Hacker News Reader

Comment by rbanffy | Hacker News Reader

Could at least have waited 6 more months

Doesn't make sense for the gop to run with that. Best to sit someone now with a Senate majority than to wait and risk a brutal confirmation process.

Given the layout of the races of the 1/3 seats up for grabs this November, Republicans will likely end up with more seats.

There's also the political angle to label Democrat Senators in red states (ex: Manchin in WV) as obstructionists prior to this years elections.

A bit comical/ironic to say they'd be targeted for obstructionism given that the other side of the aisle did just that for the last vacated seat.

The big risk is that if Trump is eventually indicted and the dems capture the senate and house, we may see an attempt to impeach both Gorsuch and a radical right-wing justice. If Trump decides to pick a centrist or even slightly-left-leaning judge, it's likely Gorsuch will not be challenged.

Impeachment conviction takes 2/3rds of the Senate. There's no way Democrats end up with 2/3rds of the Senate. There's also no call by left Congresscritters to impeach Gorsuch. It isn't gonna happen.

The big risk is Trump has a Harriet Meyers moment, and nominates Pirro, Giuliani, or Hannity.

The White House has already said that this nominee will come from the original list of candidates:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-do...

I can see Giuliani, and I can see it sailing--former federal prosecutor being bonafides that are hard for his base and Republicans to ignore. Thankfully, he's getting up there in years so, even if confirmed, won't last long, and maybe he'd pass on it because he'd rather not have that amount of work the older he gets.

Hannity is a joke, and almost welcome the nomination because it exposes the President's incompetence further. I think (or hope?) that even McConnell would balk at such a nomination.

Giuliani is 74. Gorsuch is 50. There's no way a president would give up decades of influence on the court by nominating an oldster.

The likely calculus is he thinks it's better to have 9 justices than 8. If Democrats take the senate, there's a solid chance due to the McConnell precedent, that the seat remains vacant as long as the senate and presidency are opposite parties.

At the very least with 9 justices there isn't a tie.

Golly, I never thought of that--the Democrats doing the same thing McConnell did a couple years ago. First, the nuclear option. Then, the McConnell option. I dare not think of what's next, but, at the very least, it seems the caliber of justices as of late have still been top notch. God help us, though, if the President nominates someone like he did to the VA who just happens to be his personal physician.

Forgot the Bork/Thomas treatment.

I believe the nomination will still be from his original list of 25.

Is there any way the Democrats could stop an appointment now that the nuclear option gutted the the 60 vote threshold before November?

> McConnell option

What is the McConnell option you are mentioning here?

The 'McConnell option' is what Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell did in the waining days of President Obama's term. I forgot the justice, but he/she retired, and Sen. McConnell held up President Obama's nominee until the Presidential election, hoping for President Trump to win. President Trump, of course, did, and he nominated Neil Gorsuch instead.

That would Scalia and he didn't retire - he died.

> waining days of President Obama's term

Waning in this case would be roughly 20% of 4-year term.

Ah. I thought it was a normal practice not to nominate Justices at the end of the term, as outlined here by Senator Biden https://youtu.be/cZlzhULrJC0. I guess it should be named Biden option, then.

Biden argued for postponing the nomination until after the election, not after the swearing in of the new president. This is entirely different than McConnell's stance which argued for waiting until after the swearing in of the next president.

Wow, the splitting of hair reached nano-proportions. What is the difference again? Are you saying that if Bush lost, in the period 'after the election' Senate would've let him nominate a candidate he would like? Preposterous.

W did just that when he nominated Harriet Miers.

Ugh, I forgot that. That didn't turn out so well if I remember.

His sister is a federal judge.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryanne_Trump_Barry

Forget that he was in Navy and appointed by Obama. God the ignorance here is stupendous

Being in the Navy and being appointed by Obama to be White House Physician are not qualifications for running the Veterans Administration

He was not appointed by Obama to the VA

who?

The VA pick.

> I dare not think of what's next

My guess the is the next Supreme-court "nuclear option" will be another court packing plan. I can't think of any more escalations that could be threatened at this point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bil...

This is getting more and more like the US version of House of Cards every single day.

It always was they are just not trying to hide it anymore.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com