Republicans gearing up to fill possible Supreme Court vacancy this election year
Everyone is focused on Ginsburg’s health, but would one of the older conservatives (Thomas, Alito) retire at the end of June to make sure the seat is filled by another conservative?
Can you feel the tension? Every time Ruth Bader Ginsburg goes to the hospital or has a medical diagnosis or procedure, you can feel it. What if this is the time?
Of course, while Ginsburg is the oldest and most infirm of the Supreme Court Justices, the unexpected death of Antonin Scalia is a reminder that the unexpected can happen.
Mitch McConnell famously has bragged that of course the Republican Senate would confirm a replacement for a Supreme Court vacancy. Comparisons to Merrick Garland were inaccurate, because the Garland was nominated by a president whose party did not control the Senate.
I wrote about McConnell’s explanation in October 2018, McConnell opens up possibility Senate would confirm Trump SCOTUS nominee in 2020:
Mitch McConnell dropped a political nuclear bomb on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.
In discussing Senate confirmation of Supreme Court nominees, McConnell discussed how he did not allow Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to go forward. He contrasted the Republican position with Democrats’ attacks on Brett Kavanaugh by pointing out that Republicans didn’t try to destroy Garland, they simply followed Senate tradition of not voting on a nominee in a presidential election year.
But in describing that history, McConnell said that the history of the Senate going back to the 1800s was to not vote on a nominee in a presidential elections year where the president is of a different party than the party controlling the Senate.
That last provision was picked up on by Wallace, who asked if that meant Republicans would confirm a Trump nominee in the next presidential election year.
McConnell didn’t answer directly, he just repeated that the tradition was not to confirm in the last year where the president was of a different party than controlled the Senate. That would mean, but McConnell didn’t say explicitly, that if there were a Supreme Court vacancy in 2020, the Senate would move forward with confirmation despite the looming 2020 presidential election.
.@senatemajldr: We didn’t attack Merrick Garland’s background and try to destroy him. We simply followed the tradition in America, which is that if you have a Senate of a different party than the president, you don’t fill a vacancy created in a presidential year. pic.twitter.com/u1jm36EEbC
— FoxNewsSunday (@FoxNewsSunday) October 7, 2018
McConnell repeated the objective in May 2019, McConnell pours salt in Democrats’ Merrick Garland wound: Yes, we’ll confirm Trump SCOTUS nominee in 2020:
McConnell just announced, with a smile on his face, that if there were a Trump nominee for a Supreme Court vacancy in the 2020 election year, the Republican controlled Senate would confirm that nominee.
Lindsey Graham, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee which would hold confirmation hearings, has just reiterated McConnell’s point. The Hill reports:
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said the Senate would work to confirm a Supreme Court nominee this year if a vacancy arises, saying the circumstances are different from 2016, when Republicans blocked then-President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland.
Graham, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, noted that both the Senate and the White House are held by Republicans, versus in 2016, when the GOP-held Senate denied Garland a hearing.
“Well, Merrick Garland was a different situation. You had the president of one party nominating, and you had the Senate in the hands of the other party. A situation where you’ve got them both would be different. I don’t want to speculate, but I think appointing judges is a high priority for me in 2020,” Graham said in an interview on “Full Court Press with Greta Van Susteren” set to air Sunday.
“If you look into the history of the country, there had not been an occasion where somebody was confirmed in a presidential election year after primary started when you had divided government,” he added.OThe discussion takes place starting at the 5:00 minute mark of the video at Greta’s website. Unfortunately, the video does not appear to have an embed code.
Other Republicans are more blunt: We’re filling the seat no matter what. Politico reports:
“We’re going to fill it” if there is one, said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the No. 3 GOP leader. “With Justice Scalia … people might not have thought he was the one, because he wasn’t the oldest at the time. You just never know.” ….
“My guess is yes. That’s ultimately a decision the leader makes. But I think you’ve heard him speak to the subject before. He believes if there was a vacancy, he’d fill it,” said Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, the GOP whip. “Confirmation hearings in the age of COIVD-19 would be very interesting but I’m sure no less contentious than the last one.” ….
In a brief interview, Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) declined to say there was a cut-off to when a new vacancy might be considered. His predecessor, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), declined to hold a hearing for Garland.
Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said a Supreme Court opening represents the “ultimate hypothetical” — but one Republicans would be prepared to respond to whenever it occurs.
“There’s no cut off,” said Blunt, the No. 4 GOP leader.
In addition to Ginsburg’s health, senators are also keeping tabs on whether any other justices will retire. Four justices are 70 or older: Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
So, if there is a vacancy, expect Republicans to try to fill in before November. And it the vacancy is created by one of the liberals, expect all hell to break loose as Democrats not only raise Merrick Garland, but the Wuhan coronavirus disruption as well.
Possible unexpected development:
Would one of the older conservatives (Thomas, Alito) retire at the end of June to make sure the seat is filled by another conservative?
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Maybe we can get two. RGB and another.
Doesn’t the wise latina have diabetes? Maybe retirement would be a good option for her.
It’ll all mean nothing if obama and clinton go unpunished. The next democrat president will be worse than either of them, knowing they are immune from any punishment no matter how deep the treason or corruption.
Barr, you motherf–ker. You’ve done more damage to our country than obama and clinton themselves.
A prognostication for your consideration if you please! Should one or more vacancies appear for the supreme court the guidelines for Covoid 19 response would be totally out the window.
1 The Democrats (who are not in Congress at this time) would quickly reconvene to rush through an impeachment inquiry and impeachment vote in hope that the Senate would be unable to confirm Judicial nomination of a President on trial.
2) The current rules of social distancing would be totally ignored as crowds of protestors would show up to shout down any and all nominees or GOP Senator who came within their sight.
3) The Senate gallery would be stuffed with activist determined to disrupt the proceedings.
It would be an amalgamation of all the stupidity of the last three and a half years of the resistance leftist tantrums and could even result in an all out riot.
Some thoughts:
1. That round already barely made it out of the barrel before it plinked on the ground. The next might misfire entirely.
2. No noisy bodies in the committee chambers, only video cameras with monitors sufficiently far away to ensure a lack of noise therein. That way, the proceedings would be public. Video feed could be easily cut if they had to go into a private meeting.
3. Close the gallery and substitute cameras and monitors as in suggestion 2 above.
It’s probable that Republicans would be harassed as they walked through public places. The capitol police, I’m sure, could handle it.
.
Yes it is exactly what would happen. An absolute perfect example of their “For Thee, Not For Me” policy(s)
1. Would be glorious. It would be beyond obvious that it was just politics and would just further make it easier for Trump to get elected again. Also say they managed to impeach him. The Senate is not obligated to put everything to the side while they decide on the impeachment. They could just ignore it, confirm the SCOTUS pick, and than move on to impeachment. Or given how shamelessly naked such a move would be by the Democrats the Senate would just dismiss the charges automatically.
2. Of course. Protestors would suddenly find that the virus isn’t so bad.
3. The Senate would be cleared out of any riff-raff. Mitch would just close the gallery because of the virus.
On the contrary, as DSHornet says the Wuhan Disease would give McConnell the perfect excuse to keep audiences out of hearing rooms and the senate and thus avoid all of that.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see them skip hearings entirely. Make the candidate available over secure video teleconferencing to every Senator. Hold the votes electronically.
If they have enough votes to confirm without holding another circus, why wouldn’t they?
To have a chance to replace one of the more liberal justices on the SC could be a huge distraction from the Presidential race itself depending on how things play out. Depending on how Mitch conducts the Senate and it’s hearings he could keep a lot of the media’s attention on that while Trump meanwhile continues to go out, hold his rallies, and shore up support for Republican candidates in Congressional races without the media raising as much of a hue and cry about it as usual. Meanwhile Sleepy Joe continues to be…. well Sleepy Joe and Trump sails to an easy win in November!
As to cries of hypocrisy and other Dem objections all Mitch has to say is: I don’t work for your party! No duh I’m going to advance Republican priorities when I get a chance to do so!
Oh and let’s be real on the cries of hypocrisy: If the Dems had control of the Senate when Scalia kicked the bucket, it WOULD be Garland on the SC right now instead of Gorsuch or Kavanaugh. Republicans need to be firm and tell them they can just suck it up and take it if they this opportunity.
If Dems had controlled the senate when Scalia died, it would have been someone to the left of Garland on the court now.
Garland was offered up as a trojan leftist the Repubs might vote in as good little losers. Without having to placate them, there would not have been any fig leaf.
True. We should be very thankful Republicans had the Senate at that time!
Garland wasn’t nominated in the hope that Republicans would vote for him, he was nominated because 0bama was confident that Republicans wouldn’t vote for him. The whole purpose was to taunt the Republicans and made them look bad. Had the Republicans confirmed him 0bama would have pulled his nomination.
“Would one of the older conservatives (Thomas …”
Don’t even joke about Thomas retiring …
Vetting qualified SCOTUS candidates isn’t good enough in this political blood sport era. We’re going to get another dunce up there testifying about their hippocampus and double door fetish, brought on by passing out near a punchbowl then being passed around by the devil’s triangle boofer gang. I’m old enough to remember when the conventional thinking was a pubic hair on a C0ke can joke could derail a nomination. I can only imagine what’s in store for the next nominee.
Thomas & Alito condition their soon-to-be-announced retirements (one or both) on the Don’s promise, channeling M. Corleone, to “settle all family business” and to replace them with people in the mold of Scalia, with each nominee to be in his/her mid-40s. The core of an originalist bloc (four justices; Roberts unfortunately is not imo dependably in that core) remains in place for decades creating solid originalist precedents.
And when Trump wins his second term, ooh-la-la. Then we’ll get an originalist core of five or more.
Not Scalia, Thomas.
Usually when Scalia and Thomas disagreed, I think Thomas had the better argument.
I certainly understand the popular preference for Scalia, as he spoke at many conferences over the years in contrast to Thomas, who maintained a much lower profile.
Thomas is speaking (writing, actually) to a much smaller, but much more critical audience; future supreme court justices. When the court is considering overturning a prior precedent, they will sometime look at dissenting opinions from that case and use that as a starting point. This is an area where Thomas has been absolutely prolific, much more so than Scalia was.
Yes. The big issue is no long so much originalism as stare decisis. Kavanaugh, for instance, is a fairly solid originalist, but he is Kennedy’s acolyte when it comes to precedent, so I expect him to be on the wrong side of any abortion decision. Not because he wants to be but because he believes it to be his duty.
Thomas is still a lone voice on the court arguing his position that when the court believes a constitutional precedent it set is wrong it must reverse itself, because the current doctrine illegitimately gives the court the power to amend the constitution. Not even Scalia bought that, but he keeps arguing it in decision after decision, and eventually younger justices may be convinced.
Another position of Thomas’s in which he’s so far a lone voice but has completely convinced me, is that while the rest of the first amendment, including the free exercise clause, is incorporated into the 14th, the establishment clause is not. It is the only clause in the first amendment that does not protect an individual right, and the 14th specifically protects rights. There is no right to the absence of an established church; so the 14th doesn’t forbid the states from establishing one.
But no state will ever try that.
Not formally, but states do things all the time that can be seen as endorsing one religion over others, or religion in general over non-religion. The USA can’t do that, but every time such a case comes up (and they do so regularly) Thomas points out that nothing in the text of the constitution says states can’t.
That is called the BIDEN rule. IT goes back to GHW Bush
This topic is yet another reminder of why so many voted the way they did. While re: personality the vote might have been perceived as a choice between “the lesser of two evils” (and even *that* gradation, as we are learning, was much more nuanced–and much less subtle!), the appointment of federal and Supreme Court justices is where folks always knew the *real* action was going to be.
Good Grief! Thomas is just shy of 72. He’s got a good ten years at least to go.
If he were to be thinking about retiring, it would be at the end of Trump’s SECOND term, and then only if he thought the odds better than even that a Democrat would be elected president.
From all appearances, Thomas is a happy guy. As he’s said (paraphrase), “I don’t have any stress. I cause stress.”
He’s gonna be around for quite a while. Rejoice!
I’ve seen it reported that the “Wise Latina” isn’t very healthy either…
RBG seems to have one foot already in the grave.
Breyer is 80 IIRC.
Sotomayor has diabetes.
And Trump is likely to have a 2nd term.
Oh, and don’t forget all the other federal courts he has packed. If Trump was bad on everything else, it would be worth it.
McConnell – slow and steady wins the race.
Yes, barring something very bad happening Trump is almost certain to have a 2nd term. It’s very possible he’ll get to appoint at least one, and maybe more, during a 2nd term in office.
I consider it crucial that Trump stays in office. It is equally important that someone with a similar background and temperament be ready to take over when Trump’s reign ends.
There is no person on earth with a “similar background and temperament”. I’d be ecstatic if the next one just had similar policies.
SCOTUS nominations?
IMO the limited time within the Senate Calender between today and the election should be spent:
1. Scheduling confirmation vote for every Judicial nominee who’s nomination was passed by Judiciary committee
2. Scheduling committee hearings for every Judicial nominee whose nomination has not passed the Judiciary committee
3. Scheduling a confirmation vote for every rule making agency nominee who has been passed through the relevant committee
4. Scheduling committee hearing for every nominee before the relevant committee
Then take stock of the calender and the task ahead. If we can get these current nominee a final confirmation vote and still have time left great. Now go play parliamentary shenanigans to push more confirmation votes for additional nominees.
Gee whiz, do what is in front of you now before adding to the numerous of unconfirmed nominees.
Btw, what army does the Supreme Court have to enforce their will?
The likes of Lois Lerner will turn the IRS on them, or obama and company will otherwise compromise one of them as they have that jackass Roberts.
The election of a democrat president is the election of a fascist. It’s all over gang.
THANK YOU, BARR!
Why are we all hoping Trump replaces an additional two conservative justices? I want him replacing wild and crazy liberal justices!
Sen. McConnell could just take the bull by the horns and announce that “since Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden decided to take Supreme Court confirmations from sober consideration of qualities and turn them into intense, politically-driven, hyper-partisan show-trials, OF COURSE we’ll follow the precedent that they set.”
“And I want to specially thank Joe Biden for creating such a useful tradition.”