UPDATE #3: FOX 31 has local reactions to the day’s heartbreaking news:
Gov. Jared Polis:
“Today Coloradans and our nation mourn the loss of a titan. We have lost a fearless advocate for women and families and someone who never stopped working toward greater equality for all in the eyes of the law. I am deeply saddened by the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She spent her incredible career giving a voice to the voiceless and standing up for what is right. Her words and her legacy will live on in all those she has inspired. We will forever be grateful for her contributions to making our country a better place.”
Sen. Michael Bennet:
“Few Americans have done as much as Ruth Bader Ginsburg to pull America closer to its ideals. Her tenacity, brilliance, and moral compass will be deeply missed, especially at this fraught moment. My thoughts are with her family and loved ones.”
—–
UPDATE #2: As a reminder, here’s Senator Cory Gardner in February 2016 — nearly 9 months before Election Day — regarding a Supreme Court vacancy following the death of Antonin Scalia:
Asked his opinion about the high court vacancy, Gardner said the successor to the recently deceased Antonin Scalia “ought be chosen by the American people through the election of the next president.” [Pols emphasis]
Pressed…on what he would say to the argument that he should wait to see who the president nominates, Gardner responded: “Again, I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.” [Pols emphasis]
—–
UPDATE: From Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s final statement:
“My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new President is installed.”
The nation mourns. The political implications are staggering. Watch this space for updates.
God help us all.
Has Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett yet? Has McConnell scheduled a vote on the nomination yet?
“My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new President is installed.”
Good luck with that.
And once again, thank you Jill Stein.
Rest in power, your honor.
R&R, I just hope Jill Stein is paying rent for the space she takes up in your brain.
In 2016, people on the left were foolish enough to do the same stupid thing they did in 2000.
How has that worked out so far?
BTW, Howie Hawkins is polling at about 1%. Wonder if we will see a three-peat this year.
“Let the voters decide”, said the old McConnell. Now? I’m sure it’ll be, “Follow the Constitution!”
If they steal two seats, then we’ll add two seats to the Court.
Personally, I'm a fan of the 13 seat Supreme Court — one for each Circuit. And while they are at it, set up a rotation so Justices can serve no more than 26 years, at which time they can join a Circuit Court, take Senior Status, or retire.
How it gets to a point that each President gets to appoint at least one and that there is a move toward appointment of at least one in each 2-year session of the Senate would be a tough negotiation. But something has to change to make each seat LESS partisan, an "Obama justice" or a "Trump justice."
But who gets saddled with the Federal Circuit? Not it!
I'd be fine with 13, though 15 would be good, too. I'd prefer shorter terms than 26 years, but I get the rotation math. As a sidenote, how great is a nation when so much hinges on the death of one of its (admittedly outstanding) citizens?
Rao is my bet, she's been doing hard work for Trump.
Dems are going to have to win the senate and get over their aversion to ending the filibuster. Gonna have to to pass the legislation needed to increase the Supreme Court count to 13 (the current number of circuits). You should start lobbying them now, if you have an in– they can't be what they were anymore. Lobby them to add a couple of states along the way!
Be well, all. See you in November.
We need to start impeaching federal judges and remove.
Do we have the votes?
It is the same number as removing a President, so not even close. Unless there is a quirk in the rules I am unaware of, I think they cannot even stop a nomination without at least 4 Republicans right now.
It’s 67 votes to convict- just like removing president.
Our hopes to prevent a confirmation are pinned to Romney, Murkowski, and two others. Bueller? Bueller?
Collins says they should wait. https://www.npr.org/sections/death-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg/2020/09/19/914843085/susan-collins-whoever-wins-the-presidential-election-should-fill-scotus-vacancy
Ah, fuck. Condolences to Justice Ginsburg’s family and friends, along with every American who believed that real live flesh-and-blood human beings should receive protection under the law.
We’re already seeing internet dipshits pontificate about how the rapey alcoholic manbaby’s nomination was fast-tracked yet still took three months. We’re about to see what “fast-tracked” really means.
The only way Trump could screw this up is by making a bigger fuck-you pick than Kavanaugh, the loud drunk from Faux News, perhaps. Hell, even she might be confirmed in the current climate.
Gardner will wait till his vote doesn’t matter. If enough GOP senators step up to prevent a confirmation vote, then he’ll join the majority and tout his bipartisanship in a desperate attempt to win in November.
I don't think the Democrats can filibuster for three months…
The Republicans are about POWER, nothing else. In the context, maybe the Democratic Party can wake up and manage power from a left-perspective.
The Supreme Court interprets both laws and Constitutionality of laws. Maybe write laws that cannot be interpreted in Conservative ways. I'm thinking of the limited immunity doctrine for police that was created entirely within the Courts.
Or, take the idea that Racism needs to be "intentional", which is obviously impossible to prove. In my view, if something has a racist consequence, it is racist. If Gerrymandering has a racist consequence, then intent is irrelevant.
"May you live in interesting times."
"May you rise to deal with interesting times."
Chief Justice Roberts is going to eat your lunch, no matter who is president and no matter who fills the vacancy.
His entire judicial career is devoted to killing the idea that outcome matters more than intent. Especially when it comes to voting rights and civil rights.
Shouldn’t a liberal be chosen to replace the “liberal seat” vacancy?
just kidding…
Much like a liberal was named to replace Thurgood Marshall when he stepped down.
My prediction: Amy Coney Barrett will be Trump's choice.
I think that's a pretty sound prediction. I think he picks a woman (or, more accurately, is told to do so), and she is probably the top choice among them. Eid doesn't get it because they won't pick a second Colorado/10th circuit judge in a single term. I could also see him picking Barbara Lagoa from the 11th circuit–hispanic, Florida, politically strong for him. Ugh. I hate having this discussion.
Besides not wanting two Coloradans, Eid is just not bat shit crazy enough to satisfy Trump.
That's true as well, V.
I agree, spaceman. Even if Barbara isn't the pick he wants he wouldn't be above dangling an hispanic, Florida judge over the electorate (even if he had plans to withdraw her nomination post-election to fill it with someone acceptable to Franklin Graham, Jr.)
Do you think he will be taking suggestions from the Falwells and the pool boy?
They'll be taking suggestions from Leonard Leo and the other Federalist Society jackasses. We'll hear a lot about "originalism," which is really nothing more than judges playing bad amateur historians in lieu of actual judicial analysis.
I cannot believe that Cory Fucking Gardner is one of our senators. Hopefully not for much longer.
But not before he has the opportunity to do really long lasting damage.
Refresh my memory but did not the Denver Post assure us only six short years ago that Cory Gardner could not limit a woman's right to reproductive choice?
I could have heard I read something about that in 2014.
My prediction is that Murkowski and Romney vote with all of the Democrats to block the motion to take up Trump's nominee. Collins could go either way. Even assuming she votes with Murkowski and Romney, it creates a 50/50 tie with Ms. Pence voting in the affirmative.
McSally, Gardner and Tillis – seeing the proverbial writing on the wall – vote as instructed by McConnell because they fear that their future, post-election employment prospects on K Street may hinge on this vote.
I read this morning that if Mark Kelly takes out McSally he could be sworn in before the end of November? That would take another off the table if they're able to keep the vote from happening until post-election.
Going long on Orville Redenbacher.
Sen. Flake was up for reelection this year but McCain wasn't so, technically, the Kelly/McSally face-off is a special election to fill McCain's seat. So, yeah, Kelly could be in by the end of November if he wins.
One of the prerequisites is that the current Senate votes to accept the Arizona results and to seat Kelly
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/09/19/us/live-rbg-death-supreme-court?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-elections-2020®ion=TOP_BANNER&context=storyline_menu_recirc#democrats-see-arizona-senate-race-as-a-possible-if-unlikely-way-to-stop-trumps-court-pick
That vote is as likely to take place as Merrick Garland's confirmation vote.