Hacker News Reader

Comment by atonse | Hacker News Reader

As much as I respected and admired RBG, even she would’ve known it’s at best a wish and nothing else.

If things weren’t so polarized, they absolutely should spare no time in replacing the seat, as is their duty. But we know it’ll be yet another cynical and dishonest process as it was last time.

View on HN

Just like Obama's nomination was blocked for more than a year to "let the voters decide"?

Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I found that disgusting and abhorrent, and a clear abdication of their duties.

McConnell says you never replace a Supreme Court Justice in an election year.

Let's see just how long it takes him to release a public statement going back on that one...

> Mr. McConnell and his allies say the two situations are different. Where one party controls the Senate and the other the presidency, as in 2016, they say, vacancies should not be filled in a presidential election year. Where the same party controls both the Senate and presidency, they argue, confirmations may proceed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/18/us/justice-ruth-bader-gin...

It's a terrible argument. If the senate is not controlled by the same party as the president and they dislike the president's choice for supreme court, they can vote not to confirm him/her. It also encourages the president to choose a nominee who can appeal to both parties. McConnell refused to allow Garland to even have hearings in the Senate let alone a vote because he feared that some of his republican colleagues may have been persuaded. If there are two controlling parties in two parts of the government then the solution is compromise. This is a philosophy totally abhorrent to McConnell whose views can only be supported by an authoritarian minority.

Wait it takes two to compromise, and a Supreme Court pick is really important . What did the Democrats offer McConnell in exchange for Garland hearings?

He already has, in a talk at the Federalist Society last year, where he said that if given the chance to replace a SCOTUS justice in 2020 he would not hesitate.

EDIT: And again, just over an hour ago, McConnell promised that he would have a vote on a new justice within a week of receiving the nomination.

Meanwhile, Murkowski of Alaska announced she would not support confirmation hearings until after the election.

And in other related news, Senate Democrats have promised to add seats to the Supreme Court if they win the Presidency and Senate in November and McConnell goes ahead with his plans...

The next few months are going to be exciting.

He did make such a statement months ago.

Well, it's not like this flip-flop would be in the top 10 of his list of shameless actions... From his point of view, the majority of the country already hates him anyway, and sure, it's a few weeks of bad press from the predictable wing, but in the end he'll (hopefully for him) have pushed his cause (making the conservative grip more concrete) forward.

The progressives will rage on Twitter, but on the day he goes back on what he said in 2016, Mitch is going to have a pleasant dinner with company that will agree with him, and he's going to fall asleep just fine, because he's convinced (or twisted the truth to convince himself) he's doing the right thing, and those who disagree with him are the ones who are un-American...

https://nitter.net/guypbenson/status/1307119221692870659

I think he's probably making calls and planning meetings for tomorrow with the R's on the wall about nominating a SCOTUS judge this soon, as we discuss here on HN. I have no doubt he's had this planned for years and is ready to execute his plan.

I'm somewhat curious how much deference and respect the administration will grant her. Basically how many days before they start pitching their nominee.

Edit: Fwiw, the RBG movie about her is on Hulu now.

They already pitched nominees because they knew she was dying. So zero respect.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/trump-suprem...

I suppose, but the number of days before they bring a nominee to the floor seems a more direct measure.

It isn't about respect. The upcoming election may be disputed in court and the Administration wants to have as many judges on its side as possible. Even if there is no election related court challenge, there are many investigations of the current administration ongoing and it would be helpful to have more conservative justices for insurance.

The upcoming election will only be disputed by one side, because the other side will have such a clear majority that a dispute is practically impossible.

Both sides have lists for judges not just for the supreme court but all federal courts. Its easier to keep a up to date list then to try to figure out a list when there is a vacancy. They will also often reveal the list or parts of it to get other people's opinions.

You know they dont respect her at all and they'll replace her as soon as feasible. This is a political win they can't ignore and people being offended won't change that in the least

You are completely right, I don't know why people are downvoting you.I predict they'll have someone nominated and approved and sitting on the seat within a month. All legistlation will be dropped until this matter is complete. No stimulus checks, no help for businesses, everything else just dropped to Ring2 and getting a new SCOTUS judge is in Ring 0

> All legistlation will be dropped until this matter is complete. No stimulus checks, no help for businesses, everything else just dropped to Ring2 and getting a new SCOTUS judge is in Ring 0

All that stuff is held up in congress - they need the senate judiciary committee and the senate to approve a judge. That's it.

People are downvoting because they're unhappy with the situation but my stating it gives them a target. But on the other hand, I'm not super worried about internet points.

There's a possibility of a block of republicans who are anti trump (romney, collins, murkowski at least) might try to spike it, but McConnell has already said Trump's nominee will get a vote. I guess we'll see if they can cooperate enough to push it through.

Grassley, Murkowski, Collins, and Graham have said they oppose a vote, but that might be lip service and there's a difference between "opposing a vote" and not voting. And pence gets a tie breaker if its a tie.

"romney, collins, murkowski" ... appreciate the hint. Researching that now. My humble apologies for HN blindly downvoting you. Is asked because I don't have a hard preconceived notion, and wanted replies like yours.

Honest curiosity and debate is tricky business here.

People read intention and emotion into statements of fact or opinion based on their own mental situation, and there are a lot of people who are unhappy about this right now and downvoting something you don't want to happen is a way to 'vent'.

But I think Trump will nominate someone and they'll be approved by Senate, perhaps making Trump the most impactful president in terms of the judiciary in recent history.

Three supreme Court judges, roughly a quurter of all federal judges(194) of which 50 something are appeals court judges,and a hundred something district judges (that's not that many). They're fairly young for judges as well.

It's dark times for democrats as a conservative judiciary is going to be around for a while now.

If Trump wins another term and they republicans hold the Senate conservative judges being appointed will continue for another 4 years.

> even she would’ve known it’s at best a wish and nothing else.

It's specifically her dying wish. IMO she's giving Senators who still support democracy something they can say to the press when they decline to vote to fill her seat.

What do you mean "even she"? She literally said it was a wish!

Yep a wish. Like magic. I mean to say that even she knows that our constitution isn’t written for wishes.

I say this as a completely dejected person knowing that the Republicans will fill that seat with another solidly conservative judge, not out of glee.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com