Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Well then...
I'll be very interested to see what the opinion polls have to say about appointing a new justice in these circumstances. And about court packing, for that matter.
Oh God! Natural light!So, to my knowledge, four republican senators have said they do not intend to vote on this before election day. Which is enough. The wording of that of course doesn't preclude the possibility of voting on it in December, but voting in a Trump appointee after the Trump loss would be short-sighted move; it would be inviting reprisal.
And it doesn't actually serve the GOP's interest to force it through before election day; if a SCOTUS seat is at stake, the election isn't as much of a referendum on Trump, and then Trump's low 40s approval rating isn't their ceiling anymore. They have a majority on the court either way, there's no need for them to squander that advantage.
And people like Collins are dead meat in they vote in somebody who's even slightly objectionable.
For those curious, he's making the argument that because the Senate is held by the same party as the President it's a completely different situation to 2016 and so his comments then don't apply.
A random thought, let's say that Ted Cruz is nominated for the role, and he's currently a sitting Senator, is he allowed to vote on his own confirmation? I would assume not but I also have no idea if that's actually something that there's a rule for.
Also to answer a question I was in the middle of writing a response to when the thread was locked, there are 14 sitting days on the schedule between the election and the end of the year, and presumably more between the start of the next year and swearing in the President.
So these are the Republicans who I'm hearing are not willing to vote until at least November, but I can't officially confirm:
- Mitt Romney (Utah)
- Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
- Lamar Alexander (Tennessee)
- Susan Collins (Maine)
- Chuck Grassley (Iowa)
- Rob Portman (Ohio)
- Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania)
Alexander is the most surprising name on this list. I guess we'll know sooner or later if these rumors are true, but if they are true, then I think we might be safe, so long as Trump isn't re-elected.
There is also one good thing: Let's say that all of these guys are just holding out until November and most of them plan to use the Lame Duck to try to push someone through. The good news is that the Arizona Senate Election is actually a Special Election, and as such, the winner would be put in immediately. Since Mark Kelly (D) is most likely going to crush Martha McSally (R), Kelly will be sworn in on Nov. 30th and we'd only need 3 of these Senators to keep them from pushing a Judge.
Edited by DingoWalley1 on Sep 18th 2020 at 11:35:08 AM
Assuming, of course, that this isn't merely a chance to save face during the election, and they're actually just planning to push someone through no matter who wins in November.
Regardless, I'll imagine we'll develop a somewhat clearer picture on where everyone stands tomorrow.
Edited by KarkatTheDalek on Sep 18th 2020 at 11:31:43 AM
Oh God! Natural light!The question is how willing they are to play the long game and call the Dems' bluff.
If they think it might be an election that can be successfully contested in the courts: they'd want to pack it before the election.
If they think the Dems won't dare pack the courts: after the election. The electoral advantage could be in either of these two.
If they are wanting to avoid court packing: take the current majority and leave it vacant.
In terms of actual court-packing, is it "add enough justices to make the Court majority liberal" (presumably 7-6, so increase the Court to 13) or would making it 6-5 conservative (increase the Court to 11) to put the thing back to where it was before this latest mess started be offer-able in exchange for, I dunno, revitalizing the Voting Rights Act or something?
The damned queen and the relentless knight.Romney's comms person said the news was fake. He hasn't said anything about how he'll vote.
Murkowski's statement was from right before RGB died. Nothing new after AFAIK.
Martha McSally, Kelly Loeffler, Rick Scott have all said they'll vote for the nominee
And Joni Ernst, the utter ghoul, is fundraising off RGB's death.
Edited by nova92 on Sep 18th 2020 at 8:44:29 AM
Presumably the former. The latter is pointless because the right-wing court members were the ones who fucked it up,
and there's no way they will ever go back on that.
Well, *that's* a hopeful thought.
i'm tired, my friend@DingoWalley1 I checked out all the names on your list, and no one has said they would vote against (Everyone is either rumors/hearsay or said so before Ginsburg passed.)
And I just read the most ridiculous argument Senate Republicans are making, per a Washington Post writer: Link
Late edit: Sorry, got Bob Casey Jr. mixed up.
Edited by nova92 on Sep 19th 2020 at 6:00:08 AM
Reminder: the last election had 8 justices.
Even more bizarre that they're staking out positions (or at least McConnell is before the weekend's even over. You would think that someone with political experience would at least take, oh, longer than 6 hours to consider the most successful option available to them.

Alright, I'm going to bed. Let's give this another shot. You all have been warned. If I wake up and it's another ten pages of doomsaying, back goes the lock.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"