McConnell Says Trumps Nominee Will Get A Vote On The Floor

[Kathianne]

Just heard on Tucker. I wish everyone would have given this a day or so.

[LongTermGuy]

McConnell says Trump’s court pick will get Senate vote despite Ginsburg’s dying wish...



https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1307117133013364736/ohju7Z9e?format=jpg&name=900x900

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/18/reaction-ruth-bader-ginsburg-death/



**America needs a full Supreme Court so that the election outcome is not a 4-4 decision if it comes to a decision
For the good of the country, the President must make a nomination and the Senate must confirm!!

(https://t.co/0ZqKeLYtEH?amp=1)

[Kathianne]

To do this is going to be a lot of arm twisting and not sure it will change minds:

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2020/09/18/breaking-rip-ruth-bader-ginsburg/



...

The big question will be whether the Senate will confirm a Trump appointee after the election if he loses to Biden. Would Mitch McConnell escalate the judiciary wars with that kind of maneuver? I’d guess that he’d try, but don’t expect all 53 Republican senators to go along. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski would absolutely balk, which means McConnell would have only one more vote to lose. The meltdown that would follow would likely cow more than one other Republican to quail at the prospect, especially in the class that has to defend their seats in 2022. The most likely outcome is that either Trump wins or Biden gets to choose.


Update: Murkowski’s already out in front of this


NEW: Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) announces she will NOT vote to replace RBG on SCOTUS until after Election Day. "Fair is fair," she says.


— Brian Tyler Cohen (@briantylercohen) September 18, 2020


As I wrote, there’s really not enough time on the legislative calendar for that. The big question really is whether Republicans would confirm a SCOTUS appointment from a president who lost an election in a lame-duck session. All the talk about precedents will get a big test over the next few weeks — unless voters moot it in the election.


Update: It didn’t take long for Collins to stake out the same position, and also add that she’s opposed to a lame-duck confirmation too:




I’d guess we’ll hear from Cory Gardner and Martha McSally sometime soon, too. They’re going to get asked — repeatedly.


Update: That’s probably an end to the before-the-election question:




Again, none of this stops Trump from nominating a replacement. But whoever it is should be prepared for a s***storm of personal attacks over the next few weeks. That’s something Trump and his team should keep in mind while calculating their next moves.


Update; More of an aside, actually, from friends on Twitter. Does anyone expect Mitt Romney to go for a pre-election vote? Naah. McConnell doesn’t have a prayer of moving forward before Election Day.


Update: Let’s chalk this up to sunny optimism:




We’ll see, but I wouldn’t count on it before Election Day. However, this could be taken to apply to a lame-duck appointment, too.


Update: This one’s a bit of a surprise:




Maybe she figures that the MAGA vote in Arizona is more important than the centrist-crossover vote. She may be right, too. Not sure the calculus will be the same in bluer Colorado for Gardner, though,

[Black Diamond]

Just heard on Tucker. I wish everyone would have given this a day or so.

Agreed. Could have honored the justice for the weekend and started with the political stuff on Monday.

[Kathianne]

Agreed. Could have honored the justice for the weekend and started with the political stuff on Monday.

Yep, though Ted Cruz explains why the actions of the Democrats make it imperative that a new justice needs to be in place prior to election:

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/09/18/ted-cruz-explains-perfectly-why-rbgs-seat-must-be-filled-before-the-election-n944445


Ted Cruz Explains Perfectly Why RBG's Seat Must Be Filled Before the Election
BY MATT MARGOLIS SEP 18, 2020 10:47 PM EST

Republican Senator Ted Cruz says President Donald Trump needs to nominate a successor Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg next week, and that the Senate should confirm that choice or the country risks a constitutional crisis.




“I believe that the president should, next week, nominate a successor to the court. I think it is critical that the Senate takes up and confirms that successor before Election Day,” Senator Cruz told Sean Hannity on Fox News.


“Democrats and Joe Biden have made clear they intend to challenge this election. They intend to fight the legitimacy of the election. As you you know Hillary Clinton has told Joe Biden ‘under no circumstances should you concede, you should challenge this election.’ and we cannot have election day come and go with a 4-4 court.”


Cruz continued, “A 4-4 court that is equally divided cannot decide anything. And I think we risk a constitutional crisis if we do not have a nine-justice Supreme Court, particularly when there is such a risk of … a contested election.”


Cruz then shared his experience litigating Bush vs. Gore case and how the country didn’t know for 37 days who the president-elect was. “I think we have the responsibility to do our job. The president should nominate a principled constitutionalist with a proven record and the Senate … should do our job and protect the country from the constitutional crisis that could result otherwise.”






_____

[jimnyc]

I have mixed emotion about all of this. Agreed, shame it couldn't have waited til Monday and give people a proper chance to grieve and show respect. But considering the timing, it doesn't surprise me, and both sides went directly to the choice instead of waiting.

One one side I know what the Democrats would do in this position or what they would try. And if they had the senate lead and it was 3 days before the election, Garland would be a justice right now. I know they would find crap or make it up no matter the nominee, and no matter the timing.

But the Republicans just forced a wait til the election on Garland as Obama's choice, and it will be hypocritical if they now do the opposite. The Democrats lie and are hypocrites daily, so part of me won't feel bad about it, but the other part of me knows the truth and the right thing to do.

The Republicans do have the majority they need already but I don't think they'll carry the votes if they put it to the floor. But if they can gather them up and change minds? Push it through then. And why do I say that? Eastwood's empty chair may get voted in along with an unknown true leader, and they will keep the house and maybe take the senate. If so, then having that extra justice will perhaps help some day.

So underneath I do know what the right thing to do here is & a part of me thinks that happens anyway. But if they should be able to push their nominee through, I'm not going to feel too awfully bad about it.

[jimnyc]

From Trump and McConnell. But doesn't matter what either says if they don't have the votes.

--

Trump Promises To Nominate A New Supreme Court Justice ‘Without Delay’

President Donald Trump promised Saturday to nominate a new Supreme Court justice “without delay.”

“We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us, the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices,” the president tweeted Saturday morning, tagging the Republican Party in his tweet.

“We have this obligation, without delay,” he added.

https://i.imgur.com/QyEBsOw.png

Rest - https://dailycaller.com/2020/09/19/trump-supreme-court-ruth-bader-gingsburg-scotus/


‘Keep Your Powder Dry’: McConnell Tells GOP Senators To Be Cautious About Taking A Position On SCOTUS Nomination

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell urged GOP senators in a letter Friday night to “keep your powder dry” as they decide whether to proceed with a potential nominee from President Donald Trump to fill the seat of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Of the 53 Republicans in the Senate, McConnell could only lose four, and both Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski and Maine’s Susan Collins have indicated that they wouldn’t vote on a potential SCOTUS pick so close to an election. Iowa’s Chuck Grassley and South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham have expressed similar sentiments in the past, but have not weighed in yet since Ginsburg’s death.

“Over the coming days, we are all going to come under tremendous pressure from the press to announce how we will handle the coming nomination,” McConnell wrote in the letter. “For those of you who are unsure how to answer, or for those inclined to oppose giving a nominee a vote, I urge you all to keep your powder dry.” He urged them not to “lock yourselves into a position you may later regret.”

Rest - https://dailycaller.com/2020/09/19/mitch-mcconnell-powder-dry-ruth-bader-ginsburg-supreme-court/

[jimnyc]

An angle I didn't think of. What if this election ends up contested, which it sounds like the Dems have already begun. Biden wins, all good by them. If Trump wins by less than 5 million votes, they'll contest and it'll end up in the SC again if they get their chance.

Now ask yourself how low won't democrats go? What won't they lie about? What lengths are they willing to go to steal an election? And what lengths for even years after an election. They have proven themselves already in all those departments.

So yes, it's quite possible it may boil down to the SC to handle several things.

---

Replacing Justice Ginsberg Must Happen Immediately — It Will Prevent Democrats from Stealing the 2020 Election

The news of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s death came tonight. The liberal justice was appointed by Clinton and has served for nearly three decades. Already the discussion begins about when she should be replaced.

The Supreme Court Justice died Friday evening surrounded by family at her home.

https://i.imgur.com/wvaAYxq.png
https://i.imgur.com/tojB3uO.png

What this now means is that the judge will be praised for her service and then given a burial. Then President Trump and the Republican-led Senate will begin the process to fill the untimely vacancy to the nation’s highest court.

This is very tragic but we have to remember that the country must move on. Also, with the Democrats changing the rules of the election in so many states, there are likely to be some very important cases that reach the Supreme Court.

For example, just this past week the following occurred related to the US census:


A rare three-judge district court panel unanimously decided on Thursday that President Donald Trump’s attempt to exclude undocumented immigrants from the U.S. Census-based redistricting process is “unlawful.”

The court ruled that while there is “no dispute that the President has ‘accustomed supervisory powers over his executive officers’” and “thus retains some discretion in the conduct of the decennial census and resulting apportionment calculation,” President Trump did not act “within the boundaries” of the “authority that Congress has granted.”

But as Law and Crime reports:


The quirky three-judge district court designation means that a direct appeal to the conservative majority Supreme Court is in play. It’s anyone’s guess as to how the high court would rule, but it’s worth noting that SCOTUS has thrown a high-profile wrench into the Trump administration’s census policy goals in the past.

The loss of Ginsburg results in the current makeup of the Supreme Court being 5 – 3 (originalists to progressives). However, Chief Justice Roberts is a total wild card in the way he now votes. So this makes the current makeup of the court in reality 4 – 4. When cases come to the court and the court rules in a tie, the lower court opinion is what becomes the law.

With this election there are already expected Democrat actions to steal the election through voter fraud and other yet unknown tactics. With the Democrats attempting to steal this election, the make up of the court is very important. An additional justice who rules based on the law will prevent Democrats from stealing this election through unconstitutional and corrupt actions.

It’s time to get the Supreme Court back to interpreting the law and not making the law.

This is why the now vacant Supreme Court Justice position should be replaced as soon as possible.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/09/replacing-justice-ginsberg-must-happen-immediately-will-prevent-democrats-stealing-2020-election/

[Kathianne]

An angle I didn't think of. What if this election ends up contested, which it sounds like the Dems have already begun. Biden wins, all good by them. If Trump wins by less than 5 million votes, they'll contest and it'll end up in the SC again if they get their chance.

Now ask yourself how low won't democrats go? What won't they lie about? What lengths are they willing to go to steal an election? And what lengths for even years after an election. They have proven themselves already in all those departments.

So yes, it's quite possible it may boil down to the SC to handle several things.

---

Replacing Justice Ginsberg Must Happen Immediately — It Will Prevent Democrats from Stealing the 2020 Election

The news of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s death came tonight. The liberal justice was appointed by Clinton and has served for nearly three decades. Already the discussion begins about when she should be replaced.

The Supreme Court Justice died Friday evening surrounded by family at her home.

https://i.imgur.com/wvaAYxq.png
https://i.imgur.com/tojB3uO.png

What this now means is that the judge will be praised for her service and then given a burial. Then President Trump and the Republican-led Senate will begin the process to fill the untimely vacancy to the nation’s highest court.

This is very tragic but we have to remember that the country must move on. Also, with the Democrats changing the rules of the election in so many states, there are likely to be some very important cases that reach the Supreme Court.

For example, just this past week the following occurred related to the US census:



But as Law and Crime reports:



The loss of Ginsburg results in the current makeup of the Supreme Court being 5 – 3 (originalists to progressives). However, Chief Justice Roberts is a total wild card in the way he now votes. So this makes the current makeup of the court in reality 4 – 4. When cases come to the court and the court rules in a tie, the lower court opinion is what becomes the law.

With this election there are already expected Democrat actions to steal the election through voter fraud and other yet unknown tactics. With the Democrats attempting to steal this election, the make up of the court is very important. An additional justice who rules based on the law will prevent Democrats from stealing this election through unconstitutional and corrupt actions.

It’s time to get the Supreme Court back to interpreting the law and not making the law.

This is why the now vacant Supreme Court Justice position should be replaced as soon as possible.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/09/replacing-justice-ginsberg-must-happen-immediately-will-prevent-democrats-stealing-2020-election/

Yep, why I posted what Cruz said: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?71063-McConnell-Says-Trumps-Nominee-Will-Get-A-Vote-On-The-Floor&p=969721#post969721

[Black Diamond]

Murkowski Collins and Willard.

[Black Diamond]

I have mixed emotion about all of this. Agreed, shame it couldn't have waited til Monday and give people a proper chance to grieve and show respect. But considering the timing, it doesn't surprise me, and both sides went directly to the choice instead of waiting.

One one side I know what the Democrats would do in this position or what they would try. And if they had the senate lead and it was 3 days before the election, Garland would be a justice right now. I know they would find crap or make it up no matter the nominee, and no matter the timing.

But the Republicans just forced a wait til the election on Garland as Obama's choice, and it will be hypocritical if they now do the opposite. The Democrats lie and are hypocrites daily, so part of me won't feel bad about it, but the other part of me knows the truth and the right thing to do.

The Republicans do have the majority they need already but I don't think they'll carry the votes if they put it to the floor. But if they can gather them up and change minds? Push it through then. And why do I say that? Eastwood's empty chair may get voted in along with an unknown true leader, and they will keep the house and maybe take the senate. If so, then having that extra justice will perhaps help some day.

So underneath I do know what the right thing to do here is & a part of me thinks that happens anyway. But if they should be able to push their nominee through, I'm not going to feel too awfully bad about it.

What do you think would have happened if mitch had given garland a vote?

[Black Diamond]

Yep, though Ted Cruz explains why the actions of the Democrats make it imperative that a new justice needs to be in place prior to election:

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/09/18/ted-cruz-explains-perfectly-why-rbgs-seat-must-be-filled-before-the-election-n944445







_____

Some folks want ted Cruz himself to fill the seat. But all the chatter i hear is it has to be a woman and will probably be Barrett.

[jimnyc]

What do you think would have happened if mitch had given garland a vote?

Yeah, that's what I mean, the Democrats wouldn't hesitate a single second if they could. They will attempt to stop any Trump nominee, whether the day after the election, 2 years after an election or a few months only away before election. And whether the nominee is loaded with scandals or squeaky clean, they're going to find things or just make it up.

2 wrongs don't make a right. Doing the right thing should be all that matters. They will be hypocrites if they go through with it. That's what makes it tough to explain due to my own values. -- But if there's ever a time to do so, this would be it.

[Kathianne]

Yeah, that's what I mean, the Democrats wouldn't hesitate a single second if they could. They will attempt to stop any Trump nominee, whether the day after the election, 2 years after an election or a few months only away before election. And whether the nominee is loaded with scandals or squeaky clean, they're going to find things or just make it up.

2 wrongs don't make a right. Doing the right thing should be all that matters. They will be hypocrites if they go through with it. That's what makes it tough to explain due to my own values. -- But if there's ever a time to do so, this would be it.
I keep saying, 'what goes around, comes around.' Both sides: Bork, Garland, Reid's choosing nuclear option. Now here we are. Let's not even get into personalities, where some Senate Republicans appear to want Trump to lose. Kicking people at times may feel good, if only we didn't need them down the road. . .

[Kathianne]

Some folks want ted Cruz himself to fill the seat. But all the chatter i hear is it has to be a woman and will probably be Barrett.
Cruz said, 'No thanks.' He's not done.

[jimnyc]

Oh brother, idiot extraordinaire injects her political expertise.

--

AOC Sounds the Alarm in Wake of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Death: ‘November’s About Survival’

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) offered some words of advice to concerned progressives Friday following the news of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, stressing that a vote for Joe Biden is “not about whether you agree with him,” but about allowing democracy to “live another day”–because “November’s about survival.”

The freshman lawmaker took to Instagram after the news of Ginsburg’s passing and begged viewers to check their voter registration, all while she pitched why the upcoming election is so important.

“I understand why people say, ‘I don’t vote. What’s the point?’ I really empathize with it. I’m not here to dismiss you. I’m not here to pooh-pooh you. I’m not here to say you’re wrong or that you’re a bad person,” she said, proclaiming that voting is no longer about agreeing with Joe Biden (D) personally.

“What I’m here to say is that this year, this election voting for someone — voting for Joe Biden is not about whether you agree with him. It’s a vote to let our democracy live another day,” she warned. “That’s what this is about”:

https://i.imgur.com/rxRTwpq.png
https://i.imgur.com/muwhF8N.png

Ocasio-Cortez said progressives must “act in solidarity” for the “most vulnerable” people who “have already experienced the violent repercussions of this administration”:


And the reason we need to do that is because, yes, the political middle is willing to sacrifice immigrants. The political middle, too often, is willing to play both sides when someone dies to police violence. Absolutely. That’s why we need to show up. We need to show up because if we don’t show up, those people don’t get protected. Our trans brothers and sisters will not be protected. Our immigrant brothers and sisters will not be protected. Our brothers and sisters who are not making a living wage that are working at McDonald’s and that they aren’t being paid a living wage or they’re working at Amazon and they’re being forced to work in unsafe conditions…we got to show up for them. That’s what we need to show up for.

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/19/aoc-sounds-alarm-wake-ruth-bader-ginsburgs-death-novembers-survival/

[jimnyc]

RBG herself on nominees in an election year. She did tell her granddaughter that her wish was to wait until after the election. But a time not long ago at all, she spoke otherwise:

RBG Said Presidents Should Name Supreme Court Justices in an Election Year

As the debate over what to do about the vacancy on the Supreme Court is only getting started, perhaps we should heed the advice of the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself as to what to do.

When a similar scenario occurred four years ago, following the death of Antonin Scalia, the Republican-controlled Senate blocked Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. It was a controversial move, and Ginsburg had something to say about it: Ginsburg publicly called on the Senate to go through with the nomination.

“That’s their job,” she said in July 2016. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year.”

“Eight is not a good number for a collegial body that sometimes disagrees,” Ginsburg said on the issue a few months later during an event at the Smithsonian Museum of American History in Washington.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was with her, agreed. “I think we hope there will be nine as quickly as possible.”

“What we do is we automatically affirm the decision of the court below. No opinion is written, no reasons are given, and the affirmance has no precedential value,” Ginsburg explained. “It’s just as though we denied review.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) made the same argument was made Friday night, though he added that since the 2020 election results are expected to be contested, an eight-member Court poses a potential constitutional crisis.

“Democrats and Joe Biden have made clear they intend to challenge this election. They intend to fight the legitimacy of the election. As you know, Hillary Clinton has told Joe Biden ‘under no circumstances should you concede, you should challenge this election.’ And we cannot have Election Day come and go with a 4-4 Court,” Cruz told Sean Hannity on Friday. “A 4-4 Court that is equally divided cannot decide anything. And I think we risk a constitutional crisis if we do not have a nine-justice Supreme Court, particularly when there is such a risk of … a contested election.”

Unfortunately for the Left, their revered Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made the case for Trump to nominate, and for the Senate to confirm, her own replacement back in 2016. You can point to the words of politicians who adjust their views to accommodate their desired political ends, and great, there’s plenty of that to go around on both sides, but are the same people mourning the loss of Ruth Bader Ginsburg going to say that she was wrong?

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/09/19/ruth-bader-ginsburg-made-the-case-for-filling-her-vacancy-before-the-election-back-in-2016-n944778

[Black Diamond]

Cruz said, 'No thanks.' He's not done.

Well that's disappointing in a way.

[Black Diamond]

RBG herself on nominees in an election year. She did tell her granddaughter that her wish was to wait until after the election. But a time not long ago at all, she spoke otherwise:

RBG Said Presidents Should Name Supreme Court Justices in an Election Year

As the debate over what to do about the vacancy on the Supreme Court is only getting started, perhaps we should heed the advice of the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself as to what to do.

When a similar scenario occurred four years ago, following the death of Antonin Scalia, the Republican-controlled Senate blocked Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. It was a controversial move, and Ginsburg had something to say about it: Ginsburg publicly called on the Senate to go through with the nomination.

“That’s their job,” she said in July 2016. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year.”

“Eight is not a good number for a collegial body that sometimes disagrees,” Ginsburg said on the issue a few months later during an event at the Smithsonian Museum of American History in Washington.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was with her, agreed. “I think we hope there will be nine as quickly as possible.”

“What we do is we automatically affirm the decision of the court below. No opinion is written, no reasons are given, and the affirmance has no precedential value,” Ginsburg explained. “It’s just as though we denied review.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) made the same argument was made Friday night, though he added that since the 2020 election results are expected to be contested, an eight-member Court poses a potential constitutional crisis.

“Democrats and Joe Biden have made clear they intend to challenge this election. They intend to fight the legitimacy of the election. As you know, Hillary Clinton has told Joe Biden ‘under no circumstances should you concede, you should challenge this election.’ And we cannot have Election Day come and go with a 4-4 Court,” Cruz told Sean Hannity on Friday. “A 4-4 Court that is equally divided cannot decide anything. And I think we risk a constitutional crisis if we do not have a nine-justice Supreme Court, particularly when there is such a risk of … a contested election.”

Unfortunately for the Left, their revered Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made the case for Trump to nominate, and for the Senate to confirm, her own replacement back in 2016. You can point to the words of politicians who adjust their views to accommodate their desired political ends, and great, there’s plenty of that to go around on both sides, but are the same people mourning the loss of Ruth Bader Ginsburg going to say that she was wrong?

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/09/19/ruth-bader-ginsburg-made-the-case-for-filling-her-vacancy-before-the-election-back-in-2016-n944778

They will all change their minds given it's Barrett and not garland.