HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Trump will select a repla...

Sat Sep 19, 2020, 08:20 AM

Trump will select a replacement. 100% Guaranteed

they will wait till after the election though.

If he wins, they will make it look like a normal process.

If he loses, they will ram it in before the next Senate is seated.

If Dems don't win the Senate, it'll be 9 to 3 for another 4.

If the Dems win the Senate, and Trump loses, the SC will be packed during Bidens Term. And then again during Bidens successors term. And again after Bidens successors successors term.

This is a bad situation, with bad or worse outcomes. No good ones.

16 replies, 1183 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 16 replies Author Time Post
Reply Trump will select a replacement. 100% Guaranteed (Original post)
fescuerescue Sep 2020 OP
jimfields33 Sep 2020 #1
DonaldsRump Sep 2020 #5
jimfields33 Sep 2020 #6
DonaldsRump Sep 2020 #7
jimfields33 Sep 2020 #8
Midwestern Democrat Sep 2020 #11
MoonRiver Sep 2020 #2
qanda Sep 2020 #4
qanda Sep 2020 #3
fescuerescue Sep 2020 #9
kentuck Sep 2020 #10
fescuerescue Sep 2020 #12
JustABozoOnThisBus Sep 2020 #13
spanone Sep 2020 #14
rockfordfile Sep 2020 #15
fescuerescue Sep 2020 #16

Response to fescuerescue (Original post)

Sat Sep 19, 2020, 08:23 AM

1. 6-3. I hope the three stay strong.

I think trump is required to name a person. The senate does not have to do anything though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimfields33 (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 19, 2020, 08:30 AM

5. Trump isn't required to name a nominee

In fact, something similar happened to Lyndon Johnson in 1968, where he declined to nominate the replacement for CJ Earl Warren:

When Chief Justice Earl Warren announced his retirement in June 1968, Johnson nominated Associate Justice Fortas to replace Warren as Chief Justice, and nominated Homer Thornberry (whom Johnson had previously appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in 1965) to the Associate Justice seat that Fortas would be vacating. Thornberry was chosen out of a larger field of candidates who were considered, including former United States Deputy Secretary of Defense Cyrus Vance, Maine Senator Edmund Muskie, United States Secretary of the Treasury Henry H. Fowler and prominent lawyer Albert E. Jenner, Jr.[9]

However, the Warren Court's form of jurisprudence had angered many conservative members of the United States Senate, and the nomination of Fortas provided the first opportunity for these senators to register their disenchantment with the direction of the Court; they planned to filibuster Fortas' nomination.[10] Senate Judiciary Committee chair James Eastland told Johnson he "had never seen so much feeling against a man as against Fortas."[2] Fortas was the first Chief Justice nominee ever to appear before the Senate, and he faced hostile questioning about his relationship with Lyndon B. Johnson.

Johnson sought to help Fortas win a majority vote, but only as a face-saving measure, according to Johnson aide Joseph Califano:

"We won't withdraw the nomination. I won't do that to Abe." Though we couldn't get the two-thirds vote needed to shut off debate, Johnson said we could get a majority, and that would be a majority for Fortas. "With a majority on the floor for Abe, he'll be able to stay on the Court with his head up. We have to do that for him." Fortas also wanted the majority vote....On October 1, after a strenuous White House effort, a 45-43 majority of senators voted to end the filibuster, short of the 59 votes needed for cloture, but just barely the majority LBJ wanted to give Fortas. Later that day, Fortas asked the President to withdraw his nomination.[11]

The debate on Fortas's nomination had lasted for less than a week, led by Republicans and conservative southern Democrats, or so-called "Dixiecrats". Several senators who opposed Fortas asserted at the time that they were not conducting a perpetual filibuster and were not trying to prevent a final up-or-down vote from occurring.[12] However, the Senate web site now characterizes the debate as the first filibuster on a Supreme Court nominee.[13]

In 1968, Senate rules required two-thirds of senators present to stop a debate (now 60% of the full Senate is needed). The 45 to 43 cloture vote to end the Fortas debate included 10 Republicans and 35 Democrats voting for cloture, and 24 Republicans and 19 Democrats voting against cloture. The 12 other senators, all Democrats, were not present.

The New York Times wrote of the 45 to 43 cloture roll call: "Because of the unusual crosscurrents underlying today's vote, it was difficult to determine whether the pro-Fortas supporters would have been able to muster the same majority in a direct confirmation vote."[14]

Once Fortas withdrew his nomination in October 1968, Thornberry's nomination became moot and was withdrawn by the White House without a vote. Former Justice Arthur Goldberg later claimed that he was Earl Warren's preference to succeed him.[15] After Fortas's nomination was withdrawn in the face of Senate opposition, Johnson briefly considered naming Goldberg as Chief Justice as a recess appointment before rejecting the idea.[16] The next president, Republican Richard Nixon, appointed Warren Burger the next Chief Justice. David Leonhardt of The New York Times called Johnson's nomination of Fortas "one of the most consequential blunders in modern American politics" as the chair has been held by conservatives appointed by Republican presidents ever since.[17]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson_Supreme_Court_candidates

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonaldsRump (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 19, 2020, 08:36 AM

6. Interesting. Thank you.

Itís amazing how everything wasnít so partisan back then. Seemed they worked together whether positive or negative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimfields33 (Reply #6)

Sat Sep 19, 2020, 08:40 AM

7. And the Dems controlled BOTH the White House and Senate!

The failure of the Abe Fortas nomination means that the CJ spot has been held consecutively by a Republican/Republican-appointee since 1969. Is it any wonder we are in this situation?

There is no choice except to add more seats to SCOTUS if Trump wins in appointing RBG's successor, in my view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonaldsRump (Reply #7)

Sat Sep 19, 2020, 08:44 AM

8. I think President Biden will.

Heíll have no choice. Between the lower courts stopping his agenda at every turn and the Supreme Court going along with the lower court on every issue, president Biden wonít have a choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonaldsRump (Reply #7)

Sat Sep 19, 2020, 09:39 AM

11. The situation would have been much worse if the GOP had not nominated so many justices

who turned out to be really big surprises. When Bill Clinton was elected, the court consisted of 8 Republican appointees and 1 Democratic appointee - and the Democrat, Byron White, was generally considered to be a conservative. Fortunately for us, three of those Republican appointees revealed themselves to be much more liberal than the presidents who appointed them could ever have imagined - Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, and David Souter - all three of whom intentionally chose to have a Democratic president choose their successor. And earlier, Earl Warren and William Brennan were two other Republican appointees who turned out to be liberal surprises.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fescuerescue (Original post)

Sat Sep 19, 2020, 08:24 AM

2. Unless Biden and Dems add some SCOTUS seats...just saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MoonRiver (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 19, 2020, 08:28 AM

4. Exactly

We need to stop being so weak!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fescuerescue (Original post)

Sat Sep 19, 2020, 08:27 AM

3. Biden and the Democrats can add seats to the SC

There's nothing in the constitution that says they can't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qanda (Reply #3)

Sat Sep 19, 2020, 09:13 AM

9. If Dems win the Senate yes they can

But if the R still control the Senate they won't confirm #10 and #11.

However, packing the court is sure to set off an SC arms race. Bidens successors will also pack the court, and the successsors successors.

If Trump fills the seat, he plants to seat the destroy the SC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fescuerescue (Original post)

Sat Sep 19, 2020, 09:16 AM

10. What if it is a lame-duck Senate?

And several Republicans lose on election day?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #10)

Sat Sep 19, 2020, 09:44 AM

12. they don't leave on election day

That comes a few months later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #10)

Sat Sep 19, 2020, 09:45 AM

13. It's still the senate, until the next senate is sworn in.

No reason they can't approve a new nominee.

Consequences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fescuerescue (Original post)

Sat Sep 19, 2020, 09:46 AM

14. probably before the weekend's out

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fescuerescue (Original post)

Sat Sep 19, 2020, 09:47 AM

15. gop is already on its way losing the Senate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rockfordfile (Reply #15)

Sat Sep 19, 2020, 10:27 AM

16. Which is why they would act AFTER the election

but before the new Senate is seated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread