What would Mitch do?

What would Mitch do?

  • Recognize that precedent requires that the decision be left to the next President.

    Votes: 1 1.4%

  • Realize that bringing a new justice to a vote at this time would be inappropriate.

    Votes: 1 1.4%

  • Understand that trying to push through a confirmation would make him look like a hypocrite.

    Votes: 3 4.2%

  • Ha, all the above are planet X! He'll push through a confirmation ASAP!

    Votes: 66 93.0%
  • Total voters
    71

Trebuchet

Penultimate Amazing
Trebuchet
Joined
Nov 20, 2003
Messages
42,586
Location
Port Townsend, Washington
Scenario:
It's mid-November 2020. Donald Trump has been defeated by a Democrat. The landslide extends to the Senate which will have a strong Democrat majority in early 2021.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg dies. Trump immediately nominates a replacement Supreme Court Justice. What will McConnell, still the Majority Leader of the lame-duck Senate, do?
 
Trebuchet said:
Scenario:
It's mid-November 2020. Donald Trump has been defeated by a Democrat. The landslide extends to the Senate which will have a strong Democrat majority in early 2021.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg dies. Trump immediately nominates a replacement Supreme Court Justice. What will McConnell, still the Majority Leader of the lame-duck Senate, do?
Click to expand...

I actually have money on option #5: Trump unilaterally decrees that RBG is unfit to serve and is given step by step instructions and scripting by the Heritage Foundation about how to nominate a replacement against her objections. Moscow Mitch and the Senate confirm him.

Objections go to the Supreme Court, who also agree that RBG is unfit, and they validate the new appointee without her vote.


ETA: note, there is no way the Senate will go Democratic in our lifetime.
 
Last edited:
blutoski said:
I actually have money on option #5: Trump unilaterally decrees that RBG is unfit to serve and is given step by step instructions and scripting by the Heritage Foundation about how to nominate a replacement against her objections. Moscow Mitch and the Senate confirm him.

Objections go to the Supreme Court, who also agree that RBG is unfit, and they validate the new appointee without her vote.


ETA: note, there is no way the Senate will go Democratic in our lifetime.
Click to expand...


What makes you so sure about the last?
 
blutoski said:
I actually have money on option #5: Trump unilaterally decrees that RBG is unfit to serve and is given step by step instructions and scripting by the Heritage Foundation about how to nominate a replacement against her objections. Moscow Mitch and the Senate confirm him.
Click to expand...

#5.1: Trump nominates himself as the replacement.



eta: I'm sticking with #4, just saying.
 
blutoski said:
I actually have money on option #5: Trump unilaterally decrees that RBG is unfit to serve and is given step by step instructions and scripting by the Heritage Foundation about how to nominate a replacement against her objections. Moscow Mitch and the Senate confirm him.

Objections go to the Supreme Court, who also agree that RBG is unfit, and they validate the new appointee without her vote.


ETA: note, there is no way the Senate will go Democratic in our lifetime.
Click to expand...
And he would be right, technically. Part of the premise is she died to create the vacancy.

But of course, I can see Trump actually behaving this way for realz.
 
blutoski said:
I actually have money on option #5: Trump unilaterally decrees that RBG is unfit to serve and is given step by step instructions and scripting by the Heritage Foundation about how to nominate a replacement against her objections. Moscow Mitch and the Senate confirm him.

Objections go to the Supreme Court, who also agree that RBG is unfit, and they validate the new appointee without her vote.
Click to expand...
Even I am not that pessimistic. Justices can only be removed through death, resignation, or impeachment. Nancy will still be the Speaker, so the latter isn't going to happen. And the far-right justices aren't about to establish a precedent under which they too could be removed.
ETA: note, there is no way the Senate will go Democratic in our lifetime.
Click to expand...
Again, even I am not that pessimistic. The funny thing about the Senate is that although it is constitutionally gerrymandered, it's much harder to do that intentionally.
Upchurch said:
#5.1: Trump nominates himself as the replacement.



eta: I'm sticking with #4, just saying.
Click to expand...

Damn, that's FAR too plausible. I can even imagine Pres Pence doing after he's impeached and removed.
 
I'm going with "Jump off the edge of the Grand Canyon headfirst for the good of the nation." Even better he should do it right now.
 
The point is that he's already declared proudly that he would do totally get them confirmed asap, so why expect anything else.
 
Were the last option in the poll happen, I have no doubt that the Democrats (now in full control of the House and the Senate) would move heaven and earth to impeach and remove Kavanagh for the lies he told during his confirmation hearings.

They could even open a DoJ investigation into the attempted rape allegation, and since there is no statute of limitations on sexual assault in the state where he assaulted CBF, he could still well be charged with a historical count of attempted sexual assault/rape. A criminal conviction would automatically disqualify him from the bench.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Were the last option in the poll happen, I have no doubt that the Democrats (now in full control of the House and the Senate) would move heaven and earth to impeach and remove Kavanagh for the lies he told during his confirmation hearings.

They could even open a DoJ investigation into the attempted rape allegation, and since there is no statute of limitations on sexual assault in the state where he assaulted CBF, he could still well be charged with a historical count of attempted sexual assault/rape. A criminal conviction would automatically disqualify him from the bench.
Click to expand...

Is that true? I always thought the only means for removal was impeachment and that the Constitution does not spell out any qualifications such as age, citizenship, or residency requirements. I believe we have had Justices that were foreign born in the past.
 
smartcooky said:
Were the last option in the poll happen, I have no doubt that the Democrats (now in full control of the House and the Senate) would move heaven and earth to impeach and remove Kavanagh for the lies he told during his confirmation hearings.

They could even open a DoJ investigation into the attempted rape allegation, and since there is no statute of limitations on sexual assault in the state where he assaulted CBF, he could still well be charged with a historical count of attempted sexual assault/rape. A criminal conviction would automatically disqualify him from the bench.
Click to expand...

Dr. Keith said:
Is that true? I always thought the only means for removal was impeachment and that the Constitution does not spell out any qualifications such as age, citizenship, or residency requirements. I believe we have had Justices that were foreign born in the past.
Click to expand...

No, I'm pretty sure it's not true. Even if it should be. And the ultimate arbiters of it would be his fellow Republicans on the court.
 
shemp said:
I'm going with "Jump off the edge of the Grand Canyon headfirst for the good of the nation." Even better he should do it right now.
Click to expand...

The Grand Canyon is a special, sacred place. It should not be polluted with the corpse of Mitch McConnell.

If he can find some other cliff to jump off, I'm all for it.
 
Upchurch said:
Mitch has already announced that Trump’s nominee will get a vote in the Senate.
Click to expand...

He announced it months ago. It's the "There were Epstein Didn't Kill Himself" memes before Epstein killed himself of politics.
 
'Trump nominates himself" is still far too plausible. There's no law against being President and chief Justice at the same time

What, you think he'd settle for being associate Justice ?
 
Trebuchet said:
'Trump nominates himself" is still far too plausible. There's no law against being President and chief Justice at the same time

What, you think he'd settle for being associate Justice ?
Click to expand...

What, you think he’d settle for Chief Justice?

He’d be the Super Duper Justice. (P.s. the title is inheritable (male primogeniture only))
Furthermore it would be the ice cream thing all over again - he’d want two votes to everyone else’s single vote.
 
How were your hearts and minds not already prepared for this eventuality? You've known for the last four years that RBG could pass at any moment, creating exactly this scenario. You hoped she'd hold out until the election, and that a Democrat would be elected to nominate her replacement. But you must have known that it could turn out this way instead.

Did you really think the makeup of the court was going to be set in stone in your lifetime, and you'd never experience another setback?
 
theprestige said:
How were your hearts and minds not already prepared for this eventuality? You've known for the last four years that RBG could pass at any moment, creating exactly this scenario. You hoped she'd hold out until the election, and that a Democrat would be elected to nominate her replacement. But you must have known that it could turn out this way instead.

Did you really think the makeup of the court was going to be set in stone in your lifetime, and you'd never experience another setback?
Click to expand...
No, RBG's death is not a surprise.
Neither is the total hypocrisy of your party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom