SC Justice Ginsberg dead.

[PrimeNumber7]

Reports are that Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg has died.

I would anticipate Trump quickly nominating a solid conservative before the election and the Senate to confirm her.

With Roberts being anti-Trump to the extent that he is willing to ignore laws and the constitution as written, a Trump nominee replacing a solid liberal will likely result in the SC siding with the constitution in any election dispute, which will be inevitable due to Democrats long history of voter fraud, going back to the civil war along with the likelihood of massive voter fraud via vote by mail and the like associated disputes.

What are your thoughts?

[1715344012]

1715344012

[suchmoon]

I would anticipate Trump quickly nominating a solid conservative before the election and the Senate to confirm her.

The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let's give them a voice. Let's let the American people decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be.

[Gyfts]

Rest easy, RBG.

McConnell blocked a vote on Obama's pick to replace Justice Scalia back in 2016 citing that it was an election year, I don't think it's a good look for senate Republicans to rush a pick through in 2 months, but I don't think they'll hold back either. Would love for Trump to appoint a conservative Justice because I'm not all that hopeful about his win in November, but I also get how it'll look extremely hypocritical. Three SCOTUS picks in one term would completely stack the courts.

[PrimeNumber7]

I would anticipate Trump quickly nominating a solid conservative before the election and the Senate to confirm her.

The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let's give them a voice. Let's let the American people decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be.

I don’t think that applies in this situation. The President and the Senate are of the same party. In 2016, they were controlled by opposing parties.

This confirms with long-standing traditions.

This doesn’t matter if the Harris-Biden ticket wins, and Democrats take over the Senate. If this happens, it is all but certain that the SC will be packed regardless of who gets confirmed this year.

Three SCOTUS picks in one term would completely stack the courts.

There will be three picks because of three vacancies. This is different from a president nominating three picks with no vacancies.

Mitch McConnell has released a statement that a Trump nominee will receive a vote by the Senate.

[suchmoon]

The good news is that swing state senators voting for the nomination would likely doom Trump and possibly Senate majority too. Democrats can just fill all campaign ad slots with 2016 vs 2020 Republican excuses and don't even have to say anything else.

[theymos]

Wow, the universe's writers are really going all-out for 2020!

I disagree strongly with RBG's politics in most areas, and I think that her tenure as Supreme Court Justice was very harmful, though I admire her tenacity. If I spend my last decades clinging to life and continuing to fight, with hundreds of thousands of my ideological adverseries hoping for my death and spitting on my grave after I die, then my life will have been an unbelievable success.
This probably actually hurts Trump, though it throws even more chaos into what was already likely to be an incredibly chaotic election. If Trump appoints someone before the election, then evangelical/conservative/libertarian Republicans will have less reason to hold their noses and vote for him, since yet another vacancy is no longer particularly likely. If Trump chooses not to appoint someone while he has the chance, then it pisses off these same voters, since Trump definitely can appoint someone. Whoever he appoints will be tarred-and-feathered in the same way that Kavanaugh was, and the Democrats will use the appointment as way of enraging their base and getting them to turn out. IMO Biden's chance of winning goes up several percentage points due to RBG's death.

There are several paths Trump can take when picking someone:
 - It'd be best for Trump if he can find some way of not appointing anyone, but making it look like the Democrats' fault. Not sure if that's possible. Failing that, his best option from the perspective of being reelected will be to pick someone very moderate and/or of absolutely unimpeachable character. Merrick Garland, for example. This isn't Trump's style, though...
 - I'd prefer that he pick another strict constitutionalist like Gorsuch. I've heard that Amy Coney Barrett would be a good choice from this perspective.
 - It's probably most likely that he'll pick another member of the neocon establishment like Kavanaugh, since Trump is still surrounded by a lot of neocons. This will be bad for everyone.
 - If he wants to throw all of his eggs in the "steal the election" basket, he'll pick someone who he's sure will be loyal. I don't know who on Trump's list most meets this criteria.

Unless the presidential election is a landslide, whoever loses is going to try to steal the election. Trump will claim that mail-in ballots are fraudulent, illegals voted, the deep state conspired against him, etc. Biden will claim that Trump was helped by Russia, and he will also dispute the premise of the electoral college. There are multiple ways that this chaos could unfold, but it's likely that the Supreme Court will get involved at some point, and having several loyal justices will give Trump the edge at this stage of the battle.

RBG was a loyal Democrat in the same way that Kavanaugh and Thomas are loyal Republicans, voting in their respective party's favor whenever they can get away with it, regardless of any actual legal considerations. Gorsuch is actually committed to textualism. John Roberts is not a loyal Republican, and in controversial cases he will always cast his vote in whichever way defers to the executive or legislative branches the most. I'm not familiar enough with the philosophies of the others, though they usually vote along party lines in contentious cases.

If it looks fairly clear that Trump should not win, then IMO he'll get only two or three supreme court votes, including his new appointment. There has to be at least some legitimate lack of clarity. But if for example it all comes down to a few states which can't decide internally who should get their electors, I could definitely see a 6-3 or 5-4 decision either picking the more Republican-favorable slates of electors or throwing out enough of the contested electoral votes to give the decision to a Republican-advantaged House/Senate. (Note: in the "House decides" scenario, the House votes weirdly, and Republicans would currently have it, though this could change, since it's the incoming House/Senate.) With such a strong Court majority, it makes it much more difficult for Biden to steal the election if he loses, which he otherwise might've been able to do with Roberts' help.

This could get really crazy. We could see blood in the streets, threats of secession, etc. I think that Trump is too lazy/unambitious to do anything too crazy like trying a coup after he'd already clearly lost, and modern Americans are as a whole too risk-averse to have anything very close to another 1861-style Civil War (c.f. the extreme risk-averseness evidenced in the coronavirus response), but this could shape up to be the biggest internal conflict since The Civil War. (That said, the most likely outcome is something more ordinary, since the vast majority of people want something more ordinary.)

If widespread Democrat vs Republican violence does happen, I urge forum members to stay out of it. There's honestly not that much difference between how Biden or Trump will govern. Their administrations are or would be staffed mainly by the usual establishment types, their policies will be more-or-less the same sort of stuff we've seen over the last decades, neither of them really represents your beliefs very closely, etc. I believe very much in fighting vigorously for what you believe in, but you have much to lose and almost nothing to gain for making this the hill you want to die on. The strong emotions here on both sides is mainly just irrational tribalism.

I would anticipate Trump quickly nominating a solid conservative before the election and the Senate to confirm her.

The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let's give them a voice. Let's let the American people decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be.

Everyone knew that that was bullshit which he'd flip on whenever it became politically convenient to do so. For this vacancy, he'll come up with some excuse to "fill it", though I don't know why he even bothers with excuses, since both sides have basically abandoned any pretense of civility, consistency, or fairness at this point. If McConnel came out and said, "We're going to fill it this time because it's politically convenient. That's it.", hardly anyone would think any less of him because if it.

This doesn’t matter if the Harris-Biden ticket wins, and Democrats take over the Senate. If this happens, it is all but certain that the SC will be packed regardless of who gets confirmed this year.

Not sure if Biden would do it, but that is pretty likely at some point.

[PrimeNumber7]

The good news is that swing state senators voting for the nomination would likely doom Trump and possibly Senate majority too. Democrats can just fill all campaign ad slots with 2016 vs 2020 Republican excuses and don't even have to say anything else.

I would make the argument that handing Democrats a major loss right before the election would demoralize their base, which would hurt both their ability to fundraise (at least from Americans, I would expect foreign donations would continue) and will likely depress turnout.

[coins4commies]

I think they will name someone before the election with a plan to vote in november after the election. Democrats will come out of left field with a scandal asssociating the nominee with ISIS or Nazi Germany and there will be a Kavanaugh-style circus that comes down to people like Mitt Romney, Susan Collins and Lisa M.

[Juggy777]

Wow, the universe's writers are really going all-out for 2020!

I disagree strongly with RBG's politics in most areas, and I think that her tenure as Supreme Court Justice was very harmful, though I admire her tenacity. If I spend my last decades clinging to life and continuing to fight, with hundreds of thousands of my ideological adverseries hoping for my death and spitting on my grave after I die, then my life will have been an unbelievable success.
This probably actually hurts Trump, though it throws even more chaos into what was already likely to be an incredibly chaotic election. If Trump appoints someone before the election, then evangelical/conservative/libertarian Republicans will have less reason to hold their noses and vote for him, since yet another vacancy is no longer particularly likely. If Trump chooses not to appoint someone while he has the chance, then it pisses off these same voters, since Trump definitely can appoint someone. Whoever he appoints will be tarred-and-feathered in the same way that Kavanaugh was, and the Democrats will use the appointment as way of enraging their base and getting them to turn out. IMO Biden's chance of winning goes up several percentage points due to RBG's death.

There are several paths Trump can take when picking someone:
 - It'd be best for Trump if he can find some way of not appointing anyone, but making it look like the Democrats' fault. Not sure if that's possible. Failing that, his best option from the perspective of being reelected will be to pick someone very moderate and/or of absolutely unimpeachable character. Merrick Garland, for example. This isn't Trump's style, though...
 - I'd prefer that he pick another strict constitutionalist like Gorsuch. I've heard that Amy Coney Barrett would be a good choice from this perspective.
 - It's probably most likely that he'll pick another member of the neocon establishment like Kavanaugh, since Trump is still surrounded by a lot of neocons. This will be bad for everyone.
 - If he wants to throw all of his eggs in the "steal the election" basket, he'll pick someone who he's sure will be loyal. I don't know who on Trump's list most meets this criteria.

Unless the presidential election is a landslide, whoever loses is going to try to steal the election. Trump will claim that mail-in ballots are fraudulent, illegals voted, the deep state conspired against him, etc. Biden will claim that Trump was helped by Russia, and he will also dispute the premise of the electoral college. There are multiple ways that this chaos could unfold, but it's likely that the Supreme Court will get involved at some point, and having several loyal justices will give Trump the edge at this stage of the battle.

RBG was a loyal Democrat in the same way that Kavanaugh and Thomas are loyal Republicans, voting in their respective party's favor whenever they can get away with it, regardless of any actual legal considerations. Gorsuch is actually committed to textualism. John Roberts is not a loyal Republican, and in controversial cases he will always cast his vote in whichever way defers to the executive or legislative branches the most. I'm not familiar enough with the philosophies of the others, though they usually vote along party lines in contentious cases.

If it looks fairly clear that Trump should not win, then IMO he'll get only two or three supreme court votes, including his new appointment. There has to be at least some legitimate lack of clarity. But if for example it all comes down to a few states which can't decide internally who should get their electors, I could definitely see a 6-3 or 5-4 decision either picking the more Republican-favorable slates of electors or throwing out enough of the contested electoral votes to give the decision to a Republican-advantaged House/Senate. (Note: in the "House decides" scenario, the House votes weirdly, and Republicans would currently have it, though this could change, since it's the incoming House/Senate.) With such a strong Court majority, it makes it much more difficult for Biden to steal the election if he loses, which he otherwise might've been able to do with Roberts' help.

This could get really crazy. We could see blood in the streets, threats of secession, etc. I think that Trump is too lazy/unambitious to do anything too crazy like trying a coup after he'd already clearly lost, and modern Americans are as a whole too risk-averse to have anything very close to another 1861-style Civil War (c.f. the extreme risk-averseness evidenced in the coronavirus response), but this could shape up to be the biggest internal conflict since The Civil War. (That said, the most likely outcome is something more ordinary, since the vast majority of people want something more ordinary.)

If widespread Democrat vs Republican violence does happen, I urge forum members to stay out of it. There's honestly not that much difference between how Biden or Trump will govern. Their administrations are or would be staffed mainly by the usual establishment types, their policies will be more-or-less the same sort of stuff we've seen over the last decades, neither of them really represents your beliefs very closely, etc. I believe very much in fighting vigorously for what you believe in, but you have much to lose and almost nothing to gain for making this the hill you want to die on. The strong emotions here on both sides is mainly just irrational tribalism.

I would anticipate Trump quickly nominating a solid conservative before the election and the Senate to confirm her.

The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let's give them a voice. Let's let the American people decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be.

Everyone knew that that was bullshit which he'd flip on whenever it became politically convenient to do so. For this vacancy, he'll come up with some excuse to "fill it", though I don't know why he even bothers with excuses, since both sides have basically abandoned any pretense of civility, consistency, or fairness at this point. If McConnel came out and said, "We're going to fill it this time because it's politically convenient. That's it.", hardly anyone would think any less of him because if it.

This doesn’t matter if the Harris-Biden ticket wins, and Democrats take over the Senate. If this happens, it is all but certain that the SC will be packed regardless of who gets confirmed this year.

Not sure if Biden would do it, but that is pretty likely at some point.

@theymos I feel that they’ll select the nominee, and then they’ll begin the appointment process but they’ll intentionally delay the appointment, and the appointment will only take place post the November 3rd elections.

Also if he were to loose the elections then too he can use his power to appoint a judge till January 2021, so he can appoint the judge post the election results too, and then use the court to reverse the election results, and I know it’s easy to say this and it’s difficult to execute it, but my gut feeling says that this is what he plans to do.

Sources:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-ruth-bader-ginsburgs-death-could-mean-for-2020-and-the-supreme-court/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/18/ruth-bader-ginsburg-supreme-court-faq-explainer

[Spendulus]

...Note: in the "House decides" scenario, the House votes weirdly, and Republicans would currently have it, though this could change, since it's the incoming House/Senate.) With such a strong Court majority, it makes it much more difficult for Biden to steal the election if he loses, which he otherwise might've been able to do with Roberts' help....

If the House decided the POTUS, each state would get one vote, and the Republicans would simply pick Trump.

In the case of an undecided POTUS because of squabbles over mailed in ballots, the situation would be bizarro.

Because a high percentage of people vote party lines and all those fake mail in ballots would be that way, the undetermined or contested candidates would not be just POTUS but all on the ballot.

[Gyfts]

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/517471-trump-meets-with-potential-supreme-court-pick-amy-coney-barrett-at

Trump met with Amy Barrett today. She's a pro-life conservative and ofc a woman, pretty solid pick I think. She has previous judicial experience, she's a circuit judge for the court of appeals for the 7th circuit and taught law at the University of Notre Dame. Some of the research I've done so far on her judicial record points to a strong view on religious liberties, upholds the 2nd amendment and is strongly pro-life so she'd be a great pick.

I would love to see democrats launch character assassination against a christian woman with adopted children 

[squatz1]

Rest easy, RBG.

McConnell blocked a vote on Obama's pick to replace Justice Scalia back in 2016 citing that it was an election year, I don't think it's a good look for senate Republicans to rush a pick through in 2 months, but I don't think they'll hold back either. Would love for Trump to appoint a conservative Justice because I'm not all that hopeful about his win in November, but I also get how it'll look extremely hypocritical. Three SCOTUS picks in one term would completely stack the courts.

Totally not a good look, but I think both sides know that their base is going to back them either way. The GOP knows that if they don't push through this nominee now, then they're going to be giving this nomination to the dems (if Biden is to win in November)

So they're facing a bit of an internal crisis regarding if they're happy with throwing away their past thoughts that blocked Obama to give Trump a chance to set the courts slant for the next few decades.

Personally, if I was a large donor for the GOP I would be tossing TONS of money at them to ensure that they pick a conservative justice that keeps the SC rightward for decades. The Senate / House / Presidency will always change based on eebs and flows, but a SC seat is until death.

I'd rather a long term win, and some short term pain. But that's just me. I'm guessing Barrett will be picked to fill the seat.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/517471-trump-meets-with-potential-supreme-court-pick-amy-coney-barrett-at

Trump met with Amy Barrett today. She's a pro-life conservative and ofc a woman, pretty solid pick I think. She has previous judicial experience, she's a circuit judge for the court of appeals for the 7th circuit and taught law at the University of Notre Dame. Some of the research I've done so far on her judicial record points to a strong view on religious liberties, upholds the 2nd amendment and is strongly pro-life so she'd be a great pick.

I would love to see democrats launch character assassination against a christian woman with adopted children 

I've been reading that they MAY shy away from this pick b/c of the fact that they're nervous on if it pushes away suburban women too much. Then again, if you shy away from this pick then it's a slap in the face to conservatives. So yeah.

[Gyfts]

Personally, if I was a large donor for the GOP I would be tossing TONS of money at them to ensure that they pick a conservative justice that keeps the SC rightward for decades. The Senate / House / Presidency will always change based on eebs and flows, but a SC seat is until death.

I'd rather a long term win, and some short term pain. But that's just me. I'm guessing Barrett will be picked to fill the seat.

I've been reading that they MAY shy away from this pick b/c of the fact that they're nervous on if it pushes away suburban women too much. Then again, if you shy away from this pick then it's a slap in the face to conservatives. So yeah.

It's been going both ways. Mitch McConnell's opponent (forgot her name not even gonna bother looking it up) was raising a crazy amount of money in the hours following RBG's death, probably by a pissed off liberal crowd that wants to preserve that seat. Realistically, no way Kentucky is gonna vote for a democratic senator, especially with Trump campaigning for McConnell so RIP to the money that's being lit on fire to flip that seat.

Barrett MIGHT hurt his suburban woman voters, but the staunch conservatives would absolutely love her on the court.

[bryant.coleman]

Barrett MIGHT hurt his suburban woman voters, but the staunch conservatives would absolutely love her on the court.

If suburban woman are against Barrett, then they are against Trump as well. Because both of them hold the same pro-life views. So I don't think that her selection may cost Trump any additional votes. Even during his 2016 campaign, Trump had explicitly stated that one of his major aims is to overturn the Roe v Wade judgement. After he became the POTUS, Trump vowed to appoint SCOTUS judges only if they are ready to overturn Roe v. Wade. Also, he has stated that he would allow states to ban abortion. So all those suburban "pro-abortion" woman were anti-Trump from the very beginning. He's not going to lose any of them now.

[squatz1]

Personally, if I was a large donor for the GOP I would be tossing TONS of money at them to ensure that they pick a conservative justice that keeps the SC rightward for decades. The Senate / House / Presidency will always change based on eebs and flows, but a SC seat is until death.

I'd rather a long term win, and some short term pain. But that's just me. I'm guessing Barrett will be picked to fill the seat.

I've been reading that they MAY shy away from this pick b/c of the fact that they're nervous on if it pushes away suburban women too much. Then again, if you shy away from this pick then it's a slap in the face to conservatives. So yeah.

It's been going both ways. Mitch McConnell's opponent (forgot her name not even gonna bother looking it up) was raising a crazy amount of money in the hours following RBG's death, probably by a pissed off liberal crowd that wants to preserve that seat. Realistically, no way Kentucky is gonna vote for a democratic senator, especially with Trump campaigning for McConnell so RIP to the money that's being lit on fire to flip that seat.

Barrett MIGHT hurt his suburban woman voters, but the staunch conservatives would absolutely love her on the court.

Staunch conservatives would love her on the court, can't argue with you there. But do you think that staunch conservatives are going to vote for someone who isn't Trump if he picks someone that is more moderate (and an easier pill to swallow?)

I'm not saying that I would agree with him picking someone else, because fuck if you're going to heavily contradict yourself you should at least go hard with it.

My whole line of thought revolves around the fact of -- I highly doubt that conservatives are going to leave the Trump camp, really doesn't matter what he does. But Trump may need those suburban voters to actually win this election. Base support only does so much for you.

[Gyfts]

Barrett MIGHT hurt his suburban woman voters, but the staunch conservatives would absolutely love her on the court.

If suburban woman are against Barrett, then they are against Trump as well. Because both of them hold the same pro-life views. So I don't think that her selection may cost Trump any additional votes. Even during his 2016 campaign, Trump had explicitly stated that one of his major aims is to overturn the Roe v Wade judgement. After he became the POTUS, Trump vowed to appoint SCOTUS judges only if they are ready to overturn Roe v. Wade. Also, he has stated that he would allow states to ban abortion. So all those suburban "pro-abortion" woman were anti-Trump from the very beginning. He's not going to lose any of them now.

I don't think being pro-life is necessarily a dig at suburban woman. Keep in mind, Roe v. Wade is not going anywhere. The literal only justice on the court right now that would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade is Clarence Thomas (and btw, Clarence Thomas is right on the issue, the jurisprudence on abortion is fucking insane), but the court won't take it up. None of Trump's pick would turn it over. I presume Barrett would be the same way but even if not, it's a 2-7 vote if they did vote on abortion.

Abortion "rights" are safe.

My whole line of thought revolves around the fact of -- I highly doubt that conservatives are going to leave the Trump camp, really doesn't matter what he does. But Trump may need those suburban voters to actually win this election. Base support only does so much for you.

I agree but no matter who Trump picks, it's not like he's going to win over massive swathes of white suburban woman. I figured if he's already doing so poorly with them, can't hurt him any further either to pick a pro-life justice.

[squatz1]

Barrett MIGHT hurt his suburban woman voters, but the staunch conservatives would absolutely love her on the court.

If suburban woman are against Barrett, then they are against Trump as well. Because both of them hold the same pro-life views. So I don't think that her selection may cost Trump any additional votes. Even during his 2016 campaign, Trump had explicitly stated that one of his major aims is to overturn the Roe v Wade judgement. After he became the POTUS, Trump vowed to appoint SCOTUS judges only if they are ready to overturn Roe v. Wade. Also, he has stated that he would allow states to ban abortion. So all those suburban "pro-abortion" woman were anti-Trump from the very beginning. He's not going to lose any of them now.

I don't think being pro-life is necessarily a dig at suburban woman. Keep in mind, Roe v. Wade is not going anywhere. The literal only justice on the court right now that would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade is Clarence Thomas (and btw, Clarence Thomas is right on the issue, the jurisprudence on abortion is fucking insane), but the court won't take it up. None of Trump's pick would turn it over. I presume Barrett would be the same way but even if not, it's a 2-7 vote if they did vote on abortion.

Abortion "rights" are safe.

My whole line of thought revolves around the fact of -- I highly doubt that conservatives are going to leave the Trump camp, really doesn't matter what he does. But Trump may need those suburban voters to actually win this election. Base support only does so much for you.

I agree but no matter who Trump picks, it's not like he's going to win over massive swathes of white suburban woman. I figured if he's already doing so poorly with them, can't hurt him any further either to pick a pro-life justice.

Abortion may not directly be a dig at suburban woman. But those are the women who are heavily targetted the most when it comes to advertising on the matter, and FURTHER those are the ones who are going to vote about the issue of abortion.

Do I personally think that any 2020 court is going to overturn Roe v Wade? No.

But people do truly think that. They think that if the conservatives have the balance of the courts Roe v Wade are going away and stuff like that. Obviously a lot of spin and marketing have went into making people think that, but that's not the discussion right now.

For the record I also don't like the fact that we've allowed the SC to rule on such a decisive issue to just make a law up. It's the same situation for a lot of things though. Let the 'impartial' part of government make a decision so everyone else can just sit around and not get in political 'trouble' for it.

I don't think it's a good idea to continue to kill the suburban vote. That vote has been important for the GOP for a longtime, it's going to be needed if the GOP wants to take back the House and keep the Senate. (and obviously keep Trump in the presidency) Taking back the house won't happen this term though, Senate is a tossup.

[Buu32]

Reports are that Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg has died.

I would anticipate Trump quickly nominating a solid conservative before the election and the Senate to confirm her.

With Roberts being anti-Trump to the extent that he is willing to ignore laws and the constitution as written, a Trump nominee replacing a solid liberal will likely result in the SC siding with the constitution in any election dispute, which will be inevitable due to Democrats long history of voter fraud, going back to the civil war along with the likelihood of massive voter fraud via vote by mail and the like associated disputes.

What are your thoughts?

People are saying she should've resigned under Obama, hindsight is always 20/20. At first, I thought they should've waited until after the election but the talking heads on Fox say it's cool. Needless to say, I'm conflicted lol

[pablogomezz]

In Europe ppl do not understand what was done by Ginsburg. I spent an hour to read the full story of this women and it's so strong and motivate me

Ginsburg's life can be summed up in one word: perseverance. The women's rights icon lost her mother when she was just 17 years old, but she pushed on and attended Cornell University, where she met Martin Ginsburg, her husband of 56 years until his death in 2010.

I hope judge elections will not provoke a new fracas.

[Spendulus]

Reports are that Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg has died.

I would anticipate Trump quickly nominating a solid conservative before the election and the Senate to confirm her.

With Roberts being anti-Trump to the extent that he is willing to ignore laws and the constitution as written, a Trump nominee replacing a solid liberal will likely result in the SC siding with the constitution in any election dispute, which will be inevitable due to Democrats long history of voter fraud, going back to the civil war along with the likelihood of massive voter fraud via vote by mail and the like associated disputes.

What are your thoughts?

People are saying she should've resigned under Obama, hindsight is always 20/20. At first, I thought they should've waited until after the election but the talking heads on Fox say it's cool. Needless to say, I'm conflicted lol

I personally think it's okay for this to get done. After what the Dems did to Kavanaugh? Let's see them try it again. My prediction is after Trump announces the choice on Saturday, next week there is Senate debate starting Monday, and by Friday, it will be over.


Sen. Mitt Romney said he would support a floor vote on President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court, essentially clinching consideration of Trump’s nominee this year despite the impending election.

Just two Republican senators have asked for the party to put the breaks on the confirmation. And with a 53-seat majority, Senate Majority Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) now has the votes he needs to move forward with a nominee to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

“I intend to follow the Constitution and precedent in considering the president’s nominee. If the nominee reaches the Senate floor, I intend to vote based upon their qualifications,” the Utah Republican said in a statement.
There’s not much more to add to this, since it adds up to 51 — at least for now. The writing on this wall probably came yesterday after retiring Sen. Lamar Alexander declared his intent to vote for Donald Trump’s Supreme Court pick. Alexander, who usually votes with the majority but likes to work across the aisle, was one of the big votes McConnell needed in harness, pour encourager les autres in a way.

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2020/09/22/breaking-romney-says-lets-get-scotus-vote-now/