Worries about Justice Ginsburg’s health driving the Left to issue threats against Trump replacing he

[Jazzhead]

yes you do.

If one avoids selecting someone due to the abortion issue, none are more complicit than Ginsburg.

Yet that never stopped her nomination.

So why does it stop Barrett's nomination?

Oh I know, in your mind it is the wrong side of the issue.

It is foolish to nominate a candidate that is unlikely to be confirmed.   I have no recollection of the circumstances surrounding Ginsberg's nomination, such as whether the GOP had the ability to block it.   But in 2019,  the facts are pretty clear - not one Democrat will vote to approve a Trump nominee for the SCOTUS,  and so confirmation rests on getting the support of all GOP Senators,  with no more than (I think) two defections. 

Under these circumstances,  is it wise to waste time and resources nominating a judge so inextricably tied to the abortion issue?    Quite honestly,  I'd much rather prioritize a sold conservative who will uphold Heller and other Constitutional protections rather than a judge for whom the goal is to overturn Constitutional protections.   

If Ginsburg resigns,  we (conservatives) will have a golden opportunity.   Objective number one should be to not blow that opportunity,  especially since I fear that President Trump will not be re-elected.    For better or worse, that requires a nominee who can gain the support of the GOP Senate's weakest links,  since this is something the GOP is going to have to do on its own,  to a cacophony of baying media.   Do you honestly believe that Barrett can get the support of Romney and Collins?   

[Cyber Liberty]

It is foolish to nominate a candidate that is unlikely to be confirmed.   I have no recollection of the circumstances surrounding Ginsberg's nomination, such as whether the GOP had the ability to block it.   But in 2019,  the facts are pretty clear - not one Democrat will vote to approve a Trump nominee for the SCOTUS,  and so confirmation rests on getting the support of all GOP Senators,  with no more than (I think) two defections. 

Under these circumstances,  is it wise to waste time and resources nominating a judge so inextricably tied to the abortion issue?    Quite honestly,  I'd much rather prioritize a sold conservative who will uphold Heller and other Constitutional protections rather than a judge for whom the goal is to overturn Constitutional protections.   

If Ginsburg resigns,  we (conservatives) will have a golden opportunity.   Objective number one should be to not blow that opportunity,  especially since I fear that President Trump will not be re-elected.    For better or worse, that requires a nominee who can gain the support of the GOP Senate's weakest links,  since this is something the GOP is going to have to do on its own,  to a cacophony of baying media.   Do you honestly believe that Barrett can get the support of Romney and Collins?

Would you consider another Souter or Roberts a blown opportunity?  I would, and would rather see the seat stay vacant.

[berdie]

I don't see Trump having any problem getting a last-minute nominee confirmed. The key is to involve Collins and Romney in the selection, which may result in a slightly less conservative choice, but still far more acceptable than anyone Warren would appoint. It might even benefit Trump's reelection prospects.

I only think that since Obama was stopped from nominating his last judge in his last year....the same could happen to Trump...unless he wins in 2020.

[Snarknado]

Screw that, deal with "moderates" got us Souter.

Souter's confirmation required something like 15 dem votes. That's slightly different than 2020 requiring only 50 of 53 repubs.

[Snarknado]

I only think that since Obama was stopped from nominating his last judge in his last year....the same could happen to Trump...unless he wins in 2020.

0bama wasn't stopped, he made the Garland nomination. If dems had still controlled the Senate do you seriously believe they wouldn't have confirmed him? Repub control of the Senate is the only thing that stopped it. 0bama was also a lame duck at that point; Trump isn't. After the election he might be, but at that point repubs have absolutely nothing to lose by proceeding with a confirmation - exactly as dems would have done if they'd had the votes.

And let's be realistic - even if Trump wins reelection, the Senate is going to be an uphill battle. The prospects for a more conservative appointment then than now are bleak at best.

[Cyber Liberty]

0bama wasn't stopped, he made the Garland nomination. If dems had still controlled the Senate do you seriously believe they wouldn't have confirmed him? Repub control of the Senate is the only thing that stopped it. 0bama was also a lame duck at that point; Trump isn't. After the election he might be, but at that point repubs have absolutely nothing to lose by proceeding with a confirmation - exactly as dems would have done if they'd had the votes.

And let's be realistic - even if Trump wins reelection, the Senate is going to be an uphill battle. The prospects for a more conservative appointment then than now are bleak at best.

I think there are enough Romneys in the Senate wanting to stick a knife in our backs to prevent whomever Trump names getting the slot, more than enough really.  There won't be a single Rat vote this time.  Doesn't stop Trump from naming somebody though...it would make a great campaign issue.

[Snarknado]

I think there are enough Romneys in the Senate wanting to stick a knife in our backs to prevent whomever Trump names getting the slot, more than enough really.  There won't be a single Rat vote this time.  Doesn't stop Trump from naming somebody though...it would make a great campaign issue.

The bottom line is that Trump and McConnell will have to work with the wobbly senators (maybe plus Manchin) to find a nominee who can get 50 votes. Maybe not our top choice but IMO very likely better than we can hope for in 2021 no matter how the election goes. I'd like to think that even Romney would balk at the possibility of being responsible for another RBG clone on SCOTUS, and so could be negotiated with.

[Cyber Liberty]

The bottom line is that Trump and McConnell will have to work with the wobbly senators (maybe plus Manchin) to find a nominee who can get 50 votes. Maybe not our top choice but IMO very likely better than we can hope for in 2021 no matter how the election goes. I'd like to think that even Romney would balk at the possibility of being responsible for another RBG clone on SCOTUS, and so could be negotiated with.

Romney won't go for anybody Trump names, even a Souter clone.  He's out for revenge for Flake.  They're good church buddies.

[Fishrrman]

cyber wrote:
"I think there are enough Romneys in the Senate wanting to stick a knife in our backs to prevent whomever Trump names getting the slot, more than enough really."

All we need are 50 "ayes".
Then Pence casts his vote and breaks the tie.

[Cyber Liberty]

cyber wrote:
"I think there are enough Romneys in the Senate wanting to stick a knife in our backs to prevent whomever Trump names getting the slot, more than enough really."

All we need are 50 "ayes".
Then Pence casts his vote and breaks the tie.

I am not disagreeing with you about the vote requirements, but denouncing the President has become a bit of a cottage industry in today's Senate.  Some of these guys have painted themselves into a corner that forces them to stay anti-Trump all the time.  Romney isn't the only tool to win the Senate by stepping  on Trump all the way.

[Snarknado]

I am not disagreeing with you about the vote requirements, but denouncing the President has become a bit of a cottage industry in today's Senate.  Some of these guys have painted themselves into a corner that forces them to stay anti-Trump all the time.  Romney isn't the only tool to win the Senate by stepping  on Trump all the way.

So far they don't seem to be slowing the pace of judicial confirmations much, though many are only getting 50-54 votes.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

It is foolish to nominate a candidate that is unlikely to be confirmed.   I have no recollection of the circumstances surrounding Ginsberg's nomination, such as whether the GOP had the ability to block it.   But in 2019,  the facts are pretty clear - not one Democrat will vote to approve a Trump nominee for the SCOTUS,  and so confirmation rests on getting the support of all GOP Senators,  with no more than (I think) two defections. 

Under these circumstances,  is it wise to waste time and resources nominating a judge so inextricably tied to the abortion issue?    Quite honestly,  I'd much rather prioritize a sold conservative who will uphold Heller and other Constitutional protections rather than a judge for whom the goal is to overturn Constitutional protections.   

If Ginsburg resigns,  we (conservatives) will have a golden opportunity.   Objective number one should be to not blow that opportunity,  especially since I fear that President Trump will not be re-elected.    For better or worse, that requires a nominee who can gain the support of the GOP Senate's weakest links,  since this is something the GOP is going to have to do on its own,  to a cacophony of baying media.   Do you honestly believe that Barrett can get the support of Romney and Collins?

Yep, the problem for you is it is on the wrong side of the abortion issue.  Actually, I believe you characterized the nomination problem as being her alignment with 'charismatic Christians'.

Sometimes a fight is warranted.  This might be a good time to elevate the problems that Diane Feinstein and Dick Durbin had with Barrett's appointment to the Appeals Court.  For those who need a reminder on what they both said it is here.


Error 404 (Not Found)!!1

Even the New York Times was aghast at what Feinstein and Durbin said about Barrett.
The Dogma of Dianne Feinstein
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/11/opinion/the-dogma-of-dianne-feinstein.html

So let's go ahead and fight.  Like other matters, this has been delayed much too long to let Americans hear about the left and their disdain for religion and religious people.

Oh, and BTW, three Democrat Senators voted to confirm Barrett for the Appeals court.  So your own conjectures otherwise do not hold water.

[verga]

Abortion is the only sacrament they recognize.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Romney won't go for anybody Trump names, even a Souter clone.  He's out for revenge for Flake.  They're good church buddies.

As far as I know, Romney has approved every judicial and cabinent nomination by Trump except one.  And that was due to disparaging remarks the judge had made about Obama.  That judge was approved anyway by the Senate.

Romney envisions himself as a moral person and religious.  It is doubtful he would cast a negative vote for someone as a judge due to being 'too moral'.

[Jazzhead]

Would you consider another Souter or Roberts a blown opportunity?  I would, and would rather see the seat stay vacant.

Souter, yes.  Roberts, no. 

[Snarknado]

I'd also hope that Romney would be reluctant to ruin the career of any well-qualified judge just to spite Trump. At the very least I think there would have to be some reasonably legitimate cause for concern in the judge's personal or professional history.

[Jazzhead]

Yep, the problem for you is it is on the wrong side of the abortion issue.  Actually, I believe you characterized the nomination problem as being her alignment with 'charismatic Christians'.

Sometimes a fight is warranted.  This might be a good time to elevate the problems that Diane Feinstein and Dick Durbin had with Barrett's appointment to the Appeals Court.

A fight is warranted only if you win.   Unlike you, I have no appetite for martyrdom.   Barrett will be an unnecessary lightening rod.   Better to nominate a conservative without her perceived baggage.   

And, no, this has nothing to do with my own views about abortion (which I oppose) and the rights of women (which I support).   This is about taking advantage of a golden opportunity and not blowing it.   

[Jazzhead]

I'd also hope that Romney would be reluctant to ruin the career of any well-qualified judge just to spite Trump. At the very least I think there would have to be some reasonably legitimate cause for concern in the judge's personal or professional history.

I agree that Romney will support a conservative nominee.   His track record, as you point out, says so.  My concern is that Romney (and other GOP Senators) will be under enormous pressure if the nominee is perceived as having an agenda to overrule Roe v. Wade.   I'm not saying that Barrett has such an agenda - personally,  I feel she is too honorable for that - but that will be the incessant Dem talking point.   

[Cyber Liberty]

As far as I know, Romney has approved every judicial and cabinent nomination by Trump except one.  And that was due to disparaging remarks the judge had made about Obama.  That judge was approved anyway by the Senate.

Romney envisions himself as a moral person and religious.  It is doubtful he would cast a negative vote for someone as a judge due to being 'too moral'.

I wish I could agree about Romney, but I think he's a snake in the grass.

[Jazzhead]

. . . the left and their disdain for religion and religious people.

Plenty of folks on the left and the right are religious.   Plenty of folks on the left and the right strongly support the Constitution's separation of church and state. 

[Jazzhead]

I wish I could agree about Romney, but I think he's a snake in the grass.

Then listen to @Snarknado's advice - the nominee should be a conservative, not a lightning rod for a fight that could well be lost.   

[Cyber Liberty]

Then listen to @Snarknado's advice - the nominee should be a conservative, not a lightning rod for a fight that could well be lost.

I think I'll take a pass.  I've already seen what you call "conservative," and I don't think it matters to Romney anyway.    If Donald Trump names a replacement later than November this year, Romney will be more than happy to hide behind the so-called "Biteme Rule" and obstruct the nominee of a President he hates with an unholy fervor. 

As a Senator, Romney is closer in attitude to Jeffy Flake than to any other GOP Senator.  He haaaaates Trump, and will make a show of not voting for him in 2020, like Fake did in 2016.   It's OK if y'all disagree with me and think Romney's a swell guy. 

[Jazzhead]

I think I'll take a pass.  I've already seen what you call "conservative," and I don't think it matters to Romney anyway.    If Donald Trump names a replacement later than November this year, Romney will be more than happy to hide behind the so-called "Biteme Rule" and obstruct the nominee of a President he hates with an unholy fervor. 

I think you missed my point.   If as you say Romney hates Trump with an unholy fervor and will oppose anyone he nominates, then that's all the more reason to nominate a conservative who won't, like Barrett, be a lightning rod.   Forget about whether my idea of a conservative is the same as yours.   This is all about getting a solid jurist to replace Ginsberg,  should the opportunity present itself this year or next.   I know we agree on that.   Where we, perhaps, disagree, is the need for this all to be a social conservative vs. social moderate "fight" within the GOP.   We need 50 GOP votes - that's the reality.   

[EdJames]

I think you missed my point.   If as you say Romney hates Trump with an unholy fervor and will oppose anyone he nominates, then that's all the more reason to nominate a conservative who won't, like Barrett, be a lightning rod.   Forget about whether my idea of a conservative is the same as yours.   This is all about getting a solid jurist to replace Ginsberg,  should the opportunity present itself this year or next.   I know we agree on that.   Where we, perhaps, disagree, is the need for this all to be a social conservative vs. social moderate "fight" within the GOP.   We need 50 GOP votes - that's the reality.   

We don't need a "social anything."  An originalist is what is needed.

[Cyber Liberty]

I think you missed my point.   If as you say Romney hates Trump with an unholy fervor and will oppose anyone he nominates, then that's all the more reason to nominate a conservative who won't, like Barrett, be a lightning rod.   Forget about whether my idea of a conservative is the same as yours.   This is all about getting a solid jurist to replace Ginsberg,  should the opportunity present itself this year or next.   I know we agree on that.   Where we, perhaps, disagree, is the need for this all to be a social conservative vs. social moderate "fight" within the GOP.   We need 50 GOP votes - that's the reality.   

I'd rather see an eight-seat SCOTUS than another lifetime appointment to a squish who wanders from original intent.  And that there are Romneys in the Senate is no excuse for caving to them, because that's how we get squishes on the court.