So on the RBG

[MarkT]

RIP.  Now the question is, can the Senate get her replacement confirmed by election time.  Sure hope so.  I didn't think she would last this long with all the cancers and operations she's had lately, and at her age.  Pancreatic cancer is one of the most fatal.  Has killed rich folks with plenty of resources like Steve Jobs, Patrick Swazey, Sally Ride, Alan Rickman, Luciano Pavarotti,. Sir John Hurt, Jack Benny, Syd Barrett (Pink Floyd founder), Joan Crawford, Richard Crenna, Ben Gazzara, Aretha Franklin, Donna Douglas. Michael Landon, Rex Harrison and on and on.

[scooperhsd]

RIP.  Now the question is, can the Senate get her replacement confirmed by election time.  Sure hope so.  I didn't think she would last this long with all the cancers and operations she's had lately, and at her age.  Pancreatic cancer is one of the most fatal.  Has killed rich folks with plenty of resources like Steve Jobs, Patrick Swazey, Sally Ride, Alan Rickman, Luciano Pavarotti,. Sir John Hurt, Jack Benny, Syd Barrett (Pink Floyd founder), Joan Crawford, Richard Crenna, Ben Gazzara, Aretha Franklin, Donna Douglas. Michael Landon, Rex Harrison and on and on.

I think, to save the inevitable bickering and screaming from the D's about how the Republican Senate wouldn't consider Obama's candidate before Trump came into office and nominated his own.

Now, AFTER the election, and if Trump wins - it would be perfectly fine to nominate a replacement justice.
IMO

[Willow]

RIP.  Now the question is, can the Senate get her replacement confirmed by election time.  Sure hope so.  I didn't think she would last this long with all the cancers and operations she's had lately, and at her age.  Pancreatic cancer is one of the most fatal.  Has killed rich folks with plenty of resources like Steve Jobs, Patrick Swazey, Sally Ride, Alan Rickman, Luciano Pavarotti,. Sir John Hurt, Jack Benny, Syd Barrett (Pink Floyd founder), Joan Crawford, Richard Crenna, Ben Gazzara, Aretha Franklin, Donna Douglas. Michael Landon, Rex Harrison and on and on.

I think, to save the inevitable bickering and screaming from the D's about how the Republican Senate wouldn't consider Obama's candidate before Trump came into office and nominated his own.

Now, AFTER the election, and if Trump wins - it would be perfectly fine to nominate a replacement justice.
IMO

President Obama's nominee would not have been confirmed by the Republican Senate.  It would have been a waste of time.

The Constitution gives the President the responsibility of nominating and the Senate the responsibility of confirming.  No clause is included indicating either should reduce the application of their responsibilities with a possible change in a future election.

Honestly RBG should have stepped down and been replaced long, long ago.

[Ken aka Oil Burner]

As bad as things are now, I figured the proverbial poop was going to hit the fan come November. Maybe it'll be sooner than I thought. Let the nominee games begin!

[scooperhsd]

RIP.  Now the question is, can the Senate get her replacement confirmed by election time.  Sure hope so.  I didn't think she would last this long with all the cancers and operations she's had lately, and at her age.  Pancreatic cancer is one of the most fatal.  Has killed rich folks with plenty of resources like Steve Jobs, Patrick Swazey, Sally Ride, Alan Rickman, Luciano Pavarotti,. Sir John Hurt, Jack Benny, Syd Barrett (Pink Floyd founder), Joan Crawford, Richard Crenna, Ben Gazzara, Aretha Franklin, Donna Douglas. Michael Landon, Rex Harrison and on and on.

I think, to save the inevitable bickering and screaming from the D's about how the Republican Senate wouldn't consider Obama's candidate before Trump came into office and nominated his own.

Now, AFTER the election, and if Trump wins - it would be perfectly fine to nominate a replacement justice.
IMO

President Obama's nominee would not have been confirmed by the Republican Senate.  It would have been a waste of time.

The Constitution gives the President the responsibility of nominating and the Senate the responsibility of confirming.  No clause is included indicating either should reduce the application of their responsibilities with a possible change in a future election.

Honestly RBG should have stepped down and been replaced long, long ago.

I don't disagree with you, just stating the situation as I see / saw it.

[shadowsoftime]

With all due respect, she should have stepped down a year ago, any death is tragic for family.
That aside, can Trump get a replacement before election.

[Oldfishguy]

Ted Cruz is about to have a new job is my life thoughts.

[shadowsoftime]

Ted Cruz is about to have a new job is my life thoughts. 

I hope so, can it be done in 44 days.

[F6Dave]

Could Ted vote to confirm himself?

[The emperor has no clothes]

RIP.  Now the question is, can the Senate get her replacement confirmed by election time.  Sure hope so.  I didn't think she would last this long with all the cancers and operations she's had lately, and at her age.  Pancreatic cancer is one of the most fatal.  Has killed rich folks with plenty of resources like Steve Jobs, Patrick Swazey, Sally Ride, Alan Rickman, Luciano Pavarotti,. Sir John Hurt, Jack Benny, Syd Barrett (Pink Floyd founder), Joan Crawford, Richard Crenna, Ben Gazzara, Aretha Franklin, Donna Douglas. Michael Landon, Rex Harrison and on and on.

I think, to save the inevitable bickering and screaming from the D's about how the Republican Senate wouldn't consider Obama's candidate before Trump came into office and nominated his own.

Now, AFTER the election, and if Trump wins - it would be perfectly fine to nominate a replacement justice.
IMO

The Republicans would have most definitely confirmed Obama's nominee Merrick Garland. That was the whole point of not even bringing a hearing, much less a vote. Regardless whether some think it would have been a waste of time, IT WAS THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY.
 Who knows Trump's and McConnel's strategy on this one. I do know the American people have a keen sense of fairness. They will see thru any hypocrisy.
 If a person is willing to sell their soul for a Supreme Court Justice, the thought of 3 for the price must make them giddy with excitement.

[_Sheffjs_]

What is the correct protocol here on filling the spot now or after the election?

[Jess from VA]

There's the usual things and then there's the nominate someone, and senate confirmation.

We don't need some arch conservative, but we do need someone who follows the Constitution (and precedent) without regard to political bent or personal belief.

The nominee must believe in the 2d amendment for what the founders meant (with no ifs, ands or buts).

There are plenty of good sitting (lower) Federal judges who could fill the bill, including women.

Trump (team) should have been way ahead planning (and carefully vetting) for this, and they should nominate and move ahead.

Resistance for whomever is nominated is to be expected.  If the resistance gets ridiculous (like current rioting and cop shooting) that should only help get the President reelected.  

[_Sheffjs_]

So there are many saying the pick should be after the election. What is this about?

[hubcapsc]

So there are many saying the pick should be after the election. What is this about?

It's about hoping the Harris administration will get to do the picking 

-Mike

[Serk]

So there are many saying the pick should be after the election. What is this about?

In 2016 after Justice Scalia died, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland as his replacement, however citing it being so close to the  election, the senate refused to consider his confirmation, which has precedent in history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Nominations_in_the_last_year_of_a_presidency

So, if the Republicans were to nominate and confirm someone to replace RBG now, much as it would on the surface be a good thing for the survival of the republic, it would be highly hypocritical... (And I fear would turn people away from voting for Republicans in the upcoming election.)

(And, if we do get a good justice now, I guarantee the next time the Democrats have the house, the senate and the presidency, they WILL pack the Supreme Court. They might do that anyway of course...)

[The emperor has no clothes]

So there are many saying the pick should be after the election. What is this about?

In 2016 after Justice Scalia died, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland as his replacement, however citing it being so close to the  election, the senate refused to consider his confirmation, which has precedent in history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Nominations_in_the_last_year_of_a_presidency

So, if the Republicans were to nominate and confirm someone to replace RBG now, much as it would on the surface be a good thing for the survival of the republic, it would be highly hypocritical... (And I fear would turn people away from voting for Republicans in the upcoming election.)

(And, if we do get a good justice now, I guarantee the next time the Democrats have the house, the senate and the presidency, they WILL pack the Supreme Court. They might do that anyway of course...)

They might. But I doubt it. They are pussies of the highest magnitude. Just for the record, Scalia passed away in January of the year. Ginsburg in mid September.

[Jersey mike]

It’s being discussed that if the push for nomination goes forward the Democrats will pack the court and move to eliminate the filibuster in the Senate.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/markey-pack-supreme-court-abolish-filibuster-ginsburg

And there is this on the flip side;

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcconnell-supreme-court-nominee-vote-floor

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-urges-republicans-fill-ginsburg-vacancy-without-delay


Right now I’m pulled in both directions regarding the nomination before the election.

Should we stick to the protocol which has been in used for over a century and wait until after the election or what would the Democrats do if the shoe was on the other foot and this was on the table for them.

[Bighead]

Ted Cruz is about to have a new job is my life thoughts.

NO he said he would be honored to be considered but he wanted to stay in the fight so he would turn down tbe nomination.

[Ramie]

If you look back at history it's always been that way.  If the President's party holds the Senate  then they'll get a hearing.  If the Presidents party does not hold the Senate they don't get a hearing.

[old2soon]

           biden has already stated the incoming P O T U S should make the nomination. RIDE SAFE.

[Jess from VA]

They should move RIGHT AWAY.  (it's not like the senate is busy with anything)

The right pick gets the right judge, and not much to validly dispute.

Other than everything Orange man does is bad.  (which is a real old tune you can't dance to)

(Garland was not a terrible judge, but he didn't believe in the 2d Amendment, and would never have been confirmed, accordingly.)

[Jess from VA]

Ted Cruz is about to have a new job is my life thoughts.

NO he said he would be honored to be considered but he wanted to stay in the fight so he would turn down tbe nomination.

I'm glad to hear that.  It's actually (much) harder finding good, electable conservative senators than judges.

And his nomination would be hotly protested and fought (much more than a good solid sitting federal judge with a spotless record and personal life). 

[Chrisj CMA]

So there are many saying the pick should be after the election. What is this about?

This is what then candidate Hillary Clinton said when the shoe was on the other foot, when Scalia died:

"The Republicans in the Senate and on the campaign trail who are calling for Justice Scalia's seat to remain vacant dishonor the Constitution," Clinton said in a statement issued by her campaign Saturday. "The Senate has a constitutional responsibly here that it cannot abdicate for partisan political reasons."

[f6gal]

The senate should have held hearings on Garland in 2016.  He would not have been confirmed and, yes, it would have been a huge waste of time.  However, now it appears hypocritical to move forward on a nominee.  
It is the president's job to put forward a nominee and, historically, has always done so.  A lot of people voted for Trump based solely on potential SCOTUS nominees.  If he doesn't nominate someone, he will lose a lot of votes.  

[scooperhsd]

Constitutionally,  I'm with Jess on this - Trump should at least NOMINATE a GOOD replacement, with the Senate attempting to confirm them. Practically - Do they have enough time before Inaugeration Day ? Or will the Democrats scream bloody murder ?

[Jess from VA]

The left (and MSM) is beyond and undeserving of any appeasement, anymore, ever again.  

If the white house has already done it's homework as it should have, they should have a couple great candidates, and one should be nominated to the senate (though waiting for a burial would be a good idea).

I've spent my life advocating for the best person for the job regardless of race, creed, gender, color or religion, but nominating a woman will make it harder to solicit liars to come forward and claim she molested boys (or dogs) in her past.  Hopefully.    

[Chrisj CMA]

So there are many saying the pick should be after the election. What is this about?

This is what then candidate Hillary Clinton said when the shoe was on the other foot, when Scalia died:

"The Republicans in the Senate and on the campaign trail who are calling for Justice Scalia's seat to remain vacant dishonor the Constitution," Clinton said in a statement issued by her campaign Saturday. "The Senate has a constitutional responsibly here that it cannot abdicate for partisan political reasons."

Funny how her sentiment changed over the years I mean she wouldn’t be saying this out of partisan in fighting would she, wouldn’t that be wrong?

Hillary Clinton says Democrats must use every 'maneuver' to stop McConnell from confirming SCOTUS nominee

[John Schmidt]

Re. obama, another issue to keep in mind....he was not up for reelection as is Trump. It is true, Garland wouldn't have been given the nod even if it went to a vote, and as mentioned....a big waste of time and money. Add to that the fact the Republicans had a strong feeling they could take the White House and Senate so wanted "their" man to do the nominating. Constitutionally, Trump has the right and power to nominate until he leaves office in January should he lose the election in November....which seems more and more unlikely. The process can take upwards of 70 or more days, plenty of time to get it done. Trump has already stated he plans to move ahead with the nomination and has met with a number of those on his list. It will be interesting indeed.

[_Sheffjs_]

Dang. What happened to the chronological posting here?

[f6gal]

Dang. What happened to the chronological posting here?

There are 2 separate RGB threads.  Is that the problem?

[vanavyman]

Roberts took 31 days to confirm, Ginsburg took 45 days, and O'Conner took 34 days.  Getting a nominee confirmed before the election is possible.  Especially if nominated in next couple of days and pushed.

[Willow]

Dang. What happened to the chronological posting here?

There are 2 separate RGB threads.  Is that the problem?

I moved the posts regarding replacing RBG from the RBG RIP thread to this one on that subject.

[_Sheffjs_]

Dang. What happened to the chronological posting here?

There are 2 separate RGB threads.  Is that the problem?

Interesting question, moreover I always felt it was best not to try to redirect or hijack a thread. I felt my direction was different..  No problem, I just felt my question was out of place now.

[f6gal]

Dang. What happened to the chronological posting here?

There are 2 separate RGB threads.  Is that the problem?

Interesting question, moreover I always felt it was best not to try to redirect or hijack a thread. I felt my direction was different..  No problem, I just felt my question was out of place now.

I agree, it does throw off the context.  I think Carl was trying to keep the RBG RIP thread from becoming a discussion about replacing her.

[Skinhead]

I'll not speak ill of the deceased.  As far as nominees, if it were up to me I'd nominate Trey Goudy.  (Not sure about correct spelling)

[f6gal]

So, RBG supposedly said, "my most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."

People are calling to honor her request.  But that could mean not replacing her for 4 years and 4 months.  j/s.

[f6gal]

I'll not speak ill of the deceased.  As far as nominees, if it were up to me I'd nominate Trey Goudy.  (Not sure about correct spelling)

Trump said he's going to nominate a woman.  Perhaps to avoid another Kavanaugh fiasco.

[Jess from VA]

I'll not speak ill of the deceased.

Me either, but in her 27yrs of service, she only wrote 20 majority opinions (through 2017), all in 5-4 decisions, and she also authored a (lone) dissent in 8-1 decisions 8 times.  Her decision to force VMI to take women is often mentioned as her most important decision. (of course they were taking public money)

Do you suppose all the justices who decided cases differently than her were wrong, every time?

She was not much help to the court in this regard.

I absolutely respect her as a good and honest person, just not as a jurist.

I don't think any judge (in modern times) should ever be seen as a crusader for (or against) certain causes, other than crusading for constitutional due process of law, whatever the case is about.

Her most fervent wish is to be replaced by another president than the serving one.  She had 8 years of Obama to get that done, if it was that important to her.  

[Moonshot_1]

Regarding Justice Ginsburg- It can be said she was a Judicial Icon but she diminished her reputation as a jurist by publicly entering the political arena. It actually established her inability to be objective.

As to Merrick Garland - I feel this way now and felt this way then. There was a great disservice committed by denying Garland a hearing. Take the politics and the names  out of it. The President nominates and the Senate advises and confirms. McConnel's actions, while falling under his authority, dishonored the Constitution.

There is an argument that a hearing would have been a "waste of time". The assumption is that a GOP led Senate would not have confirmed him. We don't know that as there was no hearing and no opportunity for Garland to defend his Character or previous decisions.

Both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said at their Senate hearings that Garland was a great jurist and had great respect for him. That's on the record.

Further, we can assume that the hearing would have been conducted appropriately setting the contemporary standard for such hearings.

In the end Mitch pursued a political narrative in the process and ignored the Constitutional narrative of the process that compels the Senate to do it's duty.

We're supposed to be on the same side folks. The Constitution side.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Regarding Justice Ginsburg- It can be said she was a Judicial Icon but she diminished her reputation as a jurist by publicly entering the political arena. It actually established her inability to be objective.

As to Merrick Garland - I feel this way now and felt this way then. There was a great disservice committed by denying Garland a hearing. Take the politics and the names  out of it. The President nominates and the Senate advises and confirms. McConnel's actions, while falling under his authority, dishonored the Constitution.

There is an argument that a hearing would have been a "waste of time". The assumption is that a GOP led Senate would not have confirmed him. We don't know that as there was no hearing and no opportunity for Garland to defend his Character or previous decisions.

Both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said at their Senate hearings that Garland was a great jurist and had great respect for him. That's on the record.

Further, we can assume that the hearing would have been conducted appropriately setting the contemporary standard for such hearings.

In the end Mitch pursued a political narrative in the process and ignored the Constitutional narrative of the process that compels the Senate to do it's duty.

We're supposed to be on the same side folks. The Constitution side.

Agreed. And thank you for saying it. But, I will go even further. Not only did McConnell (and Republican Senators) dishonor the Constitution, they ignored their sworn commitment to defend it. It's a pretty simple concept that the Senate is charged to carry out. Advise and Consent. They did nothing. No discussion, no debate, nothing, squat. The 2016 Senate was not a defender of the Constitution.