Glimmer of hope? RBG

[Ms. Toad]

It is all but a foregone conclusion that Trump will name a replacement (my bet is before she is even buried), and almost as good odds that the senate will confirm it.

That may actuallyincrease the odds for a Trump defeat. Remember - some of the strange bedfellows who elected him did so because of his published list of pre-approved nominees for the Supreme court. As long as Ginsburg was alive, he was a useful idiot to have in office so he could appoint an acolyte as a replacement. If they now get one more appointment without having to vote for him again, they may choose to abstain (or vote for Biden).

Nightmare thought: He will nominate Barr.

[JI7]

1. No, Asshole (Mitch) will most likely wait until after the election

But do it by late November or early December

[Ms. Toad]

9. Only if he is smart enough to understand that until he appoints someone

he is a useful idiot - but he loses his usefulness once he names someone who looks like they will be appointed.

[JI7]

12. I was talking about McConnell but the point about Trump is good also

[regnaD kciN]

13. Doubt it...

He’ll want to make sure of a hard-right majority on the Court for when he challenges the results of an election loss. That way, he’ll have five right-wing ideologues to rule in his favor and keep him in office no matter the vote (or rule that he has the authority to impose a state of emergency and remain in office indefinitely).

[JI7]

18. I was referring to McConnell

[leftieNanner]

2. I don't think he will nominate Barr

Because he's very happy having him at his side right now.

But that would truly be a nightmare.

[Demsrule86]

3. Barr is too old.

[Ms. Toad]

4. Unless he does it just for spite. n/t

[JI7]

5. Barr is old and out of shape and hopefully will die soon

Someone like Tom Cotton would be worse.

[Ms. Toad]

7. There are plenty of vile people to choose from. n/t

[uponit7771]

6. Barr is easily impeachable, we better vote

[PTWB]

8. They'll do it immediately after the election.

They want to fire up their base and avoid firing up ours.

[Ms. Toad]

11. Her death, alone, fires up ours.

Seems to me he would want to counter that.

[democrattotheend]

17. Not really

Our base has never been as fired up as the other side about Supreme Court nominees. Which is why the Republicans will get away with filling the seat.

[Ms. Toad]

21. Really?

Tell that to all the LGBT individuals in the 2004 election who hid our identies and opposition to the Marriage Discrimination Amendment - and instead campaigned our hearts out for Kerry in Ohio because we knew that access to Supreme Court appointments were far more important that fighting an amendment that was likely to pass anyway - AND - also knew that MANY potential Kerry voters were supporters of the Marriage Discrimination Amendment.

It is the one time in my nearly 40 years of being openly lesbian that I intentionally hid it - beause I needed to be sure not to turn off the voters I was trying to encourage to vote for Kerry.

So don't even try to tell me that our side isn't fired up about Supreme Court nominees.

[democrattotheend]

22. I didn't mean to offend you

And I appreciate all of your hard work. I'm sure it wasn't easy to hide who you were and I am so sorry you had to do so. That said, Ohio 2004 is actually a good example of how the other side gets more fired up about social issues. I remember pundits talking about how the gay marriage ban had driven up turnout among white working class social conservatives and helped deliver the state to Bush. Opposition on our side didn't deliver the state to Kerry.

[Ms. Toad]

25. Social issues - yes. That is different from supreme court appointments.

The marriage discrimination amendment was put on the ballot precisely to drive Republicans to the polls to vote for it. The original law had already been interpreted to limit marriage to one man and one woman, the reinforcing statute had already been passed and had taken effect. There was ABSOLUTELY NO legal basis to think that - absent a constitutional amendment - mixed gender marriage was threatened. The sole reason for it to be on the ballot was to drive Evangelicals and conservatives to the polls who - while they were there - would vote for Bush.

It is our side who gets fired up about the Supreme Court for all its potential (not just as a means to push a few narrow social issues).

So I worked my tail off (I was actually burning the candle at both ends, since there wasn't any significant opposition to the MDA - so I at night I designed a website to at least provide information, and during the day I was pounding the pavement for Kerry)

On election day more than half the state came out to spit on my marriage of (then) 23 years (We marked 39 years as of 7 days ago).

Kerry conceded before the vote in Ohio were even counted

And I jumped on DU only to face accusation after accusation that we'd lost only becuase I insisted on having my special pony, rather than thinking of the good of the country

. . . just so you know what you walked into.

[Gothmog]

10. The SCOTUS was on the ballot in 2016

[Ms. Toad]

16. True -

and, exactly like that time - it was one of my students studying for the bar exam who gave me the news.

But it was on the ballot last time because they had to vote for him to get new justices. This situation is the reverse. Ginsburg's seat is now open and subject to a political hack being appointed now whether or not he wins. So there is no "hold our nose and vote for him" impetus this time.

[democrattotheend]

14. Who cares?

They're going to fill the seat and it won't even matter who wins the election. Because we'll have a court for a generation that will block any progressive reforms we manage to adopt anyway.

[Ms. Toad]

19. The court is not the only thing that matters.

Are you really OK with 4 more years of Trump because it will make no difference?

As to progessive reforms - they are not all-powerful. Their power is limited to deciding questions of interpretation, ruling on constitutional matters, and disputes beween the circuits. They don't create the law - and they don't get to trash the law without a constitutional basis. Yes, they will likely interpret every law from a more conservative perspective - but they are co-equal branches of government, not the ruler of all things.

And - Thomas is nearly as old as Ginsburg. If we win - his seat will be the replacement for Ginsburg.

[democrattotheend]

23. No, I'm not okay with four more years of Trump

I'm just feeling really demoralized right now. I'm a lawyer and RBG was one of my heroes, so this means a lot to me.

[Ms. Toad]

26. I hear you.

One of my students studing for the bar exam (about 2.5 weeks out from the exam) let me know that Scalia had died.

I've got a student studying in my spare office today for the July/October bar exam which is 2.5 weeks away. He let me know about Ginsburg. Not sure what that means . . . but it's odd I found out about both the same way.

[agingdem]

15. I'm thinking

Collins is in a shitload of trouble in Maine for her yes vote for Kavanaugh...if she wants to atone and maybe up her chances at reelection then she has to vote no...so does Romney and Murkawski...and Mitch is in trouble in his state and if those semi-human Repubs see falling line behind Mitch isn't a great idea and dims their chances of reelection them there's hope

[Ms. Toad]

20. Hope you're right. n/t

[agingdem]

24. and let's see if Ben Sasse

can do something other than throw out a swear word or two before he falls in line...maybe he can actually grow a spine and do what's right for a change...so many of those supposedly righteous senators have whispered their hate for Trump...maybe this is their opportunity to stand up instead of bending over