Sudden Supreme Court vacancy a new 'wild card' in U.S. presidential race

[rooster59]

Sudden Supreme Court vacancy a new 'wild card' in U.S. presidential race

By Simon Lewis and James Oliphant

 

A woman waves a "Vote" sign as people gather outside of the U.S. Supreme Court following the death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in Washington, U.S., September 18, 2020. REUTERS/Al Drago

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has injected a volatile new element into the last stretch of a turbulent U.S. presidential race, potentially shifting the focus away from the coronavirus pandemic and the stagnant economy into a political battle over her successor.

 

The sudden vacancy on the nation's high court means the November election has become much more than a battle between President Donald Trump and his Democratic opponent Joe Biden for the White House and control of Congress, political strategists say.

 

Now, they say, it is an existential fight over civil rights, abortion, immigration, and the future of healthcare for millions of Americans that will further galvanize voters and activists in both parties in a contest that had already reached a fever pitch.

 

"This interjects a real wild card into the race," said Jim Manley, a former aide to Senator Harry Reid when he was the Democratic leader of the Senate.

 

The death of Ginsburg, a fierce advocate for women's rights and the court's leading liberal voice, gives Trump a chance to expand its conservative majority with a third appointment at a time of deep divisions in America and fewer than 50 days before the election. Trump said on Saturday that he would move to nominate a successor "without delay."

 

The coming tumult over that nominee could bolster Trump's efforts to shift the election away from his much criticized handling of the coronavirus pandemic and the moribund economy, experts say. At the same time, it likely will energize both Trump's conservative and evangelical base who oppose abortion, as well as Democrats fearful of a true shift in the balance of power on the high court.

 

"This is going to set off a titanic battle. This could seriously affect the election," said David Gergen, a political adviser who has served four U.S. presidents, both Republican and Democratic.

 

Democrats donated more than $60 million in the 19 hours between 9 p.m. on Friday, soon after Ginsburg's death was announced, and 4 p.m. on Saturday, according to the live donation tracker on the website ActBlue, a staggering figure that reflected how her passing has galvanized the left.

 

The ticker on the home page of ActBlue, the main Democratic online fundraising platform, continued to show thousands of dollars coming in every second on Saturday afternoon. ActBlue's Republican counterpart, WinRed, does not have a live tracker.

 

Trump, seeking re-election amid the triple whammies of the public health crisis, economic crisis and turmoil over racial injustice, already has appointed two conservatives to lifetime posts on the court, Neil Gorsuch in 2017 and Brett Kavanaugh in 2018.

 

Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Friday he intends to act on any nomination Trump makes, while Democrats immediately called for the seat to be kept vacant until after Jan. 20, when the winner of the Nov. 3 election will be sworn in.

 

McConnell's pledge likely will put several Republican senators who face tough re-election battles of their own, such as Maine's Susan Collins and Iowa's Joni Ernst, in a serious bind as they will be lobbied heavily on all sides to either approve or block efforts to push the nomination forward.

 

"Writ large, this is going to get ugly real quick," Manley said. "There's a real potential for some collateral damage among the Senate Republicans. The last thing some of these folks want to do is support a Trump nominee for Supreme Court."

 

Trump has been trailing Biden in opinion polls for months, as Democrats have sought to make the election a referendum on Trump and in particular his response to the pandemic.

 

"Biggest impact is that it creates a new area of focus for both sides. Any week Donald Trump doesn’t have to talk about coronavirus is a net positive for him," said Joel Payne, a Democratic strategist who worked for 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

 

"Historically, Republicans vote on the court. I think some Republicans will see this as the October surprise to gin up excitement in their base," Payne said. "(But) I think progressives understand the stakes in this election better than they ever have."

 

'A TURNING POINT'

 

Trump had already sought to capitalize on right-wing enthusiasm for his judicial nominees, by adding 20 names to his list of people he would consider nominating to the Supreme Court on Sept. 9.

 

The Susan B. Anthony List, a leading anti-abortion group, said the opportunity for Republicans to fill the seat was "a turning point for the nation in the fight to protect its most vulnerable, the unborn."

 

Biden has not released a list of potential Supreme Court picks but has pledged to nominate a Black woman if a seat becomes available while he is president. At times, Biden has struggled to generate enthusiasm among progressives and young voters about his candidacy, but the court fight could alter that.

 

Biden's running mate, Senator Kamala Harris, could play a major role in the drama. Harris is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which would question and ultimately vote to approve a nominee before any Senate floor action.

 

Harris and her husband Douglas Emhoff walked to the Supreme Court on Saturday morning to pay tribute to Ginsburg, a Biden campaign aide said.

 

Katon Dawson, a Republican consultant and a former chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party, said the development could help Trump with moderate Republicans who may not like him but are aligned with him on policy.

 

"This solidifies those votes for him." Dawson said.

 

But an attempt to rush the nomination just before the election could backfire on Republicans, especially vulnerable Senators, he added.

 

The threat of losing abortion rights could also exacerbate Trump's struggles with women voters, said Andrew Feldman, a strategist who works on progressive issues.

 

"When you ask these suburban women to think about the issue of choice, I will take our side of that argument every day," he said.

 

(Reporting by Simon Lewis, Tim Reid, James Oliphant, Joseph Ax, John Whitesides and Trevor Hunnicutt; Editing by Soyoung Kim and Daniel Wallis)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-09-20

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

 

 

[Cryingdick]

If Trump gets the nominee through and loses afterwards, it's still a huge win. I am not saying that will be the outcome as we all know this election will be won by lawyers. However if he lost and the GOP holds the senate it would still be acceptable. 

 

Should the dems win they will have the most divided country ever. Biden isn't going to simply step in and unify the country as if we stepped in a puddle and our pants have dried. I don't think people overseas (Americans or otherwise) realize how  great deal of anger welling up on the other side now and it won't be silly games of burning our own neighborhoods down. 

 

In that way Biden will never be the president of the USA. Trump was rejected by the left and the response to Biden is bound to be more severe.

 

[Mama Noodle]

Fill the seat. Republicans owe the Democrats absolutely nothing. Less than nothing in fact. Let them make threats of violence and unrest. Let them create a dog and pony show of it. Let then make threats of adding more judges. 
 

Fill it and let them meltdown, because they’d do the same thing if given half a chance. 

[Cryingdick]

Just now, Mama Noodle said:

Fill the seat. Republicans owe the Democrats absolutely nothing. Less than nothing in fact. Let them make threats of violence and unrest. Let them create a dog and pony show of it. Let then make threats of adding more judges. 
 

Fill it and let them meltdown, because they’d do the same thing if given half a chance. 

 

Exactly for them to expect unwritten rules to be followed or any common courtesy at this point is laughable. 

[simple1]

10 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

If Trump gets the nominee through and loses afterwards, it's still a huge win. I am not saying that will be the outcome as we all know this election will be won by lawyers. However if he lost and the GOP holds the senate it would still be acceptable. 

 

Should the dems win they will have the most divided country ever. Biden isn't going to simply step in and unify the country as if we stepped in a puddle and our pants have dried. I don't think people overseas (Americans or otherwise) realize how  great deal of anger welling up on the other side now and it won't be silly games of burning our own neighborhoods down. 

 

In that way Biden will never be the president of the USA. Trump was rejected by the left and the response to Biden is bound to be more severe.

 

Sounds like a threat from the Hard Right

[TopDeadSenter]

IMO the female candidate is the best. This is only because I remember vividly the depraved smears and disgraceful hounding of poor justice Kavanaugh by the democrats. I suspect they will again conjure up similar allegations to attack any male candidate, so considering the short timescale it makes sense to with the lady. 

 6-3, Trump's legacy. I hope.

[Matzzon]

8 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

If Trump gets the nominee through and loses afterwards, it's still a huge win. I am not saying that will be the outcome as we all know this election will be won by lawyers. However if he lost and the GOP holds the senate it would still be acceptable. 

 

Should the dems win they will have the most divided country ever. Biden isn't going to simply step in and unify the country as if we stepped in a puddle and our pants have dried. I don't think people overseas (Americans or otherwise) realize how  great deal of anger welling up on the other side now and it won't be silly games of burning our own neighborhoods down. 

 

In that way Biden will never be the president of the USA. Trump was rejected by the left and the response to Biden is bound to be more severe.

 

Why would you believe that anyone thinks Biden will unify the US in such a small amount of time? Has anyone tried to tell you that? The devastation that Trump leaves after his 4only 4 years is severe, and will take years to repair both in confidence and economy as well as in all other areas. Also maybe Biden can´t unify the country to the point you are aiming for. However, I can assure you that he will do a hell of a better work than Trump.

Anyway, back to Ginsburg and that so many are focusing on her and that she died. Let´s say like this, Only in USA!!!! Amazing US! How come there is a storm because an 87 year old lady has died? How can she die on her post? She was supposed to be retired and replaced many years ago. Why is that a problem today? The virus ain´t enough?

[LomSak27]

Just now, Mama Noodle said:

Fill it and let them meltdown, because they’d do the same thing if given half a chance. 

Uh oh did you have a meltdown and forget Merrick Garland in 2016? The Republicans did an 11 month blockade to prevent them from being on the Supreme Court.

This is how how Republicans do things. Easy to forget when the shoe is on the other foot, but that is the hypocritical nature conservative Republicans are known for.

 

Just now, Cryingdick said:

Exactly for them to expect unwritten rules to be followed or any common courtesy at this point is laughable. 

Republicans broke the unwritten rules and you/they blame that on dems,    hah,  one should expect no less from the modern Republican party.

[Cryingdick]

Just now, Matzzon said:

Why would you believe that anyone thinks Biden will unify the US in such a small amount of time? Has anyone tried to tell you that? The devastation that Trump leaves after his 4only 4 years is severe, and will take years to repair both in confidence and economy as well as in all other areas. Also maybe Biden can´t unify the country to the point you are aiming for. However, I can assure you that he will do a hell of a better work than Trump.

Anyway, back to Ginsburg and that so many are focusing on her and that she died. Let´s say like this, Only in USA!!!! Amazing US! How come there is a storm because an 87 year old lady has died? How can she die on her post? She was supposed to be retired and replaced many years ago. Why is that a problem today? The virus ain´t enough?

 

Biden and the dems say they will unify the country once again. That won't happen no matter what. This thread is more about the impact on the election than it is about RBG dying. She should have retired long ago. But she didn't and now the worst fears of the dems have been realized. Just a dumb move in the line of many moronic tactical errors on the dem side of the aisle.

[Cryingdick]

1 minute ago, LomSak27 said:

Uh oh did you have a meltdown and forget Merrick Garland in 2016? The Republicans did an 11 month blockade to prevent them from being on the Supreme Court.

This is how how Republicans do things. Easy to forget when the shoe is on the other foot, but that is the hypocritical nature conservative Republicans are known for.

 

Republicans broke the unwritten rules and you/they blame that on dems,    hah,  one should expect no less from the modern Republican party.

 

It would be wise not to expect anything if winning is important.

[simple1]

11 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Exactly for them to expect unwritten rules to be followed or any common courtesy at this point is laughable. 

Potential scenario created by trump and his enablers, which as usual he and supporters take zero responsibility - denial by the trump world is laughable

[Tug]

13 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

Fill the seat. Republicans owe the Democrats absolutely nothing. Less than nothing in fact. Let them make threats of violence and unrest. Let them create a dog and pony show of it. Let then make threats of adding more judges. 
 

Fill it and let them meltdown, because they’d do the same thing if given half a chance. 

Ahhhh you do rember 2015 don’t you??the republicans refused to even take a vote almost a year before the election so......no...... they are just breaking their word what did you expect honoring their word lol anyway I think the lady’s aren’t going to tolerate this well I expect it will show in the. Next round of polls and lots and lots of republicans will be out on there rear ends besst get to waxing York surf board there’s a big blue wave a coming 

[Scott]

Baiting, bickering and troll posts along with replies removed.  Continue and suspensions will be given.  

 

[Scott]

Troll post removed. 

 

[OneMoreFarang]

I hope a new supreme court judge will be confirmed before the election.

And obviously that will be a very conservative person.

But what is the alternative? The alternative is that people will vote again for Trump even if they don't like him personally just to make sure they get a conservative judge. So I hope for the lesser evil. Get it over with.

[mikebike]

1 hour ago, Cryingdick said:

If Trump gets the nominee through and loses afterwards, it's still a huge win.

Not really. If Dems win potus and senate they will just expand the court to 11 or 13 justices.

 

See your rushed appointment and raise you a larger court...

[Matzzon]

1 hour ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Biden and the dems say they will unify the country once again. That won't happen no matter what. This thread is more about the impact on the election than it is about RBG dying. She should have retired long ago. But she didn't and now the worst fears of the dems have been realized. Just a dumb move in the line of many moronic tactical errors on the dem side of the aisle.

You will see that dumb thing you´re mentioning when the repz are walking out of office. 

[Mama Noodle]

1 minute ago, mikebike said:

Not really. If Dems win potus and senate they will just expand the court to 11 or 13 justices.

 

See your rushed appointment and raise you a larger court...

 

And when the right wins again, they will either remove them or add more of their own. 

 

Rinse and repeat. 

 

Bottom line, Trump is president, Republicans hold the Senate, and by every available law or rule they have every right to fill the seat. 

[Cryingdick]

Just now, mikebike said:

Not really. If Dems win potus and senate they will just expand the court to 11 or 13 justices.

 

See your rushed appointment and raise you a larger court...

 

If you are going to use poker analogies at least get them right. You can't see and raise that's an illegal bet. You simply raise. To see is technically a flat call and to raise is a completely separate bet. You can not call and raise in one in the sequence of the official rules. It would be considered angle shooting to see a reaction before you finally raise.  So don't lecture me about what is possible when you seem to have a hard time understanding basic rules.

 

Anyway you are assuming the dems gain the senate and can simply appoint whoever they want at will. If that was the case Obama would have not left a vacant seat. I am not sure what would be involved to change the law to load the court. If it's that easy both sides will do it until we have more judges than people 

 

 

[mikebike]

2 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

And when the right wins again, they will either remove them or add more of their own. 

 

Rinse and repeat. 

Oh, OK... you do agree it is not the "huge win" you declared in your fist post.

 

Why do you even bother? Is it joy of self-adulation?

[Fat is a type of crazy]

2 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

If you are going to use poker analogies at least get them right. You can't see and raise that's an illegal bet. You simply raise. To see is technically a flat call and to raise is a completely separate bet. You can not call and raise in one in the sequence of the official rules. It would be considered angle shooting to see a reaction before you finally raise.  So don't lecture me about what is possible when you seem to have a hard time understanding basic rules.

 

Anyway you are assuming the dems gain the senate and can simply appoint whoever they want at will. If that was the case Obama would have not left a vacant seat. I am not sure what would be involved to change the law to load the court. If it's that easy both sides will do it until we have more judges than people 

 

 

A bit pedantic on the gambling thing Crying Dick. And I hope the picture of Nancy is a tribute. For she is my hero. 

[Cryingdick]

1 minute ago, mikebike said:

Oh, OK... you do agree it is not the "huge win" you declared in your fist post.

 

Why do you even bother? Is it joy of self-adulation?

Google the last time the court has added or detracted justices. I don't think it is as easy as you seem to think.

[Scott]

Posts and replies removed.  

 

[cmarshall]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I hope a new supreme court judge will be confirmed before the election.

And obviously that will be a very conservative person.

But what is the alternative? The alternative is that people will vote again for Trump even if they don't like him personally just to make sure they get a conservative judge. So I hope for the lesser evil. Get it over with.

60% to 70% of Americans support abortion rights which the Supreme Court is about to revoke, a job that will be made easier with yet another Federalist Society radical like Amy Coney Barrett, who believes life starts at conception by which the right-wingers mean that it should come under protection of the state at that moment.  (Barrett would also become the sixth Catholic justice!)  It is obscene that the minority Republican Party should be able to impose its will against the majority by using underhanded tactics like the "McConnell Rule," which McConnell cynically made up and then un-made up just for political control.

 

The Democrats may be able to stop this, for instance, by adding amendment after amendment to a funding bill, which takes precedence over all other Senate work, and would thereby prolong discussion.  They should also get people out into the streets on this issue.  It might also happen that McConnell puts the vote off until after the election at the request of Senate candidates in trouble like Collins.  McConnell cares most of all about keeping his position as Majority Leader, after all.

 

Whether or not the Dems are able to stop this appointment, they should promptly add four more seats on the Court if Biden wins and they have a majority in the Senate.  They should also admit Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico as states.  And then carry out the rest of their programs.  

 

Abortion rights is an issue worth fighting for.  

[stevenl]

Trump faithfuls would not accept him not to nominate. With McConnell in trump's pocket, McConnell has to push any nomination through. He wouldn't care about the hypocrisy anyway. Republican senators in a bind will vote with McConnell, see their behaviour in the impeachment vote.

[stevenl]

9 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

60% to 70% of Americans support abortion rights which the Supreme Court is about to revoke, a job that will be made easier with yet another Federalist Society radical like Amy Coney Barrett, who believes life starts at conception by which the right-wingers mean that it should come under protection of the state at that moment.  (Barrett would also become the sixth Catholic justice!)  It is obscene that the minority Republican Party should be able to impose its will against the majority by using underhanded tactics like the "McConnell Rule," which McConnell cynically made up and then un-made up just for political control.

 

The Democrats may be able to stop this, for instance, by adding amendment after amendment to a funding bill, which takes precedence over all other Senate work, and would thereby prolong discussion.  They should also get people out into the streets on this issue.  It might also happen that McConnell puts the vote off until after the election at the request of Senate candidates in trouble like Collins.  McConnell cares most of all about keeping his position as Majority Leader, after all.

 

Whether or not the Dems are able to stop this appointment, they should promptly add four more seats on the Court if Biden wins and they have a majority in the Senate.  They should also admit Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico as states.  And then carry out the rest of their programs.  

 

Abortion rights is an issue worth fighting for.  

No way the democrats will be able to stop this. 

 

Yes, abortion rights and other progressive issues are worth fighting for. The republicans are lucky with the SC vacancies, but the main: they're stalwart, and keeping the country back with a minority by underhand tactics. So yes, time for democrats to fight back with undoing gerrymandering, adding SC seats, admitting DC and PR, and other things they can come up with.

 

But to do that they need to take presidency and senate, and after that don't be nice like Obama was, but go on the war path straight away 

[mfd101]

Regularly every 4 years Usofans give the world a demonstration of 'democracy' irrational & incompetent on a giant scale. The Supreme Court vacancy issue reinforces the point.

 

They almost make Thailand's government & political culture look sensible.

[cmarshall]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

Trump faithfuls would not accept him not to nominate. With McConnell in trump's pocket, McConnell has to push any nomination through. He wouldn't care about the hypocrisy anyway. Republican senators in a bind will vote with McConnell, see their behaviour in the impeachment vote.

Impeachment is not the same politically.  Removal from office never had the support of 60% to 70% of Americans.  The impeachment trial came ten months before the election leading most of us to expect that the votes on removal would have no effect on the election.  And so it seems.

 

The Republican senators who are in trouble this election: Collins, Tillis, McSally, and maybe Perdue and Graham don't want to have any vote on a Court appointee before the election, because it will definitely cost them votes with one faction or the other.  McConnell cares about remaining as Majority Leader much more than he cares about either abortion rights or the Court.   

 

Trump will certainly nominate, but I expect McConnell to hold the vote until just after the election and before Mark Kelly takes his seat.

[cmarshall]

6 minutes ago, stevenl said:

No way the democrats will be able to stop this. 

 

Yes, abortion rights and other progressive issues are worth fighting for. The republicans are lucky with the SC vacancies, but the main: they're stalwart, and keeping the country back with a minority by underhand tactics. So yes, time for democrats to fight back with undoing gerrymandering, adding SC seats, admitting DC and PR, and other things they can come up with.

 

But to do that they need to take presidency and senate, and after that don't be nice like Obama was, but go on the war path straight away 

So, they should, but they never have, at least not since FDR anyway.  Gore should have had us all out in the streets.  

 

I hope it's different this time.

 

The Republicans are much better at politics than the Dems, but that partly arises out of the asymmetric nature of the parties.  The GOP is truly a national party with a unified and consistent agenda: lower taxes on the rich and regulations on business.  Their business model requires it: get paid by the rich, use the money to fool the voters into voting against their own interests, and then implement the pro-rich policies ruthlessly against their voters.  When they hesitated briefly to pass Trump's tax cut, their wealthy donors were quite clear in threatening to cut off their funding off at the knees if they failed to deliver.

 

The Dems, on the other hand, are really not a national party, but a collection of local political fiefdoms whose interests only partly overlap.  

Edited September 20, 2020 by cmarshall

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, cmarshall said:

The Democrats may be able to stop this, for instance, by adding amendment after amendment to a funding bill, which takes precedence over all other Senate work, and would thereby prolong discussion.

Prolonging the discussion is the problem.

There are some conservatives out there who don't like Trump and wouldn't vote for him. But if the supreme court judge is not in place before the election then those people might vote for Trump again, even if they don't like him, just to get a conservative judge. So what is more important to avoid? One important judge or 4 more years of Trump?