inslee declared a state of emergency in Washington state. So while I understand you are suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome, I would say “physician heal thyself!”. Stop avoiding reality for at least 10 minutes before you continue to make yourself look even more bizarre than you already have.

Caravanfan's avatar

@seawulf575 I wasn’t talking to you.

seawulf575's avatar

@Caravanfan this is an open thread. If you wanted only a private conversation you can use the messaging option to talk to someone privately. Otherwise, it is all open for all people to read and comment on.

crazyguy's avatar

@Caravanfan I listed some of your points that I would dispute. I do not dispute facts. It is absolutely true that 200,000 people have supposedly died of covid-19 during Trump’s presidency. The reason I put ‘supposedly” in quote is that there is some question as to how the number of covid deaths is counted.

By the way I agree 100% with the points made by seawulf575.

Caravanfan's avatar

@crazyguy Of course you do. If I had a bingo card of the neofascist Trumpist talking points the two of you would have filled it and I would have won.

But you told me to be concerned about RBG’s replacement. SCOTUS is overrated as a campaign issue. I told you all the issues that I am MORE concerned about than that.

crazyguy's avatar

@Caravanfan What if we had a repeat of 2000 to the power 10, and the Supreme Court split 4–4?

Caravanfan's avatar

Then there is a Constitutional crisis.

crazyguy's avatar

@Caravanfan So you would rather have the possibility of that than a confirmation of Trump’s nominee?

Caravanfan's avatar

@crazyguy When did I say that?

crazyguy's avatar

My mistake. I put 2 and 2 together from your earlier posts. You did not say that exactly, but it seemed logical to me.

Caravanfan's avatar

No certainly I would rather Trump and the Republicans would wait until after the election, as tradition would dictate. But my point is that SCOTUS is not as big of a political issue to me as other issues are. Trump nominating and the Senate confirming a nominee would certainly be an asshole move, but it’s not illegal, immoral, or existentially dangerous, like many of the other issues I mentioned.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther