Posted on 09/21/2020 12:30:15 PM PDT by Qiviut
By now only someone living in the most remote reaches of equatorial Africa could not know that Ruth Ginsburg died and that there is now a vacancy at the U.S. Supreme Court . . . right in time for the election chaos the Democrats had already planned to roll out.
This will be Donald Trump’s third USSC appointment. In case you were interested, no, it doesn’t come close to the record for a first-term president. Obviously, George Washington, who named all of the original Supreme Court justices (six) has the record. But William Howard Taft, an otherwise inconsequential president, also named six in his first term. Franklin Roosevelt, who had three and a half terms to do so, nominated eight (and probably would have had another six if his “court-packing” scheme had been approved by Congress)
Immediately screams from Sen. Chuck Schumer to the effect that ‘You better watch out, it will be no holds barred if you nominate someone before the election!” could be heard from the distant points of the Republic. Democrats went into a frenzy about the “McConnell Rule” in denying Merrick Garland a vote—-one of Yertle’s greatest accomplishments as Majority Leader—but the circumstances were vastly different (an exiting, vs. sitting president).
The issues are important and immediate: On November 3, the Democrats, already fearing they will lose in a “landslide” on election night, need to manufacture votes for weeks to even have a chance at “winning” some states. As these states begin their stall, court challenges will be mounted and might be expedited to the Supreme Court. We cannot have a four-four Court—assuming that Roberts would find some insane legal reasoning to rule against Trump. So, the justice must be confirmed before the election. A full court needs to be in place to rule on all the Machiavellian schemes the Democrats will come up with.
With statements yesterday from Ben Sasse and Lamar Alexander, two of the potential defectors, that they support moving forward, that really gives Trump all the support he needs to proceed. Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Mitt Romney will either vote present or “no,” but that would still leave McConnell with 50 votes for a candidate and there is nothing preventing Mike Pence from breaking the tie. Indeed, in a lower court nomination, he already did. When this happens, watch for literal exploding heads from the left.
The problem is they already shot their wad. “You better not—or we’ll riot” hardly resonates when all the leftists have done for six months is riot. Schumer’s warning that the gloves are off rings hollow: when, ever, in the last four years have Senate Democrats acted with civility or “reached across the aisle” to advance any legislation? And, of course, we don’t even need to mention the Hopeless House, which squandered its entire two-year term on investigations and failed to pass a single piece of useful legislation other than the China Virus relief package.
So, let’s assume that Trump selects his nominee after a reasonable period of mourning for Ginsburg. My guess is that as he himself indicated it will be Amy Coney Barrett of the Seventh Circuit. She is as pro-life as you get, has a large, diverse family, and is Catholic. This would shore up the mid-western Catholic Trump voters. My court guru Zen Master—whom I must say has never been wrong—also says the pick will be Barrett but won’t be surprised if Joan Larsen of the Sixth Circuit is selected.
Who, then, politically benefits in the heated elections coming up? Let’s look at the senators:
This means that in raw numbers, probably nothing changes in the Senate race: R’s now would lose Collins but hold McSally (an exact reversal of where I had it two months ago), have an easier ride with Tillis and Graham, and still possibly pick up John James in Michigan to go along with a sure Tommy Tuberville victory in Alabama. The Court jockeying means that we still are likely looking at a 52-48 or even a 53-47 Senate next year . . . and a new Supreme Court Justice.
Let the games begin.
**On Fox and Friends this morning President Trump said his nomination might come as early as Saturday, and that there were many wonderful picks including “A great one from Michigan,” i.e., Joan Larsen. Sounds like Larsen is the pick.
Larry Schweikart is the co-author with Michael Allen of the New York Times #1 bestseller, A Patriot’s History of the United States, author of Reagan: the American President, and the founder of the Wild World of History, a history curriculum website for homeschoolers and teachers featuring a full US and World curriculum including teacher guide, student workbooks, tests, images/graphs, and video lectures to go with all units (www.wildworldofhistory.com).
Ping!
Good article, accurate.
“The issues are important and immediate: On November 3, the Democrats, already fearing they will lose in a “landslide” on election night, need to manufacture votes for weeks to even have a chance at “winning” some states. As these states begin their stall, court challenges will be mounted and might be expedited to the Supreme Court. We cannot have a four-four Court—assuming that Roberts would find some insane legal reasoning to rule against Trump. So, the justice must be confirmed before the election.”
Great minds think alike. I was just pondering this possibility/motive today.
The Dems want it to remain 4-4 to have any chance to steal the election.
Roberts cannot be counted on for anything.
Thanks for posting. Always interesting perspective from Larry. Thanks much, LS. BUMP!
It would appear that Collins has turned out to be a DIABLO (Democrat In All But Label Only) rather than a RINO. If she’s toast with the ‘rat voters and likely a goner, why not vote to confirm unless she truly is siding with the ‘rats?
I think Larsen is likely as well.
I get Sandra Day O’Connor vibes from her, but at this point I don’t even know if there is a female OR male Thomas or Scalia out there to be named.
She’s trying to win. The race is still close.
It is her way to try to thread the needle. Who knows really if that will help more with GOP turnout or hurt more with Dems? Lots of independents in Maine, but I suspect that as elsewhere people are pretty much pro- or anti-Trump at this point.
“If she’s toast with the ‘rat voters and likely a goner, why not vote to confirm unless she truly is siding with the ‘rats?”
Because she’s a Rat. But she has actually just cooked her own goose by saying what she did, because the Republican base in her state aren’t going to vote for her enthusiastically, if they do at all, and she’ll never make it over the finish line now. Stupid is as stupid does.
“If she’s toast with the ‘rat voters and likely a goner, why not vote to confirm unless she truly is siding with the ‘rats?”
Because she’s a Rat. But she has actually just cooked her own goose by saying what she did, because the Republican base in her state aren’t going to vote for her enthusiastically, if they do at all, and she’ll never make it over the finish line now. Stupid is as stupid does.
P.S., unless she has a last minute conversion, using the I won’t vote against a woman line, or some such. That’s if she figures out what a big boo boo she just made.
Thanks Lar. Make a ping list! Add me to it!
What makes anyone think that waiting will NOT result in no holds barred? Whoever is nominated will be attacked with the same fierceness be it next week or next year!
- United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, quoted in Emily Bazelon, "The Place of Women on the Court"Adobe Acrobat file, The New York Times Magazine, July 7, 2009
----------------------------
Saw this " Margaret Sanger" type quote on a different thread this morning... Have you seen it? And do you think it's credible?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
