Justice Ginsburg has died; McConnell vows to fill the vacancy

[KyJim]

Justice Ginsburg passed away today. Some of her policies aside, she was a pioneer for women generally and especially for women in law. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has vowed to fill the vacancy and the other side is going to fight like hell to sabotage the effort anyway they can. The ramifications for Second Amendment rights are potentially HUGE.

[TXAZ]

“RGB” just passed today. For those of you who watch this more closely, what are the chances a 2A friendly nominee will be seated, with an election coming up?

[raimius]

I wish her family well, and hope her passing was easy.

I also hope we can get a wise and just replacement for her, who respects our rights and interprets the Constitution faithfully.

[Chipperman]

I don't think there's enough time before the election, but we'll see.

[Armybrat]

RIP Justice Ginsberg - she was a tough old bird, but I disagreed with her interpretation of the Constitution.
I do not think McConnell has enough votes to confirm a Trump nominee before inauguration. The rinos, who have forgotten how badly they were treated by the democrats during the previous administration, will not vote to confirm.

[Kevin Rohrer]

She will be a Conservative. Don't expect her to be confirmed until after the Election.

[HighDesert]

Good chance or fat chance depending on the election.

[Ignition Override]

Maybe so, unless the guy who wants to employ Beto O'Rourke (Mr. Anti-All Guns) gets elected and we know that Joe B. suggests owning just a shotgun.

[Webleymkv]

Is there any possibility that President Trump might not nominate a replacement until after the election? IIRC, judicial appointments was one of the top reasons listed among his supporters in 2016. While certainly a gamble, would it not make some political sense not to nominate someone before the election in order to keep the issue alive and rally the base?

[Tom Servo]

We had two thread on this, and I've merged them for the sake of focus. That said, we're now in the L&CR forum, and the rules are a bit tighter. Please keep your comments germane and civil.

[Tom Servo]

Is there any possibility that President Trump might not nominate a replacement until after the election?

The Republicans are already talking about filling the vacancy as soon as possible. The current President has made a show of "transforming the judiciary," and if I'm reading his philosophy right, replacing Ginsburg with a conservative would be a big part of that. If he loses re-election, he can still point to this as a legacy issue.

Good chance or fat chance depending on the election.

Bear in mind, he's still in office until January, so there's time.

[5whiskey]

I would LOVE to see another 2A friendly judge in the SCOTUS. I believe our best option to see that for at least the next 4.5 years will be if the current administration makes the appointment. All that being said... I honestly believe McConnell would be the worlds biggest hypocrite if he refused to confirm Garland in 2016 because of a pending election, yet now that the shoe is on the other foot he seems quite eager to confirm a nominee prior to the election. And I’m conservative, but I don’t blindly defend or cheer for the Republican Party. I just call it like I see it.

RBG is well respected even amongst people who differ greatly with her world and legal views. I pray that her family has peace and they celebrate her life. She was, in fact, a tough old bird.

[ammo.crafter]

Nomination and confirmation is a slow process and we are not likely to have a Justice appointed by year's end.
That being said, the issue is not who the next President will be but who the next Vice President be.

[HiBC]

Rest in Peace,Justice Ginsburg.

I personally support the idea of confirming a new Justice.

While I respect her tenacity,her health has been an issue for some time.

The politics of timing work both ways. Part of why she stayed on the bench till the day she died was in hope of denying Pres Trump a nomination.

Thats fine. But its Politics,and RGB 's political tactics are not more moral or more noble than President Trumps.

Fact is,she passed away,whether now or a year ago,. A seat is open, Trump is still President. No law says its too late.

As crazy as this election may go, we don't need a SCOTUS that can get hung 4 to 4.

I recall Obama lecturing "Elections have consequences"

Hillary lost. Trump is President. RGB has passed. Some may not like it,but those are the facts.

Senate votes? Time will tell.

[Tom Servo]

I would LOVE to see another 2A friendly judge in the SCOTUS

Scuttlebutt is that Amy Coney-Barrett is on the short list, and she's been very proactive on 2A issues.

Nomination and confirmation is a slow process and we are not likely to have a Justice appointed by year's end.

It's hard to say. After the last round of hearings went off the rails, there were suggestions the Senate would skip them and go straight to a floor vote. In that case, it could be very quick.

[Doc Intrepid]

SCOTUS hearings for Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh turned into a political circus.

It is to be hoped, but probably not likely, that this can be avoided this time.

I doubt a replacement will be quickly confirmed precisely because Democrats are likely to draw out the process in hopes that delay provides an advantage to Biden's anti-2nd Amendment campaign: delay will fire up the Democrat's base.

[Pahoo]

Good chance or fat chance depending on the election.

That should have no bearing on the process that is clearly defined in our Constitution. Trump is bound to support the Constitution regardless of what his personal feelings "might" be. My "opinion" is that so far, he has done a pretty good job and pray that he will continue to do so. ......

Be Safe !!!

[SHR970]

I would LOVE to see another 2A friendly judge in the SCOTUS

Wouldn't we all. But with Roberts as Cheif Justice getting the court to even take a case is iffy at best.

Scuttlebutt is that Amy Coney-Barrett is on the short list, and she's been very proactive on 2A issues.

She was on the original list and has long been seen as RBG's replacement; checks the womens box AND the conservative box.

Nomination and confirmation is a slow process and we are not likely to have a Justice appointed by year's end.

The DNC side of the house has been openly talking about nuking the filibuster. I can see Mitch giving them a premptive dose of it.

It's hard to say. After the last round of hearings went off the rails, there were suggestions the Senate would skip them and go straight to a floor vote. In that case, it could be very quick.

Mitch gets to make the rules as majority leader. He doesn't have to follow what the Parlimentarian says. For legacy's sake if for nothing else he will get this done before the Dec. break. They can lose the Senate but the deed will already have been done.

This right here is Trump's and McConnell's 2A legacy. Currently the court is 4-3-1, it can be 5-3-1 PDQ.

[BourbonCowboy]

I would LOVE to see another 2A friendly judge in the SCOTUS. I believe our best option to see that for at least the next 4.5 years will be if the current administration makes the appointment. All that being said... I honestly believe McConnell would be the worlds biggest hypocrite if he refused to confirm Garland in 2016 because of a pending election, yet now that the shoe is on the other foot he seems quite eager to confirm a nominee prior to the election. And I’m conservative, but I don’t blindly defend or cheer for the Republican Party. I just call it like I see it.

I agree with 5Whiskey's take on this. And I suspect it will be a hot topic in the political arena.

[KyJim]

I honestly believe McConnell would be the worlds biggest hypocrite if he refused to confirm Garland in 2016 because of a pending election, yet now that the shoe is on the other foot he seems quite eager to confirm a nominee prior to the election. And I’m conservative, but I don’t blindly defend or cheer for the Republican Party. I just call it like I see it.

McConnel is the ultimate pragmatist/politician. He is up for re-election this year and Democrats have thrown a ton of money in support of the opposition. At one point, McConnel's lead did not appear secure, but he has opened a bigger lead the last few weeks.

Kentucky is a very gun-friendly state. If McConnell doesn't at least push heavily to get a justice appointed, it could backfire against him at the polls. If that makes him a hypocrite, so be it. I would rather live with a hypocrite in the Senate than give up a golden opportunity for meaningful advancement of the Second Amendment.

[Tom Servo]

The DNC side of the house has been openly talking about nuking the filibuster.

They already did. Harry Reid did so in 2013 in order to get vacancies filled quickly in the federal courts. He made a pinky-swear that this would never, ever apply to Supreme Court appointments, though. Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell were among the Senators who warned him not to do it.

From there, it was a short jump. Now it only takes 51 votes to break a filibuster, and it only takes 51 votes to confirm. That means the party with the bare majority in the Senate gets to make the appointment.

Republicans currently hold 53 seats (54 if we count VP Pence as a tie-breaker). Even with a couple of defections, they can get what they want.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by SHR970

The DNC side of the house has been openly talking about nuking the filibuster. I can see Mitch giving them a premptive dose of it.

Let them nuke the filibuster. It should have been abolished decades ago.

Any proposed law deserves a proper discussion, and a vote. If the votes are there to pass it, so be it. A law that is supported by a majority of the duly elected legislators should not, IMHO, be blocked by "parliamentary procedure."

Yes, we'll get some laws we don't like that way. That's why we need a Supreme Court that will review laws based on the Constitution, not on their personal biases or what courts are doing in Europe.

At the same time, we also need to do away with so-called "poison pill" amendments. No proposed bill should have amendments tacked onto it for the sole purpose of making it unacceptable to the very legislator(s) who proposed it. That's not statesmanship -- that's dirty politics.

[TXAZ]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

... That's not statesmanship -- that's dirty politics.

Unfortunately, that's what most US politics have devolved into, resulting in divisiveness that sometimes makes the Korean and Indian parliament chair-throwing debates look tame.

[TXAZ]

This is getting complex... Large numbers of senators and other pols are attempting to dictate terms and conditions. Then you've got others threating to "burn the ******* place down" if Trump nominates / and or McConnell holds a vote.

I'll ask my earlier question in a different way: Is this specific (new at some time in the future) justice that critical to the Second Amendment?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by TXAZ

I'll ask my earlier question in a different way: Is this specific (new at some time in the future) justice that critical to the Second Amendment?

IMHO, yes.

The Supreme Court is in a delicate balance at the moment. One of the staunch conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, isn't going to live forever. If he dies or retires during a Democratic administration, his replacement will almost certainly be anti-2A, because it's inconceivable that a Democratic President would nominate anyone who isn't vehemently anti-2A. Roberts is either squishy on the 2A, or quietly against it.

That means (again, IMHO) that getting a pro-2A or, at least, 2A-neutral strict constructionist/originalist justice in place now to replace Ginsberg is indeed crucial. If a pro-2A justice is confirmed, we might then see the SCOTUS actually take up a few more 2A cases before Thomas departs the Court. And, since Roberts claims to support stare decisis (which means he doesn't like to upset previous SCOTUS decisions), getting a few more pro-2A decisions on the record could prove to be pivotal for generations to come.