SCOTUS nomination: Wait!

As you may know, I am a Democrat, a disloyal Democrat.

Democrat because over my lifetime I have generally approved of Democratic policies which were, in brief, pro-working class.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

In recent years, as Democrats have become progressively more progressive, they have become unmoored from the principles that once attracted me — a flat playing field where people got an equal shot and the same rules applied to everyone. Thanks to identity politics, that is no longer the case. “Exceptions” are the norm, and there are no norms. “Normal” suddenly is an improper value judgment.

Whether there is a D after my name or not, I think everyone should  play by the rules. My rules are that I vote for the person with the best ideas and the best character, if possible. That is not always a Democrat. I try to be fair.

Who would be a fair replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

She was a tiny intellectual giant in the judiciary, she effected much beneficial change, and will be long remembered. Sorrowfully, she died on the first night of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year, and that will forever mar the holiday for her family.

As to the politics, one of my dear friends, who is a loyal Democrat, said to me, “What do you think Democrats would do” if the same situation fell into their lap? They would try to seize the nomination.

Or, as the Republican talking heads are saying, “What would Nancy and Chuck do?”

They would go for the gold, of course, all the while proclaiming it was to protect the republic, because that’s all they care about, country over party.

Of course.

You may recall that Republicans would not entertain President Barack Obama’s 2016 nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court because it was eight months before a presidential election. That was too close, said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who now says he will press for an immediate replacement for Ginsburg, 46 days before an election.

Obama has called on McConnell to hew to his own 2016 standard.

McConnell has concocted an alibi that his former objection exists only when the Senate and the president are in different parties.

The Latin phrase for this is bullus shitis.

Yes, even though Nancy and Chuck would do it, I would not. I don’t allow self-serving politicians to establish a moral code for me. Ditto for McConnell.

Since the Supreme Court, like the rest of America, is divided, it is better to have a balanced court than not. 

Thanks to President Donald J. Trump’s excellent luck, he got to appoint two conservatives to the High Court, which now leans somewhat right.

In a perfect world, or at least Stu World, Ginsburg’s replacement should be a woman, and probably left of center. Trump will never do that and the Republican Senate will never approve of that.

The composition of the court is highly important to Republicans as they see it as a possible brake against Democrats’ craziest ideas. They see possible gains to be made in gun rights, immigration, affirmative action, and abortion. The Democrats see the same, but from the opposite end of the spectrum.

The “fair” thing is to let the voters decide.

They know that if they elect Trump they may have a court that is very conservative and very friendly to his whims.

They know if they elect Biden, the court would remain much as it is: Divided, but only slightly right..

It’s possible that fair-minded people will see this as a Republican power grab and might decide to punish the GOP.

Politically, trying to ram through a nominee will be no walk in the park for McConnell. The Democrats will use every judicial delaying tactic known to man, and perhaps some known only to goats. They won’t move the goal posts, they will lock them in a UPS van heading to Montreal.

You think Brett Kavanaugh had a rough time? The Democrats will want to stretch out the confirmation hearings until President Biden (in their dreams) withdraws the nomination.

McConnell has 53 Republican senators, but he may not have 53 Republican votes. Maine Sen. Susan Collins and Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski both have said they won’t vote before the election. Utah Sen. Mitt Romney voted for one article of impeachment against Trump and might want to screw him again. S.C. Sen. Lindsey Graham in the past has said the nomination should wait, but he’s kind of a weasel. Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey barely beat a Democratic unknown in 2016 and would place himself in peril with independents if he votes with McConnell. 

All statements and positions from politicians I mentioned are subject to change, as senators are subject to lethal pressure.

One thing that won’t change is my opinion: Let the next president, whoever, make the nomination. It is fair and follows McConnell’s own prescription.

39 thoughts on “SCOTUS nomination: Wait!”

  1. All things being equal I would agree with you but after the disgraceful, “Spanish Inquisition ” the Democrats held for Kavanaugh and the sham impeachment I think Trump and the Republicans should do whatever they want

    1. Tom, what about, among other things, the disgraceful things Trump did to try to minimize the Covid pandemic which he finally admitted to? He probably caused thousands of deaths.

        1. Phillyborn:

          What makes you think the country would have become hysterical? If we had a strong President in office who had shown true leadership I can say without doubt it would not have happened.

          Why not ask the friends and families of those who died, not to mention those who have gotten sick, how they feel about Trump’s lying?

          1. You sure about that, consider the run on toilet paper, that was rational citizens stocking up for spring cleaning.

            I get it when it comes to Trump, you hate him, i was taught not to hate, so I feel one degree below hate for the man. But I try to see the rational of his actions, no easy feat. But many of his actions resulted in positive outcomes.

            I believe he did show strong leadership, not so much for many of the democrats that constantly attack and refuse to acknowledge their own shortcomings. I know they are mimicking his attacks, but that course of action does not solve anything.

            By the way, I am both friend and family to the dead as well as many who have tested positive. I do not speak for them, but I know some of them blame our governor more than the president.

            I have also witnessed the devastation to families and sick individuals, by the shutting down of the medical profession.

          2. Phillyborn:

            People do the same thing because it might snow. Do you suggest we not tell people if a major snow storm is approaching? Also, should we have kept it quiet when 9/11 was taking place?

  2. Wouldnt it be nice and healing if McConnell, Schumer and some others could sit down and come up with a nominee they could get through the Senate on a bipartisan basis? Does that jurist exist? But McConnell and Trump could be a cross purposes here with the same goal but a different way of getting there. McConnell can wait til after the election while Trump cannot.

  3. The perfect nominee for the SCOTUS: a Black female transsexual Muslim disabled military veteran who is converting to Judaism. Did I miss any of the boxes that have to be checked in this day and age? White men need not apply.

    1. Vince,
      That was always my line, when talking to a graduate engineer, very wet behind the ears, who had visions of going into business. The young lassie, would be marrying her sweetheart/engineer, thus they would be, minority, female – the whole nine yards ! they would have have work up…..

  4. Let’s assume for a moment , Biden wins the election. He selects a replacement for Ginsberg. Now one year later Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito retires or dies do you really think the Democrats would nominate a conservative to replace them. If there is a vacancy the President has an absolute RIGHT to nominate a person to the Supreme Court regardless as to how much time is left in his administration. Yes, I am aware this has other implications to be considered but I still maintain it his RIGHT to nominate someone to replace Ruth Ginsberg. Consider, if Obama had a Democratic Senate do you really think he and the Democrat’s wouldn’t have proceeded to nominate Garland and get him confirmed to the Court before the last election. It was his misfortunate however that the Democrat’s didn’t control the Senate.
    Again let’s assume the Republicans can nominate and get a conservative to replace Ginsberg and then Biden wins.the election………just who do you think he will appoint to any vacancy(ies) that arise in their administration. And are you comfortable with whom he chooses and as of this date he hasn’t said who are his candidates other than an unidentified black female.

  5. Correct me if I am wrong, it is the President’s job to nominate a candidate, the Senate’s job to vote on the nomination. Trump has every right to nominate a
    candidate. There is no law that says he can’t. I believe he should put forth a nomination and let the chips fall where they may.

    1. There is the “right” you have and the right thing to do. All I am saying is do exactly what McConnell did in 2016. You have a “right” not to, and fair minded peolle have a right to call McConnell a scumbag.

  6. I say nominate now, because they will fight dirty, now or later, no matter the choice. They have already stated they intend not to accept the election results (remember 2016 all the bullus shitis), whenever the hell that occurs. So why give them this one. This is a mean bunch and it’s time get down with the dirty. You can bet your glulteus maximus that’s exactly what they would do. And if “Slow Joe” Biden wins? Then, well, we can ALL kiss it goodbye. The door will be wide open for the Berner’s and worse. I believe that part is just around the corner.

    Tom, with info from Charles told me to use the link. It works ! You didn’t block me. Never did! before this…..
    I couldn’t agree with you less. I’ll try to pick you apart in your order.
    Democrat? you? c’mon. you can tell us where your heart ( used to ) lie.
    True. Ginsburg was a legal liberal genius. I maintain, that jurors, should not be liberal nor conservative. They should
    be constitutionalists.
    True again. In these times, politics S*&KS ! more than ever ! Either party wants to be the upper hand. I believe that the
    republicans would like to follow the constitution.
    Forget McConnell. that’s all a load of politics
    You called it pallie ! President Trump said that he wants a woman juror.
    Also right again! The dims will do everything possible to drag out the appointment.
    We are agreeing too much ! Now we get to see who the RINOs are !
    Next President nominates. I don’t agree. Keep it out of the hands of the voters. They have too much on their plate
    that wasn’t too painful,

    1. Tony:

      Would you please explain actual meaning of RINO? I know what it stands for (Republican in Name Only) but by what criteria are you one?

      1. I don’t have time for your games.
        I have an election to win out here in Chester County.
        You just stay right where you are. rocking away, napping, snoring……

        1. Tony, I asked you a legitimate question and you accuse me of playing games. Just in case you thought I was speaking about you personally when I said “…what criteria are you one?” I have to say I worded it incorrectly. When I said “you” I meant, and should have said “someone”.

          1. HAPPY THURSDAY !!!
            no harm, no foul.
            RINO ! Toomey. McCain. To name two. Republicans that earned their reputation by riding the fence. Their records speak volumes. Our boy Toomey has opposed OUR President as much as he worked with him. Sure, a statesman, elected by the people should always consider his constituents. As a Senator, it goes a bit beyond your state. It’s the god of the entire country. But, H.B., I guess that I’m a dreamer.
            This election is exactly along that train of thought. For the good of the country, you elect the best and only man for the job. Trump. Imagine what he could of accomplished, with just a little help. Without all of these manufactured delays. Without the delays that have been set in motion, but have not shown their ugly head.
            stay well

  8. I completely agree with you on this one Stu.
    Sadly, I think that POS McConnell will get his way once again

    1. And if Democrats, contemporary Democrats, don’t get their way WE ALL will get : BLM, Antifa, bullhorns, terrorism, molltov cocktails, unrestrained pillaging and looting of totally innocent businesses, our hero police departments marked for assassination, demotion, termination, you name it. It ain’t no secret. We’ve all seen it. So who’s the POS, seriously? It’s a whole new ballgame out there, incited, encouraged and financed by Democrat supporters. Survival of the fittest.

      1. PC is from the left; the democrats. So is woke, critical race theory, white privelege, white guilt, cancel culture, safe spaces, 52 gender options for facebook, The Squad, reparations, abortion, no God, etc.
        The democrat party has had its run. It needs new realistic ideas so we remain a very necessary two party system. The last thing we should want as Americans is a one party rule.

    remember that commercial, back in the ’90s, where the boy is siting with his granpa? The boy turns to pop and sez,”my Jewish friend Jimmy said that I’m prejudice. Am I ? Pop sez, ” yes you are, ’cause you said “my Jewish friend” !
    The point of that is this. Can we get over ourselves and just move on?
    anyhow, I digress – as usual.
    I said this before. We are looking for a new juror, that won’t offend anyone, but certainly will upset half the population !
    because we, the voting public have been asleep for ever ( 1950s ), the politicians were able to have their way. Now, we are awake and aware and fighting mad !

  10. I agree with you, Stu. And I suspect that Justice Ginsburg, (who I actually knew), would as well.

    But we are not living in Shangra-La, or Pangloss’ “best of all possible worlds”. To paraphrase
    Bette Davis’ immortal Margo Channing;” Fasten your seatbelts. It’s going to be a bumpy election”.

  11. Philadelphia, PA

    Dear Stu,

    Even before the ink dried on this one, it has become pretty clear that neither Trump nor the Senate Republicans want to wait on or defer a nomination. It looks like they will select a conservative, Republican woman.

    The kind of thoughtful, self-restrained suggestion you made would depend on the public sentiment and conviction that if “the other side” wins the election, still, “we” won’t fall too far in position or prestige. Deep divisiveness is that absence of that kind of confidence in the fairness of the political system: a product of “winner take all” politics, and the notion that the (meritorious) “winners” are entitled to whatever they can get whether by fair means or any other.

    H.G. Callaway

  12. HAPPY MONDAY !!!
    Most, if not all of America is well aware of President Trump’s unofficial nomination. Amy Coney Barrett,
    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. A Constitutionalist with an excellent history and record. I’m sure that the dimocrats will tear into her like great white sharks having a side of beef for a snack ! Judge Kavanaugh was just a warm up act for the witches of the dimocrat party, sorry to say.
    Here’s hoping that she’s tough enough to with the onslaught that will be coming.

  13. Philadelphia, PA

    Dear Stu,

    From the Washington Post:
    Amy Coney Barrett, a leading contender for the Supreme Court seat held by the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, wrote an influential appellate decision last year that made it easier for students accused of sexual assault to challenge universities’ handling of their cases.
    Barrett led a three-woman panel of judges that said Purdue University may have discriminated against a male student accused of sexual assault when it suspended him for a year, a punishment that cost him his spot in the Navy ROTC program.
    “It is plausible that [university officials] chose to believe Jane because she is a woman and to disbelieve John because he is a man,” Barrett wrote in the case, in which the accuser was identified as Jane Doe and the accused as John Doe.
    —End quotation


    H.G. Callaway

    1. Well, that makes her a gender equality jurist, too, like RBG. Conservative columnists have been arguing that many colleges treat as accusation like a conviction.

  14. It seems Pat Toomey, once again, has shown himself to be a two-faced, hypocrite SOB. He now says a new U.S. Supreme Court Judge appointee should not wait until the next election. The opposite of what he said in 2016. He is also giving feeble excuses for his decision.

      1. Stude:

        Unfortunately he is just one of a large number of politicians, both Republicans and Democrats who do not deserve to be in office, who continually get reelected.

  15. PLEASE do your research before blathering. In this case, the President is a Republican and the Senate is Republican. In almost all cases where such was the case (with similar timing) the President named a replacement and it was voted on. In the Obama situation, the President was Democrat and the Senate Republican. In almost all cases in the past where such was the case (similar timing) the replacement was NOT voted on. Learn before you leap.

Comments are closed.