Democrats warn GOP: Don't fill a 2020 Supreme Court vacancy
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Democrats warn GOP: Don't fill a 2020 Supreme Court vacancy
WASHINGTON — Democrats are warning Republicans not to fill a possible Supreme Court vacancy this year after denying President Barack Obama the chance in 2016, saying it would embolden a push on the left to add seats to the court whenever they regain power.
© Provided by NBC News
"We knew basically they were lying in 2016, when they said, 'Oh, we can't do this because it's an election year.' We knew they didn't want to do it because it was President Obama," Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said in an interview.
Kaine, the party's last vice presidential nominee and a lawmaker with a reputation as an institutionalist, said confirming a nominee of President Donald Trump this year could compel Democrats to consider adding seats to the high court.
"If they show that they're unwilling to respect precedent, rules and history, then they can't feign surprise when others talk about using a statutory option that we have that's fully constitutional in our availability," he said. "I don't want to do that. But if they act in such a way, they may push it to an inevitability. So they need to be careful about that."
In a sweeping statement of intent, the Democratic National Committee is poised to add language to the party's 2020 platform endorsing "structural court reforms to increase transparency and accountability."
The draft language, reviewed by NBC News and expected to be approved later this month, denounces Republicans as having "packed our federal courts with unqualified, partisan judges who consistently rule for corporations, the wealthy, and Republican interests" and for "blocking a Democratic president from appointing a justice to the Supreme Court."
Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, said she has been "talking with people who have different ideas about what we can do — including adding to the court, including having certain circuit court judges cycle in and other ideas" like term limits.
"I'm open to those kinds of suggestions," she said.
There is currently no vacancy on the Supreme Court and there may not be one this year. But discussions in the Senate were reignited weeks ago after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 87, the leader of the liberal wing, said she had recently been treated for liver cancer — with chemotherapy "yielding positive results" — and that she intended to stay on the court. The futures of several other justices have also been the subjects of rumor and speculation in Washington.
Some progressive activists have been pressuring Democrats for months to expand the Supreme Court if they regain power, in retaliation for the GOP blockade of Obama nominee Merrick Garland in 2016. The push has been led by Demand Justice, a pressure group founded by Brian Fallon, a former aide to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
"I think we have sufficient grounds to pursue structural reform just based on the events of 2016," Fallon said. "If Republicans compound that sin with an egregious violation of norms in a seat that was held by a liberal justice, I think that we will gain new allies very quickly."
'We'll cross that bridge'
Demand Justice is urging Democrats to endorse an expansion of the Supreme Court and lower courts, as well as to impose term limits and a code of ethics for justices.
Some Democrats, like Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticyt, declined to address the hypothetical, noting that Ginsburg has said she can still do her job and isn't going anywhere.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which reviews Supreme Court nominations, said he's prepared to advance a nominee if a vacancy occurs this year.
"Yeah. We'll cross that bridge. After [Brett] Kavanaugh, the rules have changed as far as I'm concerned," he told reporters, citing the intense battle over Trump's most recent Supreme Court nominee in 2018, who was narrowly confirmed. "We'll see what the market will bear if that ever happens."
Senate Majority Whip John Thune, R-S.D., told reporters that Republicans would move to fill a Supreme Court vacancy if one were to occur this year, even in the lame duck session between the Nov. 3 election and the presidential inauguration in January.
But Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the former Judiciary Committee chairman who blocked Garland and shepherded the confirmation of Trump's two justices, said he "couldn't move forward with it" if he were in charge, suggesting it would backtrack on his 2016 standard.
Trump has vowed to "save the Supreme Court" and pick justices who would protect Second Amendment gun rights if he is re-elected. He recently said he'll release a list of prospects by Sept. 1.
If Trump were to replace a liberal justice, he could pad a 5 to 4 majority of Republican appointees and mark the sharpest rightward shift by a single pick since 1991, when the staunchly conservative Clarence Thomas replaced civil rights champion Thurgood Marshall.
Hirono promised that there would be a "hue and cry" if Republicans were to move to fill a vacancy this year — and she suggested she's sympathetic to the progressive push to restructure the judiciary even if that doesn't happen.
"Regardless of whether they try to do it or not, there have already been discussions about what we can do with our courts to make them much more balanced in many ways," Hirono said. "Because the majority of the judges are white, male, young, with a particular orientation, ideological orientation."
David Popp, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has argued that 2016 and 2020 are different because the president's party wasn't controlling the chamber during the last election.
Schumer said last month on CNN that McConnell "twists the rules" for "whatever he thinks benefits him at the moment" and added, "Let's all hope and pray for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's continued health."
.
Tags
Who is online
66 visitors
This is really a hypothetical about what could happen. Let me play: Suppose an opening on the Court emerges tomorrow and let us assume that the President and Senate follow the precedent known as the Biden rule. One more assumption: Let us assume the dems win everything in November. Based on what the dems are already saying in the above article, could we assume that they might just stack the court with additional justices anyway?
It was Reid that did away with 60 votes for a judge.
It was Obama, just the other day, calling for an end of the Senate filibuster.
Vic,
How could they stack the court? At most, there is only 1 opening. The court would stand as it was.
You know here is the sad thing. Most partisans are arguing over this. But in real life, Ginsberg and Scalia were fishing buddies. If they could find common ground, I am not sure why the nation can't.
The same way FDR wanted to - by adding more Justices. There was also an idea of rotating with other courts.
From the article:
Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, said she has been "talking with people who have different ideas about what we can do — including adding to the court, including having certain circuit court judges cycle in and other ideas" like term limits.
You can't stack a court if justices don't leave. The only one that it looks like will leave is RBG.
You can if you are the Democrats and have 50 Senators. It's already in their platform.
They will add justices. And then the next time the Republicans control the Senate and the Presidency they'll add two justices for every extra justice the Democrats add. It will never stop.
"Largely seen as a political ploy to change the court for favorable rulings on New Deal legislation, the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, commonly referred to as the “court-packing plan,” was Roosevelt’s attempt to appoint up to six additional justices to the Supreme Court for every justice older than 70 years, 6 months, who had served 10 years or more."
But the Biden rule only deals with SCOTUS, so it has nothing to do with stacking the court.
Show me.
The "Biden rule" by itself has nothing to do with stacking the Court, except that democrats have threatened to stack the Court if Republicans don't follow the Biden rule precedent. The democrat Senator from Hawaii thinks the Court should be stacked regardless, once the dems have the power.
Show me.
When the Senate denied Obama's nomination in 2016, did that have something to do with stacking the court?
From the article:
Kaine, the party's last vice presidential nominee and a lawmaker with a reputation as an institutionalist, said confirming a nominee of President Donald Trump this year could compel Democrats to consider adding seats to the high court.
Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, said she has been "talking with people who have different ideas about what we can do — including adding to the court, including having certain circuit court judges cycle in and other ideas" like term limits.
"I'm open to those kinds of suggestions," she said.
In a way.
It was after all a high stakes gamble. Obama was offering what he described as "a moderate." A president Hillary Clinton most likely would install a more progressive Justice. At that time it looked like Clinton was destined for a slam dunk win.
What a play by Mitch McConnell!!!!!
These words:
Are close, but do not match the quote you supplied. Sen Hirono said that she would consider ("talking with people who have different ideas about what we can do") adding to the court as one of several options. She did not state that she has concluded that the SCotUS should be stacked regardless. But clearly she is open to the idea.
Oh, come on TiG, stop parsing words - she is considering stacking the Court for God's sake!
I agree. I think it was all about denying Obama the ability to place his nominee.
Yes, she is considering stacking the court.
I am not parsing words, you are failing to read what I wrote. So here we go again:
You state that she is considering stacking the court as if I had denied that. Yet my opening sentence in the quote is that she would consider adding to the court.
I was quite clear and direct. What, exactly, is the problem?
A very risky one!
In my way of thinking, Vic, we should play by the rules. The Senate has advice & consent and that is the key filter to avoid a bad choice (in theory). They should have followed their rules rather than engage in gamesmanship. IMO.
If they had, then if a seat opens in 2020, they would have been on solid ground to engage in the confirmation process. As it stands, based on what they did in 2016, confirming now in 2020 costs them political capital and emboldens the Ds.
Thank you. Do you understand what that means?
I realize you may not like this example but if Heinrich Himmler declared he was in favor of exterminating all of Germany's Jews and Richard Strauss says he would consider it - there is a clear, but minute difference.
There are certain things which are beyond the pale. Your defense of Sen Hirono is that she is merely considering. I'm afraid that kind of distinction is simply watering down an egregious position.
Yup, that is a reasonable view and I share that view, however should the democrats take total control in 2020 I am certain they will end the Senate filibuster and take whatever measures possible to restore a progressive majority on the SCOTUS, regardless of Republicans following precedent.
Are you serious? Are you trying to insult my intelligence? Seriously, Vic, what is the problem here?
Are you now focusing on the word 'consider'? If so, do you not realize that you just told me that she is considering stacking the court? Read what you wrote to me:
You falsely accused me of parsing words and then stated (as if I disagreed) that she is considering stacking the court. Now you come up with an example that attempts to take issue with the very word that you used.
This is just bizarre man.
You said she was considering too? Hello? We are using the same language and yet you still take issue. Amazing.
Would not surprise me. In case you have not noticed, I hold the current members of Congress in low regard.
Trump is "considering" delaying the election. Thankfully, neither one can actually do what they are "considering" without moving heaven and earth. The threat of Democrats adding justices is nothing but a straw man fantasy manufactured by dishonest conservatives to frighten their base. There is simply no actual way, even with the rules changed and a Democrat majority, that they would add more Justices simply to create a liberal majority. They know the country wouldn't allow it and they would pay far too high a price even if they attempted it. They also know the winds change in politics and if they enlarged it for their own benefit, it could easily come back to haunt them.
So why not just accept Hirono was talking fantasy out her ass, just like dishonest Donald.
Your argument that considering is not the same as actually doing is getting stale. Perrie asked me to show her 2 items. I did. Here we are arguing over the fact that you seized on the word considering as opposed to doing. I conceded there is a difference. However any objective observer realizes that the radical Sen from Hawaii is in truth well beyond "considering!" Furthermore as I pointed out considering an outrageous act is not far from committing an outrageous act, despite the clear difference in meanings.
Because I remember those Kavanaugh hearings.
I'm afraid that is not so. It's an actual idea that Democrats are floating and supporting.
2020 Dems warm to expanding Supreme Court
Other candidates told the Washington Post they were either open to the idea or supported it. Including Steyer, Booker, Bullock, Buttgieg, Gillibrand, Harris, Inslee, Klobuchar, Moulton, Warren, and Yang.
Still seems like a pipe dream coming from a dozen or so politicians who know they can entice some of their constituents with dreams of a liberal SCOTUS majority. Odds of them actually getting enough votes and solid majority of public opinion to make it happen? I think it's beyond slim.
Also, it seems that many said they "wouldn't rule it out" but very few were actually the ones bringing it up as one of their platform ideas.
That is not my argument. Looks like you pulled that from thin air.
No, Vic, I have been pointing out that you accused me of parsing words while informing me that Sen Hirono was considering stacking the court. Yet the words I had just used were that she was considering adding to the court. I pointing out how you were insisting on a point that I had just made .
Now you are off on another allegation.
So now you choose to contradict yourself?:
Vic, it is obvious that you are just playing a weak game and I am no longer willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Again, Texan, one would think the seeder would NOT seek to perpetuate personal meta on their own seed.
It is even worse when they agree with a comment that was demonstrated to be in error.
Oh, I see, your comment stands. Well that certainly is a cogent argument.
Got anything to say about the topic?
I should. I was asked a question. I answered it and briefly made a point. By going off on the way something was said, my point was diluted. As all "good" lawyers learn at Law School: Arguments are not won on the merits, they are won on technicalities! Truth becomes subjective. It's too bad that our society now resembles Law School, as we debate simple truth as if it were something to be interpreted by the individual.
Vic, I stated in my comment that Senator Hirono was indeed considering adding to the court (one of her options):
You return telling me that I should not parse words and that she was considering stacking the court:
You accuse me of parsing words while writing (as your correction) basically the same thing I had just offered.
Correct
One can assume anything. There is a good reason for the Ds to NOT try to expand the court if they have replaced Justice Ginsburg with their choice. It takes substantial political capital to make such a move and it is risky (see FDR). Are they willing to spend it? Further, the move by the D's can be countered by the R's. There is a risk in setting a precedent as it might turn around and bite you.
So, sure, they might do it. But there are good reasons for them to just accept a Ginsburg replacement and move on.
Have you watched how the House has conducted itself?
Do you not see the good reasons to NOT try to expand the SCOTUS?
Of course I do.
Good. So I think the most likely scenario in your hypothetical is that the D party would get their replacement seat and move on.
I guess where we disagree is in the idea that the democrats will be magnanimous. You were right in saying there is good reason to uphold the precedents and norms, but I don't see any evidence that these democrats would live up to that.
I do not think the D party would spend its resources on this. They would more likely focus on what matters most to them: their domestic agenda.
I guess we just agree to disagree..
You disagree? That would mean that you think the Ds would spend their resources on a dubious attempt to expand the SCotUS rather than focus on their domestic agenda. What is your reasoning for this position?
In my scenario I assume the dems win everything in November. That would give them unlimited political capitol. Have you seen what they have done with just one of the two congressional chambers?
Yes I know. That is the political capital I was referring to. But it is not unlimited by any stretch of the imagination.
So given this capital, the question is how they would spend it.
I posit that they would use it to advance their domestic agenda (environment, energy, education, redistribution of wealth, taxation, etc.) rather than engage in a dubious attempt to expand the SCotUS. I am surprised that you seem to think they would focus on expanding the SCotUS given all the other priorities they have been itching to act on.
If they end the Senate filibuster, they will be able to enact all of their domestic agenda - under those circumstances they can do it within two years before the next midterm election. BTW there are many bills Pelosi has championed in the House that had no chance of passage in the Senate. They are still in the quiver.
That leaves the Court, which for a few decades gave progressives things they couldn't get through elections. Those were the days! We had those past many decades when so many justices were graduates of either Harvard or Yale and regardless of who appointed them, they tended to lean left. Then Teddy Kennedy changed all that. Now the two main political parties choose judges based solely on ideology. You think they would be content with preserving a 5-4 minority?
I don't think they are that pragmatic, or that humble. They had no problem spending massive political capital on an impeachment they knew was doomed to failure. They have had no qualms about going all out to destroy the reputations of Republican SCOTUS nominees over the years.
They of course want a 9-0 majority. But everything comes at a price and it is the price that I am talking about. They have limited political capital and the idea of expanding the SCotUS is both dubious (easy to backfire) and is a double-edged sword (the Rs can do likewise when it is their turn).
It would be quite stupid for the Ds to pursue this. They will go for the low-hanging fruit (sure bets) before going after such a long-shot play such as extending the size of the SCotUS.
The impeachment move was indeed ill-conceived and ultimately a political failure. The fact that they screwed that up does not mean that they will now go after an even longer-shot with less immediate consequences than tarnishing Trump (presumably in order to cause him to lose reelection).
Domestic agenda vs. long-shot, questionable, expansion of the SCotUS ... I do not see them going for the Hail Mary again.
Do you truly think that is what they would most likely do given Vic's scenario where they have both the Executive and Legislative branches in their control??
The warning is really just laying the groundwork for public acceptance of what they are going to do anyway. When the Democrats move to manipulate the court to their favor, and outrage ensues, they will point to anything and everything they can to justify it as simply a fair reaction to something the Republicans did.
Both parties will continue to actively fight for control of the court. Of course they both want the Judicial branch on 'their side'. The question is how far they will go to secure a particular level of advantage.
One cannot (or should not) deny what the R Senate did at the end of Obama's term. Of course the Ds would do likewise. Would they up the ante and go for broke by trying to expand the size of the SCotUS? I do not see that happening.
And the 2016 use of the 'Biden Rule' comes back to bite them in the butt.
Both parties play the same game. The have the same basic objectives.
If Trump loses and Democrats regain the Senate - this really is not a problem. Democrats will keep the same Senate rules as the Republicans - simple majority to approve a Justice.
The 11 Justices of the Supreme Court.
Who'll make it 13? 15?
It's legal as church.
Yes it is.
I have heard several people say they are worried the Dems will try to stack the courts. I can on SMH when that is exactly what the republicans have been doing the past several years.
For some reason it is always ok when they do it but no one else better even try...
Indeed. There is also a distinct difference between acting as a statesperson vs. being a political opportunist. The former tries to do what is best for the American people whereas the latter tries to do what is best for the politician and their party.
I am not going to try to castigate individuals because of their position. It is far better to focus on the position and not the person.
As for adding Justices to the SCotUS, I am not against expanding the size of the court as long as it is done for reasons that clearly serve the American people. This implies that it would not be a push act by a political majority but rather a bi-partisan agreement.
Are you categorically against increasing the size of the SCotUS to better handle the caseload for what is now a 331+ million citizen nation?
Adding partisan justices to a court to ensure favorable rulings is what a corrupt dictator would do in a banana republic. If Trump was actually the monster Democrats claim he is, he would have packed the Supreme Court years ago. Biden is actually corrupt enough to do it.
That is correct, and the current quorum for the SCotUS is 6 justices. This can be changed and likely would be changed if the court is expanded. Each Justice is responsible for an area of jurisdiction (a circuit assignment) wherein they are individually empowered to deal with granting bail, stays, extensions, etc. Thus the more Justices available, the more they can operate in parallel addressing applications within their jurisdictions.
A larger SCotUS enables the court to operate like Circuit courts where a subset of the Justices act on certain cases (not requiring the entire complement of the SCotUS).
All of this is within the power of Congress. So there really is nothing (other than partisan politics) preventing the USA from adjusting its SCotUS to better accommodate the size of our nation.
So, considering these facts:
Are you categorically against increasing the size of the SCotUS to better handle the caseload for what is now a 331+ million citizen nation?
Exactly. That is why an increase in the size of the SCotUS should be a result of a bi-partisan agreement and have stated merits that clearly help the American people. Also, if the size is increased to 11 this should be done incrementally with an approach much like giving #10 to the current PotUS and #11 to his/her successor (or, if necessary due to partisan politics, by giving #10 to one party and #11 to the other major party).
Each Justice is also a Circuit Court Judge. Roberts actually oversees 3 Circuits and Sotamayor oversees 2. The rest oversee one Circuit Court each. Emergency Appeals in each Circuit are sent to the Justice Assigned to that Circuit and they each have the authority to issue an Emergency stay.
As far as I can find , there actually isn't anything in the constitution that says how many justices are to sit on the SC.
And from what I see , the sole deciders of how many seats there actually are , is left to the senate with its advice and consent , that latter being the important factor hell the senate could go the other way , instead of adding seats subtract seats down to 3, 5 or 7 , simply by refusing to consent to seat any nominee over whatever number they agree on.
the one instance of "court stacking" I remember was when FDR tried to do it by adding nominees favorable to his new deal programs that were getting beaten in the SC by adding seats if the nominees were confirmed . that didn't go over very well. the senate simply refused to confirm those additional nominees.
Congress sets the size of the SCotUS when signed by the PotUS.
the senate simply refused to confirm those additional nominees.
the senate was a lot different pace then, it took its role as part of an equal branch Of government seriously, and it’s members weren’t as dominated by their respective parties.
what Democratic senator would stand up to the Twitter mob and oppose Biden’s plant to destroy the courts’s integrity by packing it ? Maybe Manchin?
Which is my point , with no consent from the senate there is nothing for the Potus to sign, to increase the number of seats .
the potus can nominate all they want in any number they want , getting confirmation is another matter, one of those pesky checks and balances things and division of powers.
Article III of the Constitution sets neither the size of the Supreme Court nor any specific positions on it (though existence of the office of chief justice is tacitly acknowledged in Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 ). Instead, these powers are entrusted to Congress, which initially established a six-member Supreme Court composed of a chief justice and five associate justices through Judiciary Act of 1789. The size of the Court was first altered by an 1801 act which would have reduced the size of the court to five members upon its next vacancy, but an 1802 act promptly negated the 1801 act, legally restoring the court's size to six members before any such vacancy occurred. As the nation's boundaries grew, Congress added justices to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits: seven in 1807 , nine in 1837 , and ten in 1863 . [76]
In 1866, at the behest of Chief Justice Chase and in an attempt to limit the power of Andrew Johnson , Congress passed an act providing that the next three justices to retire would not be replaced, which would thin the bench to seven justices by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. In 1869, however, the Circuit Judges Act returned the number of justices to nine, [77] where it has since remained.
I was supporting your point Mark.
Because of the case crush on the Supreme Court I would support expanding the court to at least 11 and work under the same system as Appellant courts with rare 'en bloc' cases being heard.
Oh and I would also want to see the SCOTUS to have to follow the same ethics standards as the other Federal courts.
Well, then you’ll support trump appointing two new justices tomorrow.
If the SCotUS were to expand, I would want to see that accomplished via a bi-partisan consensus in Congress.
I wouldn't support Trump appointing a grocer cart collector.
I'd love to see that too but since the Senate is an utter cluster fuck right now, I don't see it happening any time soon. Ever since they removed the 'blue ticket' precedent and the filibuster on SCOTUS Justices, it looks to continue to be a partisan process. I doubt they'd get an Amendment to the law through the Senate even if Roberts BEGGED for more justices to help with the caseload.
Hell, we should be 'redistricting' and adding Circuit Courts too. There is little justice when courts are so overloaded that cases go for years and the SCOTUS only takes about 2% of the cases presented to them, not on the merits but because they hear at most 150 cases a year.
Agreed. I see no end to the partisan nonsense.
Of course you'll only find a reason to expand the Supreme Court when it's to the partisan advantage of Democrats. Spare us the pretexts about a mythical "case crush" and be honest.
If Biden wins and the Democrats control the Senate, it will be amusing to watch all these dishonest rationalizations suddenly appear to expand the Supreme Court in January, 2021. If Trump wins, the same people will do everything they can to keep every possible seat in the federal judiciary open.
Of course you are again incapable of addressing my comment without making it personal.
My statement about Trump is totally honest. Just stop.
Oh and BTFW, instead of making personal comments, why not address the fact that the SCOTUS is only hearing 2% of the cases presented to them.
As an aside , and how true it is , I do not know , I have read that trump has nominated and had confirmed more justices than any president than Geo Washington , and that Washington only had so many because he was the one that was president when the judiciary was implemented and started .
my actual question or query would be , why are those seats left open for so long from president to president if they are so important?
I can be wrong , but court vacancies should be filled ASAP( I would be ok with 2 months at most) and not left vacant simply because the political tides are against what one desires to be sat.
Answer - Mitch McConnell resisted radical justices. That is why Majority Leader Harry Reid finally ended the Senate rule on Judges, but by then there were a tremendous amount of vacancies. Along came the current President and the rest, as they say, is history
Mitch McConnell became Majority leader AFTER Harry Reid. Sheesh!
In the first 2 of 3 sentences.
In answer to the question:
This came first:
So Vic alleges that Judicial seats were left open from president to president because of Mitch McConnell's 'resistance'.
Then Vic alleges that 'resistance' caused this:
Reading comprehension 101.
Now unless you or Vic want to make the ridiculous claim that ONE lowly Senator's resistance caused the long time openings in the Judiciary, only after Mitch became Majority leader did his 'resistance' become relevant.
If you don't understand, I can't help you.
Since there is no lie in my post, you obviously understood nothing.
I refer you to the FACT that Vic abandoned his bullshit and you are here doing a shitty job of defending it.
Hence it was false.
DOES what?
WTF are you blathering about?
Incogent.
I clearly backed up my comment. Vic is the one who didn't back up his claim and YOU are the one talking about 'other stuff'.
Yet not one of my comments has been removed for being off topic.
So no whining about alleged off topic comments. THAT's so what.
Where in any of my comments did I say that?
These were MY words.
WHERE in those words you see plainly in front of you do I claim that Vic states McConnell was Leader of the Senate BEFORE Harry Reid, as you claimed?
Quite a conundrum.
Considering his past behavior, it's hard to imagine McConnell not trying to ram through another appointment, before Biden takes office.
But... then there's Grassley, who says he won't allow a lame-duck appointment. While I have zero consideration for Grassley's truthfulness or honor, I can easily imagine that he would like to have a new President come into office already owing Grassley a favor.
So... McConnell... If he believes Grassley, it would be stupid for McConnell to engage an appointment that has no chance of succeeding. He might well announce, grandly, that he would wait for the new President. No one would be fooled, but appearances would be saved.
I think that is still a fairly big IF. and a lot of that IF depends on whom is chosen as his running mate since there are a few that do not think Biden will complete a full term.
True.
My favorite is Tammy Duckworth.
then again , its American politics , and like the proverbial box of chocolates , you never really know what your gonna get.
Are you excited by amputees?
You're a shitty person.