Rick - serious question. Let's say that happens, but in 2020 we have a democratic president and senate majority. Why not appoint 2 additional SCOTUS justices making 11? Is that not a reasonable response to them stealing Garland's seat? They know no bounds, why should we?
-
-
-
That would provoke a backlash. But if you also cancel all future elections, it might work.
-
Stealing the court didn't prompt a backlash - I really don't think stealing it back would either. There would be MASSIVE media pressure. But if Dems weathered that....there would be no electoral price. Probably a net gain by finally showing base willing to play hardball.
-
Every winning party would do this after every election. You would end up with 50 Justices
-
Only when justified by the opposing party literally stealing the court. Acycle or two of UNprovoked additions *would* eventually exact a political price since it's gaming the system instead of restoring it. On the other hand it might lead to needed reform term lengths/removals
-
I guess if enough GOP Senators could be persuaded to stabilize/legitimize the court again by joining in removal of Gorsuch that's your other option. Seems absurdly unlikely though
-
The New Democratic president could ask him to resign as the alternative. He shouldn't be on the court in the first place so he could prevent things getting uglier by letting a democratic president appoint his replacement. Worth a try.
-
He was confirmed by the Senate....so no.
- 8 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Yup, and that exactly what would happen. If Kennedy retires after this term, Rs replace him.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Kennedy would have already announced if that was the plan right?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Let’s be clear: if that happens, McConnell wins the Court fight and unless something unexpected happens, the Court severely circumscribes government power for years. But Democrats likely win from an electoral politics standpoint.
-
Remember when Bush nominated his personal lawyer? Much is lost between the cup and the lip. Don’t underestimate Trump’s desire to nominate Cohen or someone else equally awful. But yeah, McConnell would win in the end.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
didn't that POS Mitch said no supreme court nominee hearings in an election year>
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If your hopes depend on Collins/Murkowski, it’s pretty much game over. Also, who’s to say the Dems hold the line in an election year?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Hard to see how EITHER side gets electoral advantage out of a vacancy this year since the result is pre-determined regardless of how election goes. (Unless, say, Collins & Murkowski went centrist. Which is just a fantasy.)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Pro-choice Collins and Murkowski would cast the deciding votes.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yea, this, like many other norms, is something which would be better off not being tested.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That's a nontrivial process during which he can't afford to lose a single vote; and remember, this nominee will be coming from the Troll-in-Chief. There's a lot of ways the Republicans could lose serve on that one.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
With such a thin margin, the question of what Collins and Murkowski will do with Roe clearly in existential danger is paramount.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.