USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
- Thread starter MissThundercat
- Start date
- Status
MissThundercat
Are the cis okay?
We tried "they go low, we go high."
Time for "send us to the hospital, we send you to the morgue."
Time for "send us to the hospital, we send you to the morgue."
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
McSally knows she wont get to vote on the successor after January because she is done. She has zero to lose.
This is playing out great...the usual suspects are hemming and hawing and the crackpots are gonna force the issue since we know Trump is going to make them. All we need now is for Donald to put Cruz or Cotton forward and the GOP will be signing their own death certificate.
This is playing out great...the usual suspects are hemming and hawing and the crackpots are gonna force the issue since we know Trump is going to make them. All we need now is for Donald to put Cruz or Cotton forward and the GOP will be signing their own death certificate.
Chuck Murray
WIS & Effingwoods Hockey Almanac
Or he can nominate Amy Coney Barrett, currently sitting on the Seventh Circuit's Court of Appeals, who was an early Trump nominee to that post. Married, seven (7) children, including two adopted children from Haiti, and one special needs child.
If the Dems try to gin up the outrage machine at her expense (a la Kavanaugh), they risk losing whatever traction they currently think they may have with suburban soccer moms.
No way he picks Cruz or Cotton. Too political, just a friendly ego boost for their folks back home.
You think the Dems now regret RBG not following Obama's advice to retire in his second term so they could keep that seat relatively safe? Serious question ...
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
They will find some batsh-t crazy fundy black woman under 50. We'll have our first QAnon SCOTUS justice.
aparch
Well-known member
Dr. Stella Immanuel?
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
I cant imagine that will be used in any campaign ads between now and November...
Fighting Sioux 23
New member
First off: horrible, horrible news. I was sick to my stomach last night when I heard the news. RBG was a great justice, and wrote some tremendous opinions. This country will miss her tremendously.
Second: In principle, I would agree that Trump should nominate a replacement, and the Senate should go through the process of holding hearings and voting to confirm/deny. This is what the Constitution specifies. However, the Republicans have no principles and do not care what the Constitution says. This has been shown repeatedly, and, specifically as to this topic, was on full display in 2016 after Garland was nominated. Of course, we all knew then that the Republicans were full of ****. That being said, should we stand on our principles (i.e. regardless of what happened previously, the Constitutionally correct position would be to go through the nomination/confirmation process) or push the Republican argument re Garland (i.e. no appointments/confirmations during election season)?
Third: To the extent that Trump nominates a replacement (almost 100% certainty), and the Senate takes up the confirmation process (also an almost 100% certainty), I think it makes sense to fight like hell to delay the confirmation process until Election Day (or once the results from Election Day are known, which may take a few weeks/months). Perhaps there are also enough Republican Senators to assist with ensuring that the confirmation process does not end until after the results from the election are known. Then, there are four scenarios: (a) Biden wins, and the Democrats take over the Senate (and keep the House); (b) Biden wins, but the Republicans keep the Senate; (c) Trump wins and the Republicans keep the Senate; and (d) Trump wins and the Democrats take over the Senate.
My initial thoughts on how to play this out under these scenarios:
Under scenario (a): Play the principled stance (i.e. take up the nomination and confirm if appropriate during the lame duck session). Then, in the afternoon of January 20, 2021, kill the filibuster and pass legislation increasing the size of the Supreme Court to 15 justices, and have Biden nominate 6 additional justices. (Also, give statehood to DC/PR/others, presuming they want it. I would just caution that PR may not be the solid blue state that a lot of people think it is, although I do believe it would lean that way.) Democrats get the best of both worlds: high ground as to taking a principled and Constitutionally correct stance, and a Supreme Court that reflects the actual populace.
Under scenario (b): Attempt to delay until after January 20, 2021. This will likely be unsuccessful, but hopefully playing Republican hypocrisy over the airwaves for 2 years (to the 60% of the country that would listen and hopefully be motivated to vote) until the 2022 midterms might help reclaim the Senate, particularly in what looks like a good map favoring Democrats. Presuming the Democrats take over the Senate in 2022, see legislation discussed above under scenario (a).
Under scenario (c): This is, obviously, the most concerning scenario. Realistically, the democracy as we know it would end, and I can only imagine how deeply Trump would destroy the country and tilt the playing field to the right. However, and assuming there is at least the potential to save the country, I believe playing the principled stance would probably make the most sense. It won't matter delaying, and at least Democrats would have a principled argument to make over the following 2 years with a look at taking over the Senate in 2022. Then hopefully Democrats would regain the trifecta in 2024 and could follow the legislative path discussed above under scenario (a).
Under scenario (d): This is highly unlikely to play out this way, but I think the principled stance makes the most sense. Going 4 years without a Ninth Justice would be a politically difficult posture to take. Similar to scenario (c), the goal here would be to retake the the trifecta in 2024. Then follow the legislative path discussed above under scenario (a).
Fourth: I think a cutesy play for the Republicans would be to nominate Garland. They could "rectify" their error from 2016, while reaping the benefits of keeping the Court conservative from 2016-2020, and then replacing RBG with a moderate Garland. Democrats would also be put in a bit of a bind on pushing for any delay. Of course, Trump would never nominate him, and if he did his base would go ballistic (perhaps both literally and figuratively), but it would provide the Republicans in the Senate some cover for the 2016 travesty.
Second: In principle, I would agree that Trump should nominate a replacement, and the Senate should go through the process of holding hearings and voting to confirm/deny. This is what the Constitution specifies. However, the Republicans have no principles and do not care what the Constitution says. This has been shown repeatedly, and, specifically as to this topic, was on full display in 2016 after Garland was nominated. Of course, we all knew then that the Republicans were full of ****. That being said, should we stand on our principles (i.e. regardless of what happened previously, the Constitutionally correct position would be to go through the nomination/confirmation process) or push the Republican argument re Garland (i.e. no appointments/confirmations during election season)?
Third: To the extent that Trump nominates a replacement (almost 100% certainty), and the Senate takes up the confirmation process (also an almost 100% certainty), I think it makes sense to fight like hell to delay the confirmation process until Election Day (or once the results from Election Day are known, which may take a few weeks/months). Perhaps there are also enough Republican Senators to assist with ensuring that the confirmation process does not end until after the results from the election are known. Then, there are four scenarios: (a) Biden wins, and the Democrats take over the Senate (and keep the House); (b) Biden wins, but the Republicans keep the Senate; (c) Trump wins and the Republicans keep the Senate; and (d) Trump wins and the Democrats take over the Senate.
My initial thoughts on how to play this out under these scenarios:
Under scenario (a): Play the principled stance (i.e. take up the nomination and confirm if appropriate during the lame duck session). Then, in the afternoon of January 20, 2021, kill the filibuster and pass legislation increasing the size of the Supreme Court to 15 justices, and have Biden nominate 6 additional justices. (Also, give statehood to DC/PR/others, presuming they want it. I would just caution that PR may not be the solid blue state that a lot of people think it is, although I do believe it would lean that way.) Democrats get the best of both worlds: high ground as to taking a principled and Constitutionally correct stance, and a Supreme Court that reflects the actual populace.
Under scenario (b): Attempt to delay until after January 20, 2021. This will likely be unsuccessful, but hopefully playing Republican hypocrisy over the airwaves for 2 years (to the 60% of the country that would listen and hopefully be motivated to vote) until the 2022 midterms might help reclaim the Senate, particularly in what looks like a good map favoring Democrats. Presuming the Democrats take over the Senate in 2022, see legislation discussed above under scenario (a).
Under scenario (c): This is, obviously, the most concerning scenario. Realistically, the democracy as we know it would end, and I can only imagine how deeply Trump would destroy the country and tilt the playing field to the right. However, and assuming there is at least the potential to save the country, I believe playing the principled stance would probably make the most sense. It won't matter delaying, and at least Democrats would have a principled argument to make over the following 2 years with a look at taking over the Senate in 2022. Then hopefully Democrats would regain the trifecta in 2024 and could follow the legislative path discussed above under scenario (a).
Under scenario (d): This is highly unlikely to play out this way, but I think the principled stance makes the most sense. Going 4 years without a Ninth Justice would be a politically difficult posture to take. Similar to scenario (c), the goal here would be to retake the the trifecta in 2024. Then follow the legislative path discussed above under scenario (a).
Fourth: I think a cutesy play for the Republicans would be to nominate Garland. They could "rectify" their error from 2016, while reaping the benefits of keeping the Court conservative from 2016-2020, and then replacing RBG with a moderate Garland. Democrats would also be put in a bit of a bind on pushing for any delay. Of course, Trump would never nominate him, and if he did his base would go ballistic (perhaps both literally and figuratively), but it would provide the Republicans in the Senate some cover for the 2016 travesty.
bronconick
Yep, still here
That would require Donald Trump to be subtle and canny.
bronconick
Yep, still here
Also, the Affordable Care Act is dead a week after the election. Even if Roberts upholds it, a 4-4 split means the 5th circuit ruling is upheld.
aparch
Well-known member
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
https://twitter.com/CollinsforGA/status/1307129730961936386
Sounds like something out of 2 Corinthians to me...
Doug Collins said:
Sounds like something out of 2 Corinthians to me...
aparch
Well-known member
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Effective consequence of outlawing abortion: more black voters.
(Overnight, GOP becomes pro-choice.)
(Overnight, GOP becomes pro-choice.)
Last edited:
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
https://twitter.com/brianschatz/status/1307132740467396608?s=21
“It is going to be very hard after the procedural violence that Mitch McConnell has inflicted on the Senate and the country for anyone to justify us playing it soft next year just to satisfy pundits. We must use the power that voters give us to deliver the change we are promising.”
sounds like this senator is absolutely all in on burning this shit to the ground. Good.
“It is going to be very hard after the procedural violence that Mitch McConnell has inflicted on the Senate and the country for anyone to justify us playing it soft next year just to satisfy pundits. We must use the power that voters give us to deliver the change we are promising.”
sounds like this senator is absolutely all in on burning this shit to the ground. Good.
Deutsche Gopher Fan
Registered User
Burn it to the ground and then piss on the ashes
- Status