Schumer should walk out and say "the American people have a say in who will be on the Supreme Court and thus this confirmation should wait until after the midterms"
I hate Trump, but he's a moron. McConnell is both a [unt cay] and competent which has proven to make him at least as bad. It's a good thing he isn't electable on a national scale
Oh, he'd be a billion times more dangerous to me if I were in your shoes. He's evil, but he's great at his job and makes things happen, and quietly. Not quite Cheney, but close. And his wife ain't afraid to kick your ass.
If his party controlled the senate or the house that would make a lot of sense. No one will probably pay attention to him otherwise.
Actually, let's push this back, let this election focus on the SCOTUS seat, start floating the idea of a conservative court reversing Roe v. Wade, and then GOP keeps Senate and in the process keeps House when Evangelicals come out to vote in record numbers in an off-year election.
Well, here we are. Were I the GOP, I’d have a new Justice seated before you finished reading this sentence. Of course, I’m not, and they won’t. But then, Trump already has a list and the Senate’s summer session is already cancelled, so perhaps they’ll surprise me. But politics is the name of the game, and if you ever have a chance to see whether or not the GOP will go all-out for the liberals’ jugular - this will be it. Or, Trump and the GOP could reach across the aisle to at least build some modicum of a bridge, and go moderate. To show mercy when there is no need, is the path to both healing and unity. That would mean something, and of significance. IF. Or, the GOP could see this and wonder what would happen were the situation reversed - knowing that the Dems wouldn’t flinch in ramming whomever they wanted through, if they owned both chambers and 1600 - and dole out the same. Personally, I’m deeply concerned with any radicalized shift of the Court, by anyone, for any purpose - and the more hastily and roughshod it’s done, the less I will like and agree with it. This is not a time to play politics.
I thought supremes shouldn't be nominated less than a year before an election? I guess that is just another GOP perversion and lie. The calls for civility are exactly the same.
They had their say, both last Nov. 8th, and still again, via their elected representatives in the US Senate. If it was wrong to delay then-President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Court because he was in the final year of office, then this would be egregiously worse. There was at least precedent - perhaps bad precedent, but precedent nonetheless - for not bringing Garland’s nomination for a vote. Your suggestion would be unheard of, and I can’t fathom it happens. Unless they believe it will help the GOP in midterms. Then - and only then - will this be how it goes.
This may be the single smartest post - so smart as to border on prescience - in the history of this site.
I'm heavily influenced by Karl Rove. Actually, I can't believe he's not tweeted the exact same thing yet. Not Cocaine Mitch's style though. He's going for the jugular now.
My blind-assed prediction: 1. Trump has been collecting political chips from both Houses, particularly from McConnell and Ryan, for several months (his signing the Omnibus Bill and his recent and strong endorsement of Ryan’s amnesty plan leap to mind). 2. I’d say he shoves a great deal - if not all - of these favors into the middle, by way of sending a conservatively moderate and business-friendly nominee to Congress, and gets McConnell to hold speedy hearings. Like, within a month, “speedy”. 3. McConnell again invokes the nuclear option to end debate / filibuster in the Senate, and get a vote. The nominee passes, because the GOP gets the business-minded jurist they most want, the Dems realize what a sizable bullet they’d just dodged in not getting some conservative zealot shoved down their throats (and they should be damned well certain that this is exactly what the second candidate would be - so much so as to make Scalia look like a hippie - if they reject the first moderate and they’ll not only lose that fight, but will get excoriated in the midterms) and Trump looks like a temperant moderate who’s sincere in working with both sides. But, admittedly, I like Card’s idea best - first, simply for the drama of it all, but second, because he’s absolutely right - the Evangelicals who sat on the sidelines in 2016 would rapidly reappear, and in significant force. If Trump can bring the GOPe and evangelicals under his tent, whoo boy, he’ll be a tough out in ‘20.
I think you’re thinking of the Senate’s unwritten / informal rule, whereby they will withhold any vote on a SCOTUS nominee made in the last year of any POTUS’ term. And Schumer is on record as having throatily supported this policy, before the Garland nomination two years ago.
Wait, which Evangelicals didn't turn out in 16? They turned out in the same percentages as the previous two elections, and voted for Trump at a higher clip than those before him
Seems you were replaced by at least one other, and I have my doubts both of you show up for the midterm
