The Amygeddon!

[SalinasSpartan]

35 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

They could still do it after the election, this would also be a historical norm.

 

The Senate could promise to respond with Court packing, which could scare off the GOP from confirming during the lame duck time period, which would undoubtedly be very unpopular and put some at risk in ‘22; they may feel it wouldn’t be worth it. The Dems would also only need 3 Senators to defect after the election instead of the 4 they need now. 
 

Or the House could just impeach Barr.

[halfmanhalfbronco]

11 minutes ago, SalinasSpartan said:

The Senate could promise to respond with Court packing, which could scare off the GOP from confirming during the lame duck time period, which would undoubtedly be very unpopular and put some at risk in ‘22; they may feel it wouldn’t be worth it. The Dems would also only need 3 Senators to defect after the election instead of the 4 they need now. 
 

Or the House could just impeach Barr.

Yes, we know that democrats will respond to historical norms with huge tantrums and threats to destroy all norms.

No argument here, that, too, is precedent.  

[SalinasSpartan]

3 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Yes, we know that democrats will respond to historical norms with huge tantrums and threats to destroy all norms.

No argument here, that, too, is precedent.  

When was the last Supreme Court justice confirmed during a lame duck session when a new party was taking control of the Presidency and Senate? That’s a “norm” now?

[Rebels18]

[Rebels18]

[halfmanhalfbronco]

18 minutes ago, SalinasSpartan said:

When was the last Supreme Court justice confirmed during a lame duck session when a new party was taking control of the Presidency and Senate? That’s a “norm” now?

Well yes.  It is.  There have been 19 confirmations during a presidents lame duck year.  The most famous Justice in history was confirmed in January, nearly two months after the election.

 

[Nevada Convert]

On 9/19/2020 at 11:24 PM, sactowndog said:

Is there much point to this thread when we all know the nomination will pass??

On the slim chance it does get stopped my guess the 4 Senators who stop it are:

Collins

Murkowski

Alexander

Roberts 

Collins and Murkowski have only said they don’t want the actual confirmation before the election. 

[bornontheblue]

1 hour ago, SalinasSpartan said:

When was the last Supreme Court justice confirmed during a lame duck session when a new party was taking control of the Presidency and Senate? That’s a “norm” now?

You don’t know that a new party is taking over the presidency, and the senate. You say a lot of dumb things 

[NVGiant]

1 hour ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Well yes.  It is.  There have been 19 confirmations during a presidents lame duck year.  The most famous Justice in history was confirmed in January, nearly two months after the election.

 

That’s not a norm. And confirmations in a lame-duck session pushed by the party that just lost power is a really bad idea.

[halfmanhalfbronco]

1 minute ago, NVGiant said:

That’s not a norm. And confirmations in a lame-duck session pushed by the party that just lost power is a really bad idea.

It will be moot, they will get it through before the election.  That would be in line with the norm. 100%.  When the party that controls the Senate is the same as the party of the President, during lame duck years/election years, SCOTUS nominations get confirmed.

 

[NVGiant]

1 minute ago, bornontheblue said:

You don’t know that a new party is taking over the presidency, and the senate. You say a lot of dumb things 

I just want to be clear that I was speaking hypothetically with the above post. If Republicans don’t get this done by Election Day and they lose the presidency and/or the senate, then they can’t jam it through a lame-duck session. 

[NVGiant]

9 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

It will be moot, they will get it through before the election.  That would be in line with the norm. 100%.  When the party that controls the Senate is the same as the party of the President, during lame duck years/election years, SCOTUS nominations get confirmed.

 

Yeah, I agree. It will get done before the election. But hypothetically speaking, a lame-duck confirmation by the losing party would be a really bad idea. I recoil at the thought of the repercussions  my guess is there wouldn’t be enough support to get it done anyway.

As for what is and isn’t a norm. The norm now is whatever the party in power in the senate can do to justify gaining more power is the norm.

[SalinasSpartan]

28 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

You don’t know that a new party is taking over the presidency, and the senate. You say a lot of dumb things 

Lol. I never claimed we know a new party is taking over. All these hypotheticals obviously only matter if Trump loses. If he wins, he will fill the seat regardless, so all this discussion is moot. 

[Maji]

As I wrote on the BSU message board: Court packing has been done by the GOP on the state level. In Arizona, they stacked the state Supreme Court by adding multiple new seats. Was that the "norm?" No.

I don't like the idea of court packing because it jeopardizes separation of powers. It increases uncertainty as well. However, the Senate needs some changes.

[SalinasSpartan]

25 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

I just want to be clear that I was speaking hypothetically with the above post. If Republicans don’t get this done by Election Day and they lose the presidency and/or the senate, then they can’t jam it through a lame-duck session. 

Yea I thought that went without saying that we are all speculating on what would happen if there is no vote by the election and Trump loses. If Trump wins, then none of this speculating matters anymore. Even if Trump wins and the Dems win back the Senate I don’t think the GOP would hesitate at pushing the nominee through during the lame duck period. 

[Nevada Convert]

On 9/19/2020 at 7:30 PM, NorCalCoug said:

I can’t wait for all the forthcoming sexual assault allegations.  Where is Avenatti these days?

They’ll bring forward an actor to play a convincing role as a street pimp. He’ll tell stories about how ACB secretly moonlighted as a street prostitute, and that her favorite money maker was double penetration. 

[halfmanhalfbronco]

30 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

Yeah, I agree. It will get done before the election. But hypothetically speaking, a lame-duck confirmation by the losing party would be a really bad idea. I recoil at the thought of the repercussions  my guess is there wouldn’t be enough support to get it done anyway.

As for what is and isn’t a norm. The norm now is whatever the party in power in the senate can do to justify gaining more power is the norm.

Oh it would be a disaster, but not a first.  Now what would be interesting is if the GOP keeps the Senate with enough votes to Confirm a Justice but losses the White House and a Justice has not been confirmed before the election.

 

[bsu_alum9]

Has the supreme court always been so political?  Before Roe v. Wade and the NRA, were there major historical disagreements between the parties that were so important the court itself became a political issue like this?

[halfmanhalfbronco]

9 minutes ago, bsu_alum9 said:

Has the supreme court always been so political?  Before Roe v. Wade and the NRA, were there major historical disagreements between the parties that were so important the court itself became a political issue like this?

Yes.  From Adams to FDR to the 21st Century.  From the Judiciary Act of 1801 to Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 to Garland and Kavenaugh.  

This is a good read.  https://www.nypl.org/blog/2016/02/17/federal-courts-early-america

Another short one about FDR and the Reform Bill mentioned above.  https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/roosevelt-announces-court-packing-plan

[Nevada Convert]

6 minutes ago, Danimaji said:

As I wrote on the BSU message board: Court packing has been done by the GOP on the state level. In Arizona, they stacked the state Supreme Court by adding multiple new seats. Was that the "norm?" No.

I don't like the idea of court packing because it jeopardizes separation of powers. It increases uncertainty as well. However, the Senate needs some changes.

WTF is wrong with you people? Obama didn’t have the votes for Garland, so you shouldn’t be thinking a seat was stolen. There isn’t any legal problem with nominating and confirming a judge near an election. You guys would be doing the exact same thing right now and you know that. Dems Packing or subtracting just to bypass GOP judge appointments that were done perfectly legal/ethical is really dangerous. The same goes for impeaching Trump just to sabotage his court pick. That’s not what impeachment is for.