Possible Scenario

[sakinago]

Trump wins Whitehouse, Dems take over senate. RBG either dies or retires to deal with her ailing health. Does the Dem Senate refuse to confirm Trumps appointees?

 

[Jets]

Absolutely. Once one party sets a “standard”, the other will follow suit.

 

[JoeMoma]

Yes they will block any conservative judges.

 

[sakinago]

Yes they will block any conservative judges.

Ok that’ll give the republicans a majority on the bench for 4 years. Do you sacrifice a loss in potentially important SC cases?

 

[Polishprince]

Absolutely. Once one party sets a “standard”, the other will follow suit.

Actually, the Republican Senate during Obama's reign confirmed many of his extremist appointees.

Although you are right, under the scenario you described, President Trump will be relieved of the need to interview or appoint officials in need of confirmation. If DeVos were to leave, an acting secretary for Education would take over. Ditto, if Pompeo, Carson or Barr would quit or be fired. Or any of the ambassadors to any place. It would be pointless to appoint, and any appointments that would be proposed would be strictly made for trolling value.

 

[ReinyDays]

It should depend on the nominee ... the CW on the two The Donald has already placed is favorable ... I've kinda been following and what little I've seen of their judicial opinions seems spot-on correct ... and they have voted against The Donald several times ...

The precedent is set ... Democrats are free keep the chair vacant if they chose ... let the voters weight in 2022 ...

 

[beautress]

President Trump wins. The Republicans retake all the House seats they lost and hang onto the Senate with a 67% majority. A case comes forth to the Supreme Court that forces them to declare stages of human development from conception to death and the finding is that fetuses are human beings. As human beings fetuses are allowed to live plus women who didn't want to give birth are given proper mental health benefits to deal with their fate, and adoptions are arranged for those who really don't want to raise a child. Childless couples win a chance to parent beautiful American children, unwilling-to-be moms get a happy life and good attitude out of their gift to a childless couple and appreciation, and men are educated to overcome the cloud of being deadbeat dads by doing what they need to do if they decide to keep the child the mother doesn't want if agreements are made. Everyone wins, and America is re-enthused about precious freedoms the founders gave us.

 

[Brain357]

Clearly they should. The repubs decided to steal a Obama pick.

 

[sakinago]

It should depend on the nominee ... the CW on the two The Donald has already placed is favorable ... I've kinda been following and what little I've seen of their judicial opinions seems spot-on correct ... and they have voted against The Donald several times ...

The precedent is set ... Democrats are free keep the chair vacant if they chose ... let the voters weight in 2022 ...

Free for 4 years, that was not at all the precedent. It was like 4 months. And again it’ll leave the court as a republican majority. The court will not stop taking cases during the 4 years.

 

[22lcidw]

Clearly they should. The repubs decided to steal a Obama pick.

This nation is easily 6 to 3 with right leaning supreme court judges. Politics has played a huge role in the constant 5 to 4 fiasco we see.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Absolutely. Once one party sets a “standard”, the other will follow suit.

The standard was set with Robert Bork in the 80's...in fact rejecting qualified judges of opposing parties has come to te known as getting "BORKED"...Bork actually joked that his name is now an adjective e.g. "there goes another borked judge"

 

[Polishprince]

Clearly they should. The repubs decided to steal a Obama pick.

Judge Garland really wasn't a serious pick. The man didn't even present his high school yearbook or the names of his prom dates for the Judiciary Committee to consider.

 

[beautress]

Clearly they should. The repubs decided to steal a Obama pick.

Obama gets a trial to deal with his treason against a sitting President, and so does Hillary for her co-masterminding of getting rid of Donald Trump. Trump drains the swamp and goes on to make Americans as well as the entire world have a roast vegan or meat meal when they want, a cure is found that takes away viral enemies to humans, and dietary remedies that have no side effects make a comeback, so that doctors can have more time to deal with fewer life-threatening issues than ever before, and the dietary remedies wipe out the obesity pandemic that kills as many people as cigarettes, and people's lifespans double when more people learn to utilize their pursuit of happiness without being dreged through the political garbage this generation successfully dealt with this year in November. Go USA!

USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!​

 

[sakinago]

Clearly they should. The repubs decided to steal a Obama pick.

This nation is easily 6 to 3 with right leaning supreme court judges. Politics has played a huge role in the constant 5 to 4 fiasco we see.

Huhwhat? Roberts might as well be a democratic appointee. The other 4 are basically a solid granite voting bloc that always come down the same way.

 

[JoeMoma]

Yes they will block any conservative judges.

Ok that’ll give the republicans a majority on the bench for 4 years. Do you sacrifice a loss in potentially important SC cases?

And if they approve the conservative nomination, the republicans will have a even bigger majority for possibly much more than 4 years which makes your question about (the democrats) sacrificing a loss for a potentially important case a moot point.

 

[JoeMoma]

The democrat senate would approve a very moderate or progressive judge.....but not conservative.

 

[sakinago]

Yes they will block any conservative judges.

Ok that’ll give the republicans a majority on the bench for 4 years. Do you sacrifice a loss in potentially important SC cases?

And if they approve the conservative nomination, the republicans will have a even bigger majority for possibly much more than 4 years which makes your question about (the democrats) sacrificing a loss for a potentially important case a moot point.

Well it’d be that mixed with the fact that the GOP only did it when an election was months away, vs the left loosing another presidential election and taking their ball home with them for 4 years. This scenario wouldn’t even be close to what happened in 2016.

 

[XponentialChaos]

They would be treated just as Republicans treated Merrick Garland.

 

[JoeMoma]

Yes they will block any conservative judges.

Ok that’ll give the republicans a majority on the bench for 4 years. Do you sacrifice a loss in potentially important SC cases?

And if they approve the conservative nomination, the republicans will have a even bigger majority for possibly much more than 4 years which makes your question about (the democrats) sacrificing a loss for a potentially important case a moot point.

Well it’d be that mixed with the fact that the GOP only did it when an election was months away, vs the left loosing another presidential election and taking their ball home with them for 4 years. This scenario wouldn’t even be close to what happened in 2016.

The democrats are not afraid to play hardball.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Well it’d be that mixed with the fact that the GOP only did it when an election was months away, vs the left loosing another presidential election and taking their ball home with them for 4 years. This scenario wouldn’t even be close to what happened in 2016.

Oh. So where exactly is the time limit for this being acceptable?