And Kennedy decides to fuck us all

[Crackpot]

I’m really losing hope.

[Econoline]

Shit.

[Big RR]

I'm not surprised--he is 81 and a SC justice is a pretty grueling job; also as the swing vote he more often sided with the right than the left (but he's still likely preferable to what we will likely wind up with).

[Sue U]

I thought Mitch McConnell told us that the Senate doesn't do Supreme Court confirmations during the last year of a president's term.

[MG McAnick]

We can only hope Sue.

[Scooter]

Tell all your gay friends to escape while they can. As well as any woman who doesn't believe that her uterus belongs to the state.

The camps will be set up sooner than anyone thinks.

[Econoline]

[Guinevere]

It’s a election year, no SCOTUS confirmations.

Get to it Mueller.

[Econoline]

Our GREAT junior Senator from Illinois, Tammy Duckworth, just tweeted a screenshot of this tweet:

...followed by this comment of her own:

• W/just 4 months until the American people make their voices heard, & w/everything from women’s reproductive rights to voting rights to worker’s rights to getting money out of politics on the line, there’s simply no need to—or defense of—rushing this process. It’s too important

[RayThom]

It’s a election year, no SCOTUS confirmations.
Get to it Mueller.

Yet with no Congressional election until November.

I can't wait to see how Yertle the Turtle holds up under the weight of his blatant hypocrisy. I can't imagine how Kennedy's seat will be filled by anyone other than a proven Trump unwashed dick and ass licker. Sadly, a Drumpf empowered SCOTUS will be coming after many women's rights issues. First to go... Roe v. Wade.

I pray that I see Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and more strong, like minded women standing next to her at the swearing in of the 116th Congress on January 3rd.

Time's Up & Mueller, perfect together. Adios, Lord Dampnut.

[Lord Jim]

I can't wait to see how Yertle the Turtle holds up under the weight of his blatant hypocrisy.

His argument will probably be that the difference is that it was a Presidential election, and that in this case the same person will be making the nomination regardless of the out-come of the midterm elections...

And of course holding up under the weight of blatant hypocrisy is pretty much a super power for politicians, so that probably wont be a problem...

[Econoline]

[Lord Jim]

Any way you cut it, this is very bad news for the Democrats already slim hopes of retaking the Senate...

If the vote is held before the election, it really puts vulnerable Democratic Senators running for re-election in states that went heavily for Trump (especially Heitkamp in North Dakota and Mancin in West Virginia) between a rock and a hard place...

Vote for the nominee, and they suppress the liberal vote to turn out for them, vote against the nominee, and they energize Trumpanzees (who otherwise might stay home without Trump on the ballot) to turn out to vote against them...

On the other hand, if by some miracle the Dems are able to cobble together the 51 votes they need to delay any vote till after the election, (which would involve getting the support of all four Democratic Senators who voted for Gorsuch and picking up at least two Republicans as well) they could regret getting what they wished for...

Because the polling and electoral history clearly shows that when the Supreme Court is a major campaign issue, it's had a much stronger impact motivating Republican/Conservative turnout than Democratic/Liberal voter turnout...

That was certainly the case in 2016; there were a lot of Conservatives who didn't care for Trump who showed up to vote for him solely because they expected that he would appoint justices more to their liking than Hillary would...

I know that all the Democrats, Liberals and other assorted lefties on this board understand full well the critical impact that elections have on judicial picks and the long term impact those picks have on the direction of the country. But the Democratic party leadership and activists have a big task on their plate to educate a substantial portion of their rank and file voters on this, and get them motivated to turn out to vote over it.

And this is a task that they're going to have to accomplish quickly...

[Crackpot]

See Jim I managed to express all that (and more) in just the title of this thread.

[Guinevere]

Don’t underestimate the fact that Democrats are already incredibly motivated to vote in this midterm because of the possibility of retaking the House ( and I am not prepared at this moment to opine on the likelihood of success). You need to take that into account in your analysis Jim.

There is already a ton of pressure coming from the base to push the Democrats hard on stopping any vote this year. My email exploded yesterday. Again, I can’t and won’t opine on the success of that strategy, but it’s alread being pushed hard.

[Scooter]

First priorities post-2020 election:

1) Blow the Senate filibuster to hell. Republicans will eventually poke enough holes in it to serve their purposes, anyway.

2) Set a retirement age of 70 for all federal judges. Starting with the Supreme Court and working down, replace all retirees with the most pinko 35 year olds that can be found.

3) Add two seats to the Supreme Court and fill them with two even more pinko 35 year olds.

4) Figure out how to position Gorsuch and Trump's new nominee blindfolded in front of a moving tank.

[Econoline]

if by some miracle the Dems are able to cobble together the 51 votes they need to delay any vote till after the election, (which would involve getting the support of all four Democratic Senators who voted for Gorsuch and picking up at least two Republicans as well) they could regret getting what they wished for...

Because the polling and electoral history clearly shows that when the Supreme Court is a major campaign issue, it's had a much stronger impact motivating Republican/Conservative turnout than Democratic/Liberal voter turnout...

You make a very good point there, Jim. (It's an argument I also saw elsewhere, on Facebook, late last night.) Ginning up voter support for a more conservative SC is something the GOP has shown itself to be quite effective at; doing the opposite is unexplored territory for the Dems. Which leads me to the (random, homeless) thought that if there's any chance of the Dems coming up with 51 votes to delay the vote until after the mid-terms, maybe there's just as much of a chance of coming up with 51 votes to defeat a partisan right-wing Trump nominee just before the mid-terms?

(A bonus to this scenario would be that the Dems would have the moral high ground by *NOT* buying into McConnell's hypocritical "no vote in an election year" nonsense. Not that that's worth much, politically...but it might be worth a little bit in a close election.) This might even push Trump to nominate a centrist who could get bipartisan support on his next try...? Y'know...like a real POTUS would do? Nah, wishful thinking.

[Econoline]

BTW, if the Democrats DO try to delay the vote until after the mid-terms they should definitely NOT use McConnell's argument: they should instead use the argument (expressed in the meme I posted above) that they can't vote on such an important nomination while the pResident is under investigation for impeachable offenses.

[BoSoxGal]

Has anybody here ever visited central Italy, particularly Umbria? I have a [very likely] opportunity to go there to teach and live, which appeals a great deal in light of current events in the US. It looks fairly rural which appeals to me - maybe not quite so overrun with tourists?

[Scooter]

Umbria is lovely, and yes, a bit off the beaten track for the most part, yet still accessible to places like Rome and Florence if you should want to go there. There is a lot of "tourist" stuff to see and do, but it does not tend to get overrun with tourists (except places like Assisi). Take a look here.