Here is a short and not comprehensive history:

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2020/09/how-supreme-court-vacancies-confirmed/

 

Terry

I think all of this speculation over whether a third appointment happens in Trump's first term is for naught.  Rest assured that if it doesn't happen before the election it'll eventually happen in his second term.

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

I think all of this speculation over whether a third appointment happens in Trump's first term is for naught.  Rest assured that if it doesn't happen before the election it'll eventually happen in his second term.

I think your speculation is for naught. 

Most likely the appointment will happen after republicans have lost senate and presidency, before the new president starts.

"Republicans owe Democrats absolutely nothing". True, yet...

They do owe the American people to play by the rules, even if ad hoc, that they themselves cooked up.

"He (the president) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States,..."

Mitch, who has one vote in the senate last time I looked, blocked and prevented the 100 member senate from performing it's Constitutional duty of advise and consent when Obama exercised his presidential power to nominate a justice.

Republicans excuses were lame at best for preventing appointment hearings.

If you are going to cheat, then allow everyone to cheat by the same rules.

Oh, but that wouldn't be cheating then, would it?

I hope the SC nominee reveals she will favor protection of a woman’s right to choose.  That way, liberals, Antifa and BLM will be appeased somewhat, and stop rioting and other foolish antics.

8 hours 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 

 

 

Keep up. Jerry Nadler says Democrats should 'immediately' move to expand the Supreme Court if the GOP pushes a lame duck vote. All is fair in love, war and politics.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/jerry-nadler-says-democrats-should-immediately-move-to-expand-the-supreme-court-if-the-gop-pushes-a-lame-duck-vote/ar-BB19dtBI?li=BBorjTa

Edited September 20, 20205 yr by earlinclaifornia

7 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

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

Say goodnight Irene! ???? 

 

MAGA 

I recalled it takes as simple majority and not 60.

56 minutes ago, Isaan sailor said:

I hope the SC nominee reveals she will favor protection of a woman’s right to choose.  That way, liberals, Antifa and BLM will be appeased somewhat, and stop rioting and other foolish antics.

 

Wasn't aware the riots had anything to do with RBG's death and the issue of appointing a replacement.

5 hours ago, JusticeGB said:

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. 

 

"A Supreme Court justice is a non-elected post appointed by the President, and upon Senate confirmation holds the position for life".

https://www.azcleanelections.gov/how-government-works/supreme-court-justices

 

This is the procedure thats been used for many decades! Elections have consequences! Americans by virtue of the (senate  vote in each state) have spoken!

 

Thank God for that

 

 

Edited September 20, 20205 yr by riclag

tl;dr  It will be Amy Coney Barrett and she will be confirmed.  Trump will be re elected.

11 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.

Listening to the “experts on constitutional law” as far as I could understand it would go to the Supreme Court to decide if an expansion ie 9 to 11 or whatever number was chosen.

considering it would be the dems who felt cheated by a now 6-3 judge leaning to gop you think 6 republican leaning judges would vote to reduce the imbalance?
Of course I may have miss understood the argument.

Supreme court where so much ends up decided by unelected job for life sounds much like the House of Lords in uk unelected unremovable people with so much power and no accountability 

12 hours ago, simple1 said:

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

'enabler' , that is one of the better terms democrats have used since 2016 to describe Trump voters. Things are getting more civilized with that bunch.

My advice to Trump is nominate Kamala Harris for the vacancy, spend the next two months destroying her reputation as if she were Kavanaugh.

Edited September 20, 20205 yr by IAMHERE
spelling

9 hours 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.

Because we all know it's simply to avoid any #metoo nonsense. Trump knows how nasty and treacherous the dems are. So choosing a woman is a necessity to avoid their outrageous antics. You could consider it a small democrat victory for women's rights I suppose. Forcing people to do things out of fear of the reproach of the mob seems to be the woke way of life these days.

 

The thing is it works both ways can you imagine Trump nominated a heterosexual white guy with ten fingers and toes. You would never hear the end of it. What you people on the left should start to realize is it isn't in Trump's or any conservatives interests to heed a word of advice or even take seriously anything you say. Period. 

 

Biden was pandering and there is a big difference. At least Trump hasn't gone for the ground field double and declared his choice also must be black. Like the whole thing is some cheap BOGO sale.

2 hours ago, riclag said:

 

"A Supreme Court justice is a non-elected post appointed by the President, and upon Senate confirmation holds the position for life".

https://www.azcleanelections.gov/how-government-works/supreme-court-justices

 

This is the procedure thats been used for many decades! Elections have consequences! Americans by virtue of the (senate  vote in each state) have spoken!

 

Thank God for that

 

 

Better tell that to mitch who refused to even consider it.

3 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

Because we all know it's simply to avoid any #metoo nonsense. Trump knows how nasty and treacherous the dems are. So choosing a woman is a necessity to avoid their outrageous antics. You could consider it a small democrat victory for women's rights I suppose. Forcing people to do things out of fear of the reproach of the mob seems to be the woke way of life these days.

 

The thing is it works both ways can you imagine Trump nominated a heterosexual white guy with ten fingers and toes. You would never hear the end of it. What you people on the left should start to realize is it isn't in Trump's or any conservatives interests to heed a word of advice or even take seriously anything you say. Period. 

 

Biden was pandering and there is a big difference. At least Trump hasn't gone for the ground field double and declared his choice also must be black. Like the whole thing is some cheap BOGO sale.

 

So no, Trump doesn't 'know' what you claimed, he might think it, he might imagine it - but beyond the confines of your post, 'nasty and treacherous' is not a fact, but an opinion.

 

As for forcing people to do things out of fear of the reproach of the mob - do you need a reminder for how Trump brings Republican politicians to heel? How his social media attack are often aimed at getting people to do stuff precisely because of what you condemn?

 

Was there any time at which Trump was open for receiving advice from anyone on the left? Or are you just, as usual, building up some nonsensical straw man?

 

So in your warped view the main difference was that Trump was 'pandering' less than Biden? Like Trump supporters will be up for a black candidate, a woman candidate, a none-heterosexual candidate? What's your bogus point there? Oh, you had none, that's right.

From a purely logical perspective, there is nothing to be gained by Republicans delaying the seating of RBG's replacement:

 

1) If we face another situation where someone like Al Gore refuses to accept the results, we could be looking at another 5/4 SCOTUS decision to remedy the election results. As of now, there are 8 justices.

2) If Republicans seat RBG's replacement, it takes away an issue for Democrats to complain about.

3) If Trump loses, it's best he makes his last chance to affect positive change on SCOTUS now.

4) Confirmation hearings will force Democrats to come out with the usual hate and lies (think Christine Balsey Ford and her debunked accusations), only this time attacking a woman. Not a good place to be when you're trying to tell the American people how Trump hates women.

20 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Better tell that to mitch who refused to even consider it.

I like Mitch !  I could careless how he gets it done . What went around the last 4 years is comin around, right quick!

God bless you Ms. Ginsberg

Edited September 20, 20205 yr by riclag

13 hours 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.

Therein lies the wild card- measuring how the election results may change in either scenario. I tend to agree with you. It's hard to imagine any more hate for Trump than there is now (I concede I will likely be proven wrong). My theory is that depriving his pick does leave room to eke out a bit more support for Trump at the ballot box.

Just now, riclag said:

I like Mitch !  I could careless how he gets it done . What went around the last 4 years is comin around, right quick!

"Elections have consequences."

- You-know-who

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Labeling many people is still labeling people. So nothing dishonest or against rules.

 maintain saying "many Democrats" (or whatever the exact phrase is) was an intentional way of saying "not all Democrats". The person who responded, removing "many"? The net result is it insinuates I was saying "all Democrats". I know we are totally splitting hairs here- all part of the fun of discussion and debate IMHO.

10 hours 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.

Trump said he's picking a woman? I missed that.

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

You, and other Trump supporters on here routinely label people opposing Trump as haters.

Let's keep it simple. You made the claim above. Can you back it up? Yes or no?

A long series of bickering posts has been removed.

 

Try to remember the topic of this thread:

 

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

10 hours ago, IAMHERE said:

'enabler' , that is one of the better terms democrats have used since 2016 to describe Trump voters. Things are getting more civilized with that bunch.

My advice to Trump is nominate Kamala Harris for the vacancy, spend the next two months destroying her reputation as if she were Kavanaugh.

 

Enabler - those who actively support / promote trump's attacks on democratic institutions / undermining domestic and international Rule of Law etc

 

Quote from credible source:

 

You want the real threat to American law and order? It’s found in these Trump enablers and bottom-dwellers. They are the inevitable excrescence of Trump’s above-the-law, race-baiting, me-first presidency. It is from the likes of them that the rest of America is in serious need of protection.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/29/the-real-threats-to-american-law-and-order-are-trumps-craven-enablers

Edited September 20, 20205 yr by simple1

20 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

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

Say goodnight Irene! ???? 

 

MAGA 

I'm surprised nobody has pointed out the obvious error in your post.  I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to identify it.

Ruth Ginsberg herself says there's no reason the president shouldn't nominate someone for SCOTUS during an election year.

 

She lamented the Republican-majority Senate’s continued blocking of Garland from consideration, and its insistence that the next President, to be elected in November, should be the one to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice.

“That’s their job,” Ginsburg said, when asked whether the Senate should give the 63-year-old judge a fair hearing. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year.”

 

https://time.com/4400491/ruth-bader-ginsburg-interview-donald-trump-merrick-garland-abortion/?iid=sr-link7

 

If it's good enough for her, it's good enough for me.

7 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

Ruth Ginsberg herself says there's no reason the president shouldn't nominate someone for SCOTUS during an election year.

 

She lamented the Republican-majority Senate’s continued blocking of Garland from consideration, and its insistence that the next President, to be elected in November, should be the one to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice.

“That’s their job,” Ginsburg said, when asked whether the Senate should give the 63-year-old judge a fair hearing. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year.”

 

https://time.com/4400491/ruth-bader-ginsburg-interview-donald-trump-merrick-garland-abortion/?iid=sr-link7

 

If it's good enough for her, it's good enough for me.

After McConnell succeeded in blocking Merrick Garland's nomination for 11 months she decided that the same rule should be applied to Republican nominees.  Why is that difficult to understand?

Just now, heybruce said:

After McConnell succeeded in blocking Merrick Garland's nomination for 11 months she decided that the same rule should be applied to Republican nominees.  Why is that difficult to understand?

Why do you think she only came to the realization a president is president for four years only after observing some partisan squabbling? Do you have any evidence to suggest when the actual decision was made? You made a timeline claim on when she made her decision. Now let's see you back up your claim.

10 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

Why do you think she only came to the realization a president is president for four years only after observing some partisan squabbling? Do you have any evidence to suggest when the actual decision was made? You made a timeline claim on when she made her decision. Now let's see you back up your claim.

You want a timeline?

 

Your quote is from an interview of Justice Ginsburg published in July 2016. 

 

Ginsburg made it clear days before dying that she didn't want her replacement appointed until after the election.  https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/18/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-wished-that-i-will-not-be-replaced-until-a-new-president-is-installed-report-says.html

 

Is that timeline clear enough for you?

Edited September 21, 20205 yr by heybruce

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

You want a timeline?

 

Your quote is from an interview of Justice Ginsburg published in July 2016. 

 

Ginsburg made it clear days before dying that she didn't want her replacement appointed until after the election.

 

Is that timeline clear enough for you?

No, that's not clear enough. You made a claim about when she made the decision she announced in 2016. But thanks for pointing out even RBG herself flip-flopped on the issue. The list continues to grow.