RBG passes away | Trump to nominate replacement soon

Status
Not open for further replies.
oneniltothearsenal said:
It's more more feasible and doable for the Democrats to push to expand the Senate to DC and Puerto Rico.

@Edgar Allan Pillow No doubt the b!tch will try but there are a lot of moving pieces to start clutching pearls now. Maybe you should be trying to talk sense into your banker buddies ;)
Click to expand...

What would that take? More than a mere Act of Congress?
 
sport2793 said:
Well your point about Congress is not as valid as the Dems would potentially control both houses. This latter point however is true and there would need to be a strategy of some sort to try and close the door behind you if possible. The only way I could think of would be via constitutional amendment, which would be near impossible to do.
Click to expand...
Democrats controlling both houses doesn’t guarantee much. See: Obamacare
 
Frosty said:
Don't the winners of the state legislatures in this election get to redraw (gerrymander) congressional boundaries too, like the Republicans did in 2010?
Click to expand...

Ya I believe so. Luckily I think the Dems are poised to do well at the state level also this year. At least well enough to hold or even potentially gain seats with gerrymandering hopefully.
 
Carolina Red said:
You’re talking about the United States Congress here. They can’t even pass a bill that gives people money during a pandemic.
Click to expand...
Well sure, winning the Senate would be a necessity.

As @Sir Matt said, he'll probably use this to shore up GOPer loyalty for the election and go for it in the lame duck if they lose. I'm less convinced as to the argument about the GOP would go on to do it down the line themselves - this was said about going nuclear on the filibuster as well but then they just... did that anyway.

Either way, probably won't happen.
 
Trump, before boarding Air Force One: ‘She just died? I didn’t know that’

The president offered brief comments to the press about Ginsburg before boarding Air Force One, according to the White House pool report:

“She just died? I didn’t know that.She led an amazing life, what else can you say? Whether you agree or not ... she led an amazing life.”
 
sport2793 said:
Well your point about Congress is not as valid as the Dems would potentially control both houses. This latter point however is true and there would need to be a strategy of some sort to try and close the door behind you if possible. The only way I could think of would be via constitutional amendment, which would be near impossible to do.
Click to expand...
Honestly the only "door closing" that would have real effect is getting rid of Electoral college. It's big and it is literally the only Reason a Republican president can be elected now. Their platform is so toxic they will likely never win the popular vote again until they abandon their racist base and start trying to reach out to the changing demographics of America.
 
Frosty said:
What would that take? More than a mere Act of Congress?
Click to expand...

If the Dems get all three branches it's theoretically doable. Not a sure thing by any means but much more doable than expanding the SC
 
nimic said:
Perhaps. I'm just wondering how many people who weren't already going to vote for Trump would be convinced by a highly controversial lame duck confirmation. Seems like it's the sort of thing which isn't really going to gain you many votes with the base (who are already voting), but could lose you the independents (who you're already in danger of losing).

It could happen, and clearly McConnell wants to try, but I think this would be a great way for the GOP to lose the next decade at least.
Click to expand...
It would be a dicey move as abortion rights & Obamacare sometimes poll into the 70th percentile favorable. Hopefully any undecided independents would be swayed to vote for Biden if they tried the lame duck move.
 
Hamnat said:
Honestly the only "door closing" that would have real effect is getting rid of Electoral college. It's big and it is literally the only Reason a Republican president can be elected now. Their platform is so toxic they will likely never win the popular vote again until they abandon their racist base and start trying to reach out to the changing demographics of America.
Click to expand...

You will lose a lot of independents with that I fear (even with the SC packing to be fair also). I think the only option that will likely not backfire on Dems is handing senate seats to DC and Puerto Rico and biding your time for other slots to appear. You would basically make it near impossible for the GOP to control the Senate for the next 20-30 years with that approach I believe.
 
sport2793 said:
You will lose a lot of independents with that I fear (even with the SC packing to be fair also). I think the only option that will likely not backfire on Dems is handing senate seats to DC and Puerto Rico and biding your time for other slots to appear. You would basically make it near impossible for the GOP to control the Senate for the next 20-30 years with that approach I believe.
Click to expand...
It will take drastic action at this point. And as a gay minority and likely the prime target of the first strikes Mitch's endgame SC would target I am legit deflated and scared. We saw this coming if Trump was elected in 2016. And after the last Scotus rulings where they shockingly didn't agree with the Trump administration that LGBT should not be protected from workplace discrimination. And the response from the GOP was "traitors" and the next pick would be worse basically. Its chilling to know for a fact its going to happen.
 
While the court seat might be a lost cause - i agree this carries huge risk for the Rs in the long run. If the Dems truly want to pummel them in some ways they could go for a killing blow if they're able to also make whatever other scandal or proof of wrong doing is undoubtedly out there on Trump and co can be pinned on for all to see. That combined with ram rodding this seat *could* make them lose the middle and legit center right folks for a long time. Again though - thats assuming the Dems have stopped being naive.
 
sport2793 said:
You will lose a lot of independents with that I fear (even with the SC packing to be fair also). I think the only option that will likely not backfire on Dems is handing senate seats to DC and Puerto Rico and biding your time for other slots to appear. You would basically make it near impossible for the GOP to control the Senate for the next 20-30 years with that approach I believe.
Click to expand...

Assuming Alito and Thomas don't retire if Trump loses to be replaced in the lame duck session. They're 70/72, respectively.

Potential reason for McConnell to rush it through immediately post election:
 
Last edited:
Revan said:
Yeah sure, that is gonna stop McConnell. Like he stopped blocking Obama’s nominee for the fear of losing the senate.

The only certainty this year is that this is gonna happen. It might happen after November though, when Collins and another one or two (who have already lost their seats) take one for the team and vote the nominee.

Not even Roberts can now save Roe vs Wade (and even more important stuff), and not that he was particularly interested about it.
Click to expand...

I don't think they would dare. Their personal safety would be at risk if they tried to pull such a stunt.
 
Sir Matt said:
Assuming Alito and Thomas don't retire if Trump loses to be replaced in the lame duck session. They're 70/72, respectively.

Potential reason for McConnell to rush it through immediately post election:
Click to expand...
Obamacare is up for another SCOTUS battle the week after the election. The third SCOTUS challenge. They need no more incentive than to find a guarantee vote to take Obamacare out once and for all.

"Indeed, a week after the upcoming presidential election, the court is for the third time scheduled to hear a challenge brought by Republicans to the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare. In 2012 the High Court upheld the law by a 5-to-4 vote, with Chief Justice Roberts casting the deciding vote and writing the opinion for the majority. But this time the outcome may well be different.

That's because Ginsburg's death gives Republicans the chance to tighten their grip on the court with another Trump appointment that would give conservatives a 6-to-3 majority. And that would mean that even a defection on the right would leave conservatives with enough votes to prevail in the Obamacare case and many others." -NPR
 
Was just mentioned on CNN that the Dems may attempt to increase the number of SCOTUS judges by 4 if they win the Presidency and Congress. Would be the nuclear option of course, but more than justified after McConnell's antics over the past 4 years.
 
Frosty said:
Trump is half way through a campaign rally and no one has told him about RBG.

That is sensible I think. No idea what he would say if told.
Click to expand...
trump-smirk.jpg
 
Hamnat said:
Obamacare is up for another SCOTUS battle the week after the election. The third SCOTUS challenge. They need no more incentive than to find a guarantee vote to take Obamacare out once and for all.

"Indeed, a week after the upcoming presidential election, the court is for the third time scheduled to hear a challenge brought by Republicans to the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare. In 2012 the High Court upheld the law by a 5-to-4 vote, with Chief Justice Roberts casting the deciding vote and writing the opinion for the majority. But this time the outcome may well be different.

That's because Ginsburg's death gives Republicans the chance to tighten their grip on the court with another Trump appointment that would give conservatives a 6-to-3 majority. And that would mean that even a defection on the right would leave conservatives with enough votes to prevail in the Obamacare case and many others." -NPR
Click to expand...

They don't need another justice to decide that case 5-3. The argument is built around eliminating Roberts' ruling that the individual mandate is a tax since it is set at $0. Even if Roberts is going to vote with the liberals, it ends 4-4 and they rehear the case with the freshly appointed GOP judge. The major risk with that is that Democrats reinstate the individual mandate at some nominal amount before reargument, which voids the basis of the case, and the US government actually defends the law. Still, a 6-3 majority could come up with some incredibly tenuous reasoning without Roberts and overturn it on that basis. Awful decisions are the only way this stupid case made it to SCOTUS again.

McConnell will care more about maintaining his majority than anything else. If he thinks it puts certain senators at risk, he'll wait.
 
Sir Matt said:
They don't need another justice to decide that case 5-3. The argument is built around eliminating Roberts' ruling that the individual mandate is a tax since it is set at $0. Even if Roberts is going to vote with the liberals, it ends 4-4 and they rehear the case with the freshly appointed GOP judge. The major risk with that is that Democrats reinstate the individual mandate at some nominal amount before reargument, which voids the basis of the case, and the US government actually defends the law. Still, a 6-3 majority could come up with some incredibly tenuous reasoning without Roberts and overturn it on that basis. Awful decisions are the only way this stupid case made it to SCOTUS again.

McConnell will care more about maintaining his majority than anything else. If he thinks it puts certain senators at risk, he'll wait.
Click to expand...

Is the challenge to the individual mandate alone? It is both politically unpopular and (according to a new article today which I can't read through the paywall) useless.
 
berbatrick said:
Is the challenge to the individual mandate alone? It is both politically unpopular and (according to a new article today which I can't read through the paywall) useless.
Click to expand...

The original ruling was that ACA (and the individual mandate) was constitutional because Roberts ruled the mandate a tax. To void this argument, Republicans set the individual mandate to $0 and then started suing in Texas where they shopped for a specific judge. It comes down to whether the individual mandate makes the whole ACA unconstitutional or if it can be severed while maintaining the rest of the law. Trump's DOJ wants to eliminate the individual mandate and all of the protections built into the ACA (pre-existing conditions, no lifetime limits, etc.) while the plaintiffs want the whole law struck down. Doing either of those things would be catastrophic for Republicans electorally, but I assume they'll catch less hell if they do it through the courts rather than through Congress.

https://www.kff.org/health-reform/i...exas-a-guide-to-the-case-challenging-the-aca/
 
Hamnat said:
Honestly the only "door closing" that would have real effect is getting rid of Electoral college. It's big and it is literally the only Reason a Republican president can be elected now. Their platform is so toxic they will likely never win the popular vote again until they abandon their racist base and start trying to reach out to the changing demographics of America.
Click to expand...
Getting rid of electoral college is close to impossible considering that it requires a constitutional amendment and you need 3/4 of states voting for it. On the other hand, giving statehoods to DC, Puerto Rico, breaking California in multiple states and packing the SCOTUS can be done by simple majorities in both chambers of Congress (and having a president willing to sign it). Dems should totally go for it if they get a unified Democratic government.

Of course, it is extreme unlikely to happen.
 
sport2793 said:
You will lose a lot of independents with that I fear (even with the SC packing to be fair also). I think the only option that will likely not backfire on Dems is handing senate seats to DC and Puerto Rico and biding your time for other slots to appear. You would basically make it near impossible for the GOP to control the Senate for the next 20-30 years with that approach I believe.
Click to expand...
Impossible? How did you come to this conclusion? A majority on the senate would require 52 senators + VP or 53 senators without the need of VP. They currently have 53 + VP.

Even if all 4 senators were Dems (virtually certain from DC, very likely from PR), at the moment GOP would have been controlling the senate.
 
nimic said:
Perhaps. I'm just wondering how many people who weren't already going to vote for Trump would be convinced by a highly controversial lame duck confirmation. Seems like it's the sort of thing which isn't really going to gain you many votes with the base (who are already voting), but could lose you the independents (who you're already in danger of losing).

It could happen, and clearly McConnell wants to try, but I think this would be a great way for the GOP to lose the next decade at least.
Click to expand...
What is a lame duck? I see a lot of talk about it, but I'm unsure what it means in this context.

Also you and several others mention that if McConnell gets his way and pushes a lame duck through, GOP will lose (Congress or Senate or both?) for a long time. Why? What would cause this?

This is one aspect of American politics I really don't understand.
 
Sir Matt said:
They don't need another justice to decide that case 5-3. The argument is built around eliminating Roberts' ruling that the individual mandate is a tax since it is set at $0. Even if Roberts is going to vote with the liberals, it ends 4-4 and they rehear the case with the freshly appointed GOP judge. The major risk with that is that Democrats reinstate the individual mandate at some nominal amount before reargument, which voids the basis of the case, and the US government actually defends the law. Still, a 6-3 majority could come up with some incredibly tenuous reasoning without Roberts and overturn it on that basis. Awful decisions are the only way this stupid case made it to SCOTUS again.

McConnell will care more about maintaining his majority than anything else. If he thinks it puts certain senators at risk, he'll wait.
Click to expand...
They will find a way to get it to SC again if this case with potentially a Mitch Ringer on the bench is seated. That is why packing the courts was Mitch's legacy and Endgame. Even as demographics continue to shift away from what the GOP stands for. They will hold undue power with their court appointments.

Even if Biden wins and has a majority in the Senate and Congress. Literally any law he passes will likely end up in lawsuits. Any kind of gun reform, any Obamacare fixes, absolutely any criminal justice actions or social justice laws in response to the protests since George Floyd. They will ALL be challenged again for years. Any climate change actions and penalties to corporations they will challenge to the SC. Hell even a contentious election and recounts could end up in this SC

They have been attacking and chipping away at Roe v Wade for decades. They will continue.
 
Fridge chutney said:
What is a lame duck? I see a lot of talk about it, but I'm unsure what it means in this context.
Click to expand...

An official coming to the end of their time in office, a successor appointed but not taken over yet and I guess if talking about the president, then also one in their 2nd term. They have nothing to lose because they can't win another election anyway.
 
Halftrack said:
Also, the entire process of nominating and confirming justices is entirely apolitical, as it should be.
Click to expand...

It was, until McConnell fecked over Obama. There is no low the GOP wont stoop to.
 
I think the battle lines are drawn.

Trump and Mitch will push this through. The right will enjoy getting one over the libs and getting Obamacare and Roe vs Wade repealed before January.

It is time for the Dems to fight for once. And it will be a generational fight. Win and give PR and DC statehood and increase the SC by 4. There is no bipartisanship anymore.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.