That’s a pretty dumb idea. For one, Republicans can’t just break up states because they want to...the US Constitution specifically forbids states from being divided without both state and Congressional (both House and Senate) approval. Even it was allowed, breaking up Texas and Florida could seriously backfire on Republicans. Would be smarter to break up Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, etc where they have a huge advantage already and would likely keep that advantage no matter how rather broke those states up.
Does anybody with any sense think they actually want to break up those states? Talking points, threats, etc. such as that are only there to incite or placate the base as a lot of them have no idea how these things actually work. It's like them always saying Dems are a threat to take away 2A. It is nearly impossible to repeal such an amendment with how amendments are repealed but a lot of their followers do not realize that.
At least two of these candidates were vetted previously. ACB is already a lifetime appointee on the circuit court of appeals. Sandra Day O'connor - 32 days. Sandra Day O'connor was confirmed in 32 days. As far as I know the fastest nomination to confirmation.
I think this one is going to beat that. They are going to try to fly through it, there are no benefits to them dragging it out dor a dramatic last day thing.
I was just pointing out the facts .... O'connor was confirmed in 32 days , its now 41 days to the election. Trump has said the nom will come on Friday or Saturday leaving 38 or 39 days from that point to the election I do believe you are correct that they will get it done before the election ... and it may well be faster than O'connor's confirmation. I think this may hurt the Dems at the ballot box too as conservatives seem to place much greater importance on SCOTUS noms than they do and Breyer is no spring chicken at 82 .... potentially setting up a 4th nominee for Trump.
Democrats have received a dramatic spike in donations since RBGs death so I'm not sure about that. This is also a way to get younger voters out that care about climate change and Roe. I'm not worried about it. Feels like everyone always boogeymans about how anything is going to fire up the conservative base.
If anything is going to get conservatives riled up its the idea of liberals court packing (adding 6 new seats) or adding two states to sway power in the senate. Pelosi and Schumer saying everything is on the table ... that's going to drive conservatives out in droves and turn off a heck of a lot of independents.
Hey, well, I showed you the donations... I'd say the idea of rushing a SCOTUS pick weeks before an election isn't going to help with independents. Is he even polling well with them? Last time I checked he isn't. Along with GOP senators outright lying about how you can't confirm a judge in an election year. Let's not act like Democrats are running roughshod over decency, they are reacting to what the GOP is doing, as is usually the case. Repulicans kick them in the nuts and if they even dare think of hitting back some people go "Now now, play fair!"
The debate on Sep. 29 will rule the day. Biden won’t suggest packing the court and trump will have to defend picking a replacement so quickly. This absolutely hurts republicans. RBG’s death so close to the election puts Trump in a horrible political position imo. The prospect of RBG retiring or dying in 2021 had been known for some time. Trump’s increased power is all too imminent now
Leaving aside most of your rant the basic argument you have is that Democrats can't win because voting is rigged. IN that case then the rest of your argument is moot already as any of the changes you propose won't happen unless Democrats win the Senate. Further addressing issues like Gerrymandering is primarily done by winning state houses and then controlling how districts are done. In fact since federal elections are all handled on the state level winning state houses also addresses the most voting issues. I agree the GOP has done a lot to try to suppress the vote. They wouldn't have been able to if Democrats had won more elections. Those can be reversed by winning more elections.. If things were as bad Democrats would not have taken the House in 2018. This get's to a basic point I made earlier these arguments amount to a distrust of republican democracy. 2018 dis show that Democrats can win state elections even in red districts. It takes finding the right candidates and providing them the right support. Pretty much what the RNC has been doing for decades. Again you also fail to grasp that there are many ways to get around the USSC through legislative action. Many here simultaneously complain that the court has too much power while proposing solutions that do nothing to address that. Adding more Justices doesn't reduce the power of the court. Hamilton in Federalist 78 stated that the Judicial branch was the weakest of the branches. It's only gotten so powerful largely because the Legislative branch has ceded much of it's decision making to the Judicial. Just two more things. Article III states that judges "shall hold their offices during good behavior" That is understood as a lifetime appointment but the Congress can remove through the impeachment process for bad behavior. Finally regarding McConnell blocking confirmations to create record vacancies I provided a link with evidence on that. That is a fact that the courts were undermanned because of his actions.
These are the important things ted cruz chooses to work on... Ted Cruz blocks a U.S. Senate resolution to honor Ruth Bader Ginsburg, citing a “partisan” amendment The junior Texas senator objected to language his Democratic counterparts added noting that late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dying wish was that a successor not be chosen until after the presidential inauguration. https://www.texastribune.org/2020/0...00823528&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
Yes, of course they should win the Senate. How does that work in this circle 1. GOP rigs elections through gerrymandering and voter suppression at the state level and obtains unbreakable majorities (Florida Wisconsin) -> 2. Unbreakable majorities install GOP judges (Kavanaugh, circuit courts, state courts like FL) and override the people at the local and national levels (Florida, Wisconsin)-> 3. GOP judges bless past and future rigging of elections and gerrymandering and voter suppression at all levels (US Supreme Court, US Courts of Appeals) -> 4. Go back to step 1, repeat Just win elections - is stupid advice when the other side loses elections and declares itself the winner and rigs all future elections, andinstalls its own hacks to keep it that way; Our system is so obviously flawed that "winning elections" is not enough. It's the weakest of weak sauce. I mean just today the Trump Administration is floating the plan that it will override state election results via rigged state legislatures? Your advice for "Just win elections" is an insult in this case. Nobody's arguing he didn't, genius. The problem isn't vacancies the problem is the federal judiciary is too small to handle the volume of cases that come before it, even if it's fully staffed. This has been true for decades. This has nothing to do with partisanship and everything to do with the efficient administration of justice. I've only posted this 10 times already but you can't actually read it because you're in "defend the center" mode. Enhance your perspective to look beyond politics and at actual policy.
Doubt most conservatives even understand that this could happen. Conservatives will get out to vote, because they usually come out to vote.
And I guess 2018 didn't happen? There's no such thing as "unbreakable majorities". Democrats thought that way in the 90's and again in 2012 that there was a wall of Blue states that would guarantee the Republicans couldn't win national races. Yes I responded. I even brought up your point about enlarging the courts to handle more case load in another thread and even said it was compelling. You acknowledge that MCConnell held up a record amount of yet of confirmations leaving a record number of vacancies yet seem to downplay the effect that had. Further I noticed how you accuse me of downplaying your argument for expanding the court because it was tied to your ideological views, in your words "that's some big baby ****, grow up". Yet you downplay my argument because it's tied to my "defend the center mode". As far as enhancing your perspective I've pointed out how changing the rules for short term political gain has backfired on both parties. That is the basis of my argument. We need to have more perspective than just the short term and the failure to do so is one of the biggest problems not only in our politics but in our society. My defense of things like the filibuster and other rules is that in the long run protecting minority viewpoints is something that benefits our country as a whole and makes it more resilient. Changing the rules to make it easier for the majority is recipe for more division in a country that is and will remain for a long time very closely divided.
I think it is too soon to see how Ginsburg's death is shaking out in the polls. I do think there is a possibility though it could help Trump in that there are Evangelical voters who are sick of Trump and likely were going to sit out the election. Something like this just reminds them that Trump has appointed justices that they agree with and another four years he might get one or two more justices. That might be enough to get them to the polls. That said at the same time this certainly motivates voters on the other side too so this might just be a wash and not really change things in an already polarized election.
Evangelicals are getting a conservative justice no matter what so why would hoping they get another over the 4 years energize them, that should already be in the calculous. I really don't think many voters are going to be swayed by any one thing, I can also say that they might want to get rid of him sooner because they have what they want and don't need to be embarrassed anymore.
