History Is on the Side of Republicans Filling a Supreme Court Vacancy in 2020

On this, we agree. One thing that is starting to emerge, is people are starting to get wise to the practice. Could this lead to the people holding politicians accountable? I can only dream.

 

It would be a bigger boost for the other side which is why he is trying to fill it so quickly as far as I can tell.

 

Maybe. And Trump will contest at least a half dozen or so states, so he may need more support in the SC.

 

The dems reportedly raised a boatload of money in the days since RBG's death. He wants to take the issue off the table.

 

You are missing the point. Republicans said that during an election year for the president, we should appoint a Supreme Court justice in 2016. And now its a different story.

 

That is already happening 55 RP Reps resigned rather than face voter rejection in 2018.
It would help if there were better alternative candidates.

 

Unfortunately, the people prefer Weekly World News over anything of substance, so we'll always have WWN type candidates.

 

Had to look that up. According to Wiki WWN had a circulation of 1.7M at its peak. IOW, just a tiny elite readership.
Most Americans rely on network news. Similar concept, easier to consume and just as reliable.

 

Well, WWN is code for the gossip rags, AKA People Magazine, The National Enquirer, US Weekly, and other gossip and pseudo journalism. They get far more combined readership/viewership than say, BBC or NPR.

I had no earthly idea who Kim Kardashian was, until it got to me through osmosis. I can name all the SCOTUS jurists, though. Almost nobody can, but they damned well know all the cute couple names, like Brangelina.

That's more my point. Americans love junk food, regardless of the form. Eye candy, guilty pleasure TV, and so forth. Civics is boring. "How can I get out of jury duty?" Yeah... all that.

 

But McConnell’s position has ALWAYS been that the opposite party doesn’t confirm the other parties nominee. Given that Schumer asked for a referendum on the SCOTUS in 2018 and he LOST seats, means this cycle we will have a new SCOTUS and a conservative court

Even John Roberts can’t save them now

 

He has not always been like this. That's completely untrue. He used to be very moderate. He was easy to get along with. He used to support abortion rights and public employee unions.

Don't pretend he was always like this. He has absolutely helped seat jurists appointed by democrats.

 

I guess I should have clarified. I meant always, within the context of this conversation. So since 2016 his position was that the actions of a senate aligned with the president are wholly different than a senate who is not.

 

He's been in the senate almost 40 years. So, by always, you mean approximately 10% of the time.

He said, "Our goal is to make sure president Obama is a one-term president." He was really butt-hurt he couldn't make that happen. He did everything in his power to ensure one of the most popular presidents (I wasn't a fan,) didn't get to do his constitutional duties.

He's no angel. He's as scuzzy as Pelosi.

 

Oh he’s definitely no angel. He’s a politician. But not sure why that changes the fact his position has been consistent in regards to scotus appointees

 

All politicians are like that. It takes a certain kind of person to be willing to have your life so torn into in exchange for power. Basically a deal with the devil, and politicians are more than willing to sell their souls.

 

Having an alternate opinion one time in a near 40-year run in the senate is the exact opposite of consistency. LOL.

I've never once said otherwise. Many are pretending only the democrats do it. Having a unique opinion one time in almost 40 years is not consistency.

 

When did he ever express anything different?

 

I try to follow pop culture, but usually by scanning Rolling Stone and some of the discussion in left wing publications.
I would not have heard of Bad Bunny if I did not work out to Musica Urbana. As I recall the NYT had to start citing the National Enquirer after it broke a few legitimate news stories. Most of their copy may be frivolous, but I am not sure it would lose an accuracy contest with the MSM.

 

No SCOTUS appointee has ever been confirmed this close to an election. July is the latest it ever happened, until this year.

 

And? Did I miss something in the constitution which says the senate and president stop doing their jobs close to an election or something?

 

Never mind. Your intentional obtuseness is noted.

 

Again, you are missing the point. The point isn't that he always opposes the other parties nominees. That isn't the hypocrisy. It was his reason for doing do in 2016. He claimed he did it because the president shouldn't appoint a justice in an election year and the people should decide. But he isn't following his own rule in 2020. This is why most people hate politicians. They always make up lies all the time.

 

Wrong. He quoted himself on the floor the other day. In 2016 he explicitly made clear his position about the OPPOSING party in control of the senate not confirming the judge.

 

Again, I'm not even talking about him opposing the other party. I'm not claiming this reason is hypocritical. I'm not even taking about this reason. Nobody is. What I'm talking about is his claim that we don't elect a Supreme Court justice in a presidential election year.

 

Was Obama up for re-election in 2016?