• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Trump to Appoint SCOTUS pick next week

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

slit

Member
studyguy said:
Even if they do stonewall forever, the nuclear option is always there and I don't trust the GOP not to use it despite how critical they are of it.

At that point it's a loss for both sides to basically shove appointments down everyone's throats.
Click to expand...

The nuclear option would be difficult. Not saying it can't happen but there are a few "moderate" republicans that are scared to death of that and they certainly won't get Dem support.
 
C

ClosingADoor

Member
I don't know about this. I mean, elections are in what, not even 4 years? I'm just not sure Trump has a mandate to nominate anyone at the moment. I think we should wait and see what the American public thinks first.
 
G

guek

Banned
My guess

E0zZ2t.gif


I joke because the alternative is crying ;_;
 
G

Grover Cleveland

Member
Linkark07 said:
Any chance Dems can play the same game GOP did with Garland and keep the seat open until next elections?
Click to expand...

Very low

A) They don't have the numbers

B) Sitting on Supreme Court nominees is an extraordinary (and quite frankly disturbing) move from the Legislative branch and just because it happened to work out for the Reupblicans, I don't think Dems have the heart to do it.

C) They don't have the numbers


They could call McConnell's bluff and see if he will nuke the filibuster, but I doubt they let it get to that point.
 
F

Fuchsdh

Member
liquidtmd said:
It's probably going to be Victor Von Doom at this point
Click to expand...

Nah, Gul Dukat. Where the sentences are already known before the hearings.

RPGCrazied said:
Nothing? Hope Trump will gives us a moderate and not a hard right loon bag?
Click to expand...

Or, that the person he picks immediately dies when a Dem is in office.

Finally, the hail mary is that they become more liberal over time. So there's two more extremely unlikely options to consider!
 
E

Empyrean Heaven

Member
It'll be Pryor. He's the most hard nosed and old school and most likely to take down Obergefeld v. Hodges and Roe v. Wade if given the chance...that is, if the Republicans don't get a supermajority in two years and can just pass amendments.
 
M

Man Called Aerodynamics

Member
Democrats should do whatever they can to not let ANY Trump pick onto the court. Republicans shouldn't be rewarded for playing dirty during Obama's term. As far as I'm concerned, anyone other than Garland is an illegitimate nomination.
 
B

BriGuy

Member
Pick any one of them (or who knows, maybe all of them by the time his term is over), and they're there for the next 25+ years. Say goodbye to progressive causes for at least a generation. Be sure to remind your friends who weren't "inspired" enough or just couldn't trust Hillary enough to go out and vote against this clown.
 
H

hydragonwarrior

Member
Such a missed opportunity for a liberal leaning SCOTUS. Now it's exactly like it was during Obama. I'm hoping the 4 democratic judges hang on for as long as they can.

The one thing which is nice is that there'll be no more challenges to the ACA since... well it's gone. Sigh.

Anyway, I'm assuming whoever gets in will have the most right-leaning record in public memory. It will be far worse than Scalia 2.0.
 
X

Xe4

Banned
For everyone on the left who didn't vote or voted for a 3rd party candidate because "both were shit"... fuck you. The country is fucked for the next twenty years cause you couldn't fucking get over yourself.
 
S

studyguy

Member
hydragonwarrior said:
Such a missed opportunity for a liberal leaning SCOTUS. Now it's exactly like it was during Obama. I'm hoping the 4 democratic judges hang on for as long as they can.

The one thing which is nice is that there'll be no more challenges to the ACA since... well it's gone. Sigh.
Click to expand...

The next 4 years are basically having Ginsburg in a cryostasis till we have a chance at a dem president. If Trump gets two terms in I doubt Ginsburg, Kennedy and maybe Breyer make it. Meaning two liberals out. Scary prospect.
 
S

studyguy

Member
Also to reference for those not aware,
Our current bench:


Anthony Kennedy
Age: 80 yr 6 mo - Ronald Reagan

Clarence Thomas
Age: 68 yr 7 mo - George H. W. Bush

Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Age: 83 yr 10 mo - Bill Clinton

Stephen Breyer
Age: 78 yr 5 mo - Bill Clinton

John G. Roberts
Age: 61 yr 11 mo - George W. Bush

Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Age: 66 yr 9 mo - George W. Bush

Sonia Sotomayor
Age: 62 yr 6 mo - Barack Obama

Elena Kagan
Age: 56 yr 8 mo - Barack Obama
 
J

jfkgoblue

Member
Blader said:
I'm torn on whether Senate Dems should use the filibuster to block this, or any far-right Trump nominee. On the one hand, doing so will make it much easier for Senate Rs to nuke the filibuster, in which case they'll be able to push the craziest SCOTUS picks possible onto the bench as long as they hold a slim majority. On the other hand, if you're not going to block Republicans for fear of them nuking the filibuster, then what good is the filibuster at all?

My guess is that Schumer will let this one go, because it doesn't upset the status quo at all (i.e. trading Scalia for Scalia 2.0), but then invoke the filibuster in the event that Ginsburg or Breyer step down and Trump tries to fill those vacancies with one of his lunatics.
Click to expand...
This is the most likely IMO. Avoids the nuclear option and doesn't really change the makeup of the court.
 
B

Baron Aloha

A Shining Example
Democrats better stand firm for once and fight this. They cannot reward the republicans. Force McConnell to use the nuclear option. Do not back down.
 
S

studyguy

Member
Realistically I don't expect the POTUS to get his court justice nomination stonewalled forever in the first year of his presidency. Anyone expecting it to go that far should probably temper their expectations.

No one actually should want the nuclear option, it's basically asking Trump to put in whatever fringe candidate he wants in the position almost unopposed. Mitigate damage here, going head in the sand benefits literally no one if we block a justice appointment or two and they just ram it down our throats later.
 
S

Seiniyta

Member
If by chance democrats get a super majority in 2020. Couldn't they in theory expand the supreme court to tilt it in their favour?
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
Grover Cleveland said:
Very low

A) They don't have the numbers

B) Sitting on Supreme Court nominees is an extraordinary (and quite frankly disturbing) move from the Legislative branch and just because it happened to work out for the Reupblicans, I don't think Dems have the heart to do it.

C) They don't have the numbers


They could call McConnell's bluff and see if he will nuke the filibuster, but I doubt they let it get to that point.
Click to expand...


Schumer seems willing to sit and wait based on his masterful troll he sent to McConnell and the GOP doesn't seem to be interested in nuking the filibuster. I'm sure they'll eventually crack even if the filibuster isn't nuked, but maybe they can hold out long enough for Trump to appoint somone not so clearly partisan?
 
D

DudeWithNoName

Member
That third fella sounds like the best of the bunch. Solely because of the keeping the overzelaous law enforcement and prosecuters in their place bit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Senate confirms Gorsuch to replace Scalia on Supreme Court
5 6 7 8 9
436
43K
Branduil replied
  • Locked
Supreme Court Nominee - Neil M. Gorsuch |OT|
15 16 17 18 19
908
96K
theWB27 replied
CNN: SCOTUS stays execution of Georgia death row inmate amid claims of racial bias
8
2K
skullmuffins replied
Nobody On The Supreme Court Is Retiring (At Least For Now)
11
2K
Steeped in a Sea of Games replied
The Strange Civil Rights Views of Trump’s Latest Court Nominees (Politico)
36
3K
Lord Frieza replied
Top Bottom