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

[Boon Mee]

Trump has the 60 votes w/out Romney or the other two RINO women. 

Say goodnight Irene! ???? 

 

MAGA 

[cmarshall]

2 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

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?

So, you think that there are single-issue, anti-abortion votes that are not already going to Trump?  Sounds far-fetched to me.  If that were the case then the endangered Republicans senators up in this election would favor a vote before election day, but so far they don't.

[OneMoreFarang]

1 minute ago, cmarshall said:

So, you think that there are single-issue, anti-abortion votes that are not already going to Trump?  Sounds far-fetched to me.  If that were the case then the endangered Republicans senators up in this election would favor a vote before election day, but so far they don't.

Obviously some things are not discussed in the open. I.e. the DEMs won't say what I wrote even if they think the same. And it wasn't my original though, I read it already in the news.

There are some people who will always vote for Trump, some who will never vote for him, and some who might vote for him under certain conditions. Getting another conservative supreme court judge is such a condition. If that motivates only 1% or 2% that might make already the difference. 

[Sujo]

2 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

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

Nothing in the constitution about how many. Its not as hard as you think.

[Sujo]

Biden says he is chosing a woman as running mate. Trump supporters deride him.

 

Trump says he is chosing a woman for supreme court, trump supporters, crickets.

[herfiehandbag]

13 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Nothing in the constitution about how many. Its not as hard as you think.

Since all Supreme Court appointments are now essentially political, it is in the interests of both parties (once they have established the appropriate bias) to keep the number of judges down. A large bench would be so much more difficult to control. So much for "separation of powers"...

[cmarshall]

53 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Obviously some things are not discussed in the open. I.e. the DEMs won't say what I wrote even if they think the same. And it wasn't my original though, I read it already in the news.

There are some people who will always vote for Trump, some who will never vote for him, and some who might vote for him under certain conditions. Getting another conservative supreme court judge is such a condition. If that motivates only 1% or 2% that might make already the difference. 

But where's the evidence that the single-issue, anti-abortion voters are in what you suppose are the 1% to 2% that is swayable?  Seems doubtful to me.  

[steelepulse]

16 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Biden says he is chosing a woman as running mate. Trump supporters deride him.

 

Trump says he is chosing a woman for supreme court, trump supporters, crickets.

Didn't Biden say he was going to nominate a woman of color as his main prerequisite before choosing Kamala?  Doesn't this eliminate a large pool of potential candidates based on race and gender only?  Why wouldn't he pick the most qualified person regardless of race or gender.  At least Trump is only discriminating by gender and not race and gender.

[cmarshall]

23 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Nothing in the constitution about how many. Its not as hard as you think.

It is entirely up to the Congress to determine the composition of the Court, i.e. the number of justices which has fluctuated over time.  The last attempt to pack the Court by FDR in 1937 did not succeed, but the need to do so was much reduced when Justice Owen Roberts, the principal antagonist to the New Deal, was read the riot act by Sec'y of Labor Ma Perkins indirectly via Roberts's wife.  Thereafter, Roberts dropped his obstructionism.

 

All it would take to increase the number of justices from nine to thirteen would be a bill that passes both Houses of Congress with a simple majority and which President Biden then signs into law.

 

But there is more that a Democratically-controlled Congress could do.  The Court's appellate jurisdiction (i.e. as the ultimate court of appeals) is given "with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make" per Art. III, § 2 of the Constitution.  The Congress could therefore, for instance, strip the Supreme Court of its appellate jurisdiction over cases involving abortion rights which would leave the various circuit courts of appeal throughout the country as the final decider.  There would be downsides, but Congress has the power, which is called "jurisdiction-stripping" over all of the federal courts.

[cmarshall]

3 minutes ago, steelepulse said:

Didn't Biden say he was going to nominate a woman of color as his main prerequisite before choosing Kamala?  Doesn't this eliminate a large pool of potential candidates based on race and gender only?  Why wouldn't he pick the most qualified person regardless of race or gender.  At least Trump is only discriminating by gender and not race and gender.

Apparently you are not similarly troubled by the fact that with one exception all previous nominees for Vice President were white men.

 

Right-wingers are so predictable.

[steelepulse]

8 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

Apparently you are not similarly troubled by the fact that with one exception all previous nominees for Vice President were white men.

 

Right-wingers are so predictable.

Hilarious.  I could have sworn that when you hire someone you can't discriminate based on race or gender.  I guess that doesn't apply to the vp pick regardless of if she's the best qualified candidate or not.

[OneMoreFarang]

53 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

But where's the evidence that the single-issue, anti-abortion voters are in what you suppose are the 1% to 2% that is swayable?  Seems doubtful to me.  

I don't have any evidence. I read the news and try to understand what is happening. I am sure there are some people who would vote for Trump just because of the supreme court judge. And not "just" abortion. But how many, I don't know. And I don't know how many he needs to win. There are lots of predictions but I don't think anybody really knows in the moment accurate numbers. And we all know what was predicted 4 years ago and what really happened. Uncertain times...

[Morch]

5 hours 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.

 

 

When you've got nothing - scaremonger.

 

[Morch]

5 hours 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. 

 

So now even dropping the pretense of 'Americans', embracing full-on partisanship. Like this path leads anywhere good.

[cmarshall]

16 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I don't have any evidence. I read the news and try to understand what is happening. I am sure there are some people who would vote for Trump just because of the supreme court judge. And not "just" abortion. But how many, I don't know. And I don't know how many he needs to win. There are lots of predictions but I don't think anybody really knows in the moment accurate numbers. And we all know what was predicted 4 years ago and what really happened. Uncertain times...

Biden has an even better strategy.

 

“Now, confronted with a moment that many believe will upend the 2020 election — the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the prospect of a bitter Supreme Court confirmation battle — Mr. Biden’s campaign is sticking to what it believes is a winning strategy. Campaign aides said Saturday they would seek to link the court vacancy to the health emergency gripping the country and the future of health care in America.”

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/19/us/politics/joe-biden-supreme-court-ginsburg.html

 

As you know Obamacare has majority support even among Republicans these days and drove the Dem wins in 2018.

[Morch]

5 hours 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.

 

Doubt anyone expects the USA to be unified or things calming down that easily or quickly. So rather bogus argument there. It's not all or nothing - spin it to your heart's content, but Biden is less antagonistic than Trump, less objectionable, less divisive or controversial. So no, things would not magically get better under Biden, but they may have a potential to change for the better. Under Trump, there is no such scenario - and not just because he's 'rejected' by his opposition, but due to the character of the man himself.

 

Your own posts, echoing extreme right wing talking points, narrative and trends indicate you're not even remotely interested in the prospects of such unification, compromise or even simply getting along.

[JusticeGB]

In normal circumstances it would be disrespectful to nominate a new Supreme Court Judge before the burial of a highly respected Judge like Ginsberg but these are not normal times in the USA. I think it wrong that politicians vote in judges because that doesn't provide for a real separation of powers. It will tilt the Supreme Court to the right for a very long time. A Supreme Court ruling shouldn't be right or left wing it should be impartial. 

[cmarshall]

16 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Doubt anyone expects the USA to be unified or things calming down that easily or quickly. So rather bogus argument there. It's not all or nothing - spin it to your heart's content, but Biden is less antagonistic than Trump, less objectionable, less divisive or controversial. So no, things would not magically get better under Biden, but they may have a potential to change for the better. Under Trump, there is no such scenario - and not just because he's 'rejected' by his opposition, but due to the character of the man himself.

 

Your own posts, echoing extreme right wing talking points, narrative and trends indicate you're not even remotely interested in the prospects of such unification, compromise or even simply getting along.

If they win control of the government the Dems will have to show concrete improvement in the lives of their voters or else the voters will turn on them in 2022.  That means improving Obamacare, protecting abortion rights, passing their proposed extensions to Social Security, forgiveness of some or all of medical and educational debt, reform of the police and criminal justice system, increase taxes on the wealthy, etc.  Biden needs to be FDR in the first hundred days.  

 

As the political scientist Rachel Bitecofer points out, voting now is driven be negative partisanship, i.e. voting against the other party.  If the voters are not satisfied with the achievements of the Democrats they will flip the other way like they did from Obama to Trump.  

 

The cause of the current political polarization is the polarization of wealth beginning with Reagan.  The Democrats are the only ones who might be able to address inequality, but it will be an uphill battle.

Edited September 20, 2020 by cmarshall

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

If they win control of the government the Dems will have to show concrete improvement in the lives of their voters or else the voters will turn on them in 2022.  That means improving Obamacare, protecting abortion rights, passing their proposed extensions to Social Security, forgiveness of some or all of medical and educational debt, reform of the police and criminal justice system, increase taxes on the wealthy, etc.  Biden needs to be FDR in the first hundred days.  

 

As the political scientist Rachel Bitecofer points out, voting now is driven be negative partisanship, i.e. voting against the other party.  If the voters are not satisfied with the achievements of the Democrats they will flip the other way like they did from Obama to Trump.  

 

I get the negative partisanship bit, even mostly agree.

As for Biden playing FDR - regretfully not seeing that happening. Still see him as a better, saner, safer choice but without much hope he'll become one of the USA's outstanding Presidents.

[cmarshall]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I get the negative partisanship bit, even mostly agree.

As for Biden playing FDR - regretfully not seeing that happening. Still see him as a better, saner, safer choice but without much hope he'll become one of the USA's outstanding Presidents.

Biden's programs so far including climate control, student debt forgiveness, increasing taxes on the rich and rich corporations, job creation, and others are the most progressive of any Democratic nominee since FDR.  He didn't move to the center after sewing up the nomination as many people thought he would.  He moved to the left.  

 

I don't care how Biden scores in the history books.  It's the progressive platform that matters.  Biden knows how much the Democratic Party has moved to the left in recent years.

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

Biden's programs so far including climate control, student debt forgiveness, increasing taxes on the rich and rich corporations, job creation, and others are the most progressive of any Democratic nominee since FDR.  He didn't move to the center after sewing up the nomination as many people thought he would.  He moved to the left.  

 

I don't care how Biden scores in the history books.  It's the progressive platform that matters.  Biden knows how much the Democratic Party has moved to the left in recent years.

 

A map is not the territory. A political program presented before elections is not necessarily how things pan out once victory is secured. Again, not quite seeing him ascending to the intended role, but even a run of the mill presidency, with some more limited goals achieved will be fine.

Edited September 20, 2020 by Morch

[cmarshall]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

A map is not the territory. A political program presented before elections is not necessarily how things pan out once victory is secured. Again, not quite seeing him ascending to the intended role, but even a run of the mill presidency, with some more limited goals achieved will be fine.

What I am saying is that the changes will be driven by the party underneath Biden who are demanding change.  Biden is not the one driving those changes, but that's okay because he's on board.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, cmarshall said:

What I am saying is that the changes will be driven by the party underneath Biden who are demanding change.  Biden is not the one driving those changes, but that's okay because he's on board.

 

I doubt Biden will simply play the puppet for the Democratic Party, or go along with any progressive notion and platform. All the more so if he's more about a one-term run. IMO, some of the items on offer might be great, but maybe not conductive to healing rifts if shoved down throats. So guess it's a matter of priorities rather than going through a list of policies and implementing them regardless of anything.

 

[cmarshall]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

I doubt Biden will simply play the puppet for the Democratic Party, or go along with any progressive notion and platform. All the more so if he's more about a one-term run. IMO, some of the items on offer might be great, but maybe not conductive to healing rifts if shoved down throats. So guess it's a matter of priorities rather than going through a list of policies and implementing them regardless of anything.

 

"Puppet?"  "Go along?"  Aren't you paying attention?  Biden already has the most progressive platform in 80 years.  If he wins, why would he betray those programs?  Those programs will only get implemented if the Democrat leadership in the Congress can pull it off.  Biden will sign all of it.

 

Healing rifts doesn't mean getting the 1% or the 10% on board, who know they are going to pay for whatever progressive policies get implemented.  Those people are not negligible, because money is power, after all.  But the big healing that can be achieved is to do something for the lower half of the population who have had declining real incomes for decades, and who were abandoned by the Clinton Democrats in the 1990's.  If they get concrete benefits from Democratic governance they can be brought back into the fold.  The whole Republican strategy is based on swindling these people again and again without their understanding who is victimizing them.  The voters gave control of the House to the Dems in 2018 to protect Obamacare, so they know where their advantage is.

[blazes]

Maybe Trump could get the best of both worlds by nominating a judge well known as a Democrat, but who is a devout Roman Catholic!

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

"Puppet?"  "Go along?"  Aren't you paying attention?  Biden already has the most progressive platform in 80 years.  If he wins, why would he betray those programs?  Those programs will only get implemented if the Democrat leadership in the Congress can pull it off.  Biden will sign all of it.

 

Healing rifts doesn't mean getting the 1% or the 10% on board, who know they are going to pay for whatever progressive policies get implemented.  Those people are not negligible, because money is power, after all.  But the big healing that can be achieved is to do something for the lower half of the population who have had declining real incomes for decades, and who were abandoned by the Clinton Democrats in the 1990's.  If they get concrete benefits from Democratic governance they can be brought back into the fold.  The whole Republican strategy is based on swindling these people again and again without their understanding who is victimizing them.  The voters gave control of the House to the Dems in 2018 to protect Obamacare, so they know where their advantage is.

 

I think Biden is more a politician and less an ideologue. Adopting this or that platform indicating more a political necessity or advantage rather than being truly committed to tenets therein. Also, I don't see him as someone who's into clashing where things could be negotiated (for me, that's part of the appeal in his candidacy). So I expect that on some issues he'll mostly act according to the platform presented, whereas on others, perhaps more controversial ones, he'll seek a measure of bi-partisanship, implying concessions and compromise.

 

You seem to be talking about facts. As in how such a platform may improve things for all Americans. That could very well be true. What I'm addressing is perceptions. Like it or not, there are a lot of Republican supporters, Trump supporters, conservatives, religious people and others. While it is possible to ran policy through, on the basis of it's-for-your-own-good, it might be better to do so in a slower but more agreeable way. If I'm reading Biden's character and career right, that's more his style.

[riclag]

7 hours 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. 

This is the chance to do what Michel Moore said in the past election, in reference to ginsburg vacancy!

 But this time It will be the second time that  many of the forgotten will be a part of "biggest 'blank  blank' ever recorded in human history. ... is guaranteed to them by the American constitution": 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2020 by riclag

[cmarshall]

27 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I think Biden is more a politician and less an ideologue. Adopting this or that platform indicating more a political necessity or advantage rather than being truly committed to tenets therein. Also, I don't see him as someone who's into clashing where things could be negotiated (for me, that's part of the appeal in his candidacy). So I expect that on some issues he'll mostly act according to the platform presented, whereas on others, perhaps more controversial ones, he'll seek a measure of bi-partisanship, implying concessions and compromise.

 

You seem to be talking about facts. As in how such a platform may improve things for all Americans. That could very well be true. What I'm addressing is perceptions. Like it or not, there are a lot of Republican supporters, Trump supporters, conservatives, religious people and others. While it is possible to ran policy through, on the basis of it's-for-your-own-good, it might be better to do so in a slower but more agreeable way. If I'm reading Biden's character and career right, that's more his style.

You seem to care what is in Joe Biden's heart of hearts.  I only care about what he does.  It's true that he has talked about restoring comity with the Republicans after Trump's elimination, which is as fatuous a notion as Obama's pursuit of bi-partisanship was. But Pelosi and Schumer are not so misguided and they matter much more for legislation than President Biden will.

 

Perceptions do matter.  Obamacare provided important benefits for many people who opposed it in the beginning.  But that has all changed.  Obamacare now has substantial support even across the political divide.  So, people can sometimes recognize their self-interest despite the Republican disinformation. 

 

It's possible that the voters will not recognize their self-interest in some of the Democrat policies, but the Dems have no alternative but to implement them anyway.  If they don't do enough the voters will take control of the Congress away from them in 2022 like they did in 2010, which happened in part because Obama failed to promote Obamacare as much as he should have.  

 

Trump is by far the dominant personality in the current Republican Party, but Biden won't have the same role for the Democrats.

[stevenl]

52 minutes ago, blazes said:

Maybe Trump could get the best of both worlds by nominating a judge well known as a Democrat, but who is a devout Roman Catholic!

Or a well known democrat but black, like Barack Obama.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

You seem to care what is in Joe Biden's heart of hearts.  I only care about what he does.  It's true that he has talked about restoring comity with the Republicans after Trump's elimination, which is as fatuous a notion as Obama's pursuit of bi-partisanship was. But Pelosi and Schumer are not so misguided and they matter much more for legislation than President Biden will.

 

Perceptions do matter.  Obamacare provided important benefits for many people who opposed it in the beginning.  But that has all changed.  Obamacare now has substantial support even across the political divide.  So, people can sometimes recognize their self-interest despite the Republican disinformation. 

 

It's possible that the voters will not recognize their self-interest in some of the Democrat policies, but the Dems have no alternative but to implement them anyway.  If they don't do enough the voters will take control of the Congress away from them in 2022 like they did in 2010, which happened in part because Obama failed to promote Obamacare as much as he should have.  

 

Trump is by far the dominant personality in the current Republican Party, but Biden won't have the same role for the Democrats.

 

Err...no. I'm offering that until he actually does something, alleging he'll diligently follow the platform on offer during elections is, as they say here, up to you. That you treat it as 'what he does', doesn't make it into actual deeds. You may think the pursuit for bi-partisanship 'fatuous' - and I'll offer the very same comments as above. If all Biden's got to offer is a mirror image of partisanship, then as much as I prefer these views, it's simply not enough.

 

I agree that some issues are easier to recognize, or to be 'marketed' as being in the interests of all the people, regardless of partisanship. It would probably be a better strategy to focus on these, given that resistance might be weaker, thus avoiding feeding the partisan counter-narrative. Other issues, perhaps being more controversial, might take the backseat.

 

Biden might not be as 'dominant' as Trump vs. the party, fair enough. But then again, he's a politician who proved he can build bridges, deal with opponents and generate less antagonism than others. I think this could play both vs. his home crowd (Democratic Party), the opposition (Republican Party) and the general public.

 

I get your own position is supportive of a more radical approach, but for me that's just an extension of the existing divide, which I see as a greater threat to the USA than most policies pushed.