Would the Senate confirm a racist, anti-abortionist nominee?

[Tennessee Hillbilly]

The democrats should immediately start checking the background of whoever trump nominates to the Supreme Court, especially looking for past expressions of racist or anti-abortionist views.

Barr and his DOJ can't be trusted to provide an honest background check.

If evidence of racist and/or anti-abortionist views is uncovered, I think there's a good chance that the nominee wouldn't be confirmed.

-- Murkowski would almost certainly vote "No".

-- Susan Collins could vote "No", especially if the final vote is delayed until after the election. She has said more than once that Roe v. Wade needs to be protected.

-- Tim Scott is also a possible "No" vote. He derailed a 1918 nomination to a district court after past racist activities of the nominee came to light.

Other repug senators who could be possible "No" votes include Mitt Romney, Chuck Grassley, Ben Sasse, and possibly others. Although some of these are long-shots, the nomination of a racist anti-abortionist could increase the chance that one or more of them would vote "No".

Question: If the dems do uncover evidence of past racism or anti-abortionist views, should they wait until the hearings are well underway before they play their hand.

The ultimate outcome might depend on whether the final vote occurs before or after the Nov. 3 election.

But there are so many aspects to this matter, and so many different individuals involved, that no one can predict what will happen.

[LonePirate]

1. This is a rhetorical question, isn't it? A Repub Senate would most certainly confirm one.

[MiniMe]

2. A 1918 nomination?

Didn't realize Tim Scott was that old

[qazplm135]

4. you know what they say about us...

Black don't crack.

[qazplm135]

3. they won't nominate someone who is so clearly a racist

even Republicans see it.

Of course, the problem is Republican vision is pretty much blind on that account.

They will pass an anti-abortion justice. 4 of them already sit on the court right now.

[DBoon]

5. Have they refused to confirm one before?

any examples of this scenario playing out with other Federal judge appointments in the last 4 years?

[bpj62]

6. I'll be your Huckleberry

Absolutely without any hesitation at all. Murkowski will be allowed to vote her conscience. Susan Collins will express her concerns but will vote to confirm. McConnell will flat out tell us that 2020 is different from 2016. This is simply Kabuki Theater from the Senate.

[Rice4VP]

7. Tim Scott has gotten them to deny some

racist judges. We expected the sky to fall with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, but on a few occasions this year they voted the right way.

Vote!

[not_the_one]

12. Give'em time.

They know the first few decisions they participate in are going to be highly scrutinized. They will relax into their true version. They were picked for a reason.

[Maru Kitteh]

8. Wow. Tim Scott looks really good for his age.

I had no idea he was that old.

[onecaliberal]

9. They already confirmed a rapist.

[TomCADem]

10. Did the Republican Senate Confirm Barr and Kavanaugh?

nt

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

11. They've done so in the past.

Why should it be any different now.

One thing to count on is that whoever Trump nominates will be singularly unqualified for the job. We can only hope that enough Republicans will be sufficiently revolted by that person as to not confirm.

And if that happens, the replacement nominee will be even more unqualified.