General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsEvangelicals don't care about endangered GOP senators as long as they get their Ginsburg replacement
Published 2 mins ago on September 20, 2020
By Tom Boggioni
In a candid interview with the New York Times, the leader of a Christian-based anti-choice group admitted that she didnt care if some GOP lawmakers on the November ballot go down to defeat for supporting whomever Donald Trump, picks to fill the Supreme Court seat that belonged to the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
With Senate Republicans led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) determined to ram through an appointment before they possibly lose control of the chamber, some GOP lawmakers are looking at a vote for the replacement as a possible last act in office.
According to the Times, evangelicals are giddy at the prospect of filling another seat with a conservative hardliner and they are planning an all-out media blitz and lobbying effort to get what they want.
The Judicial Crisis Network, which spent millions on advertising supporting the presidents two previous nominees to the court, Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh, was completing plans and a budget for its latest rollout of ads. Strategists with knowledge of the groups work said they expected it to release details of its campaign imminently, the Times reports with anti-choice activists hoping for an insurmountable 6-3 advantage in the high court that would likely gut Roe v. Wade.
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/09/evangelicals-dont-care-about-endangered-gop-senators-as-long-as-they-get-their-ginsburg-replacement-report/
Note: If you want to continue to read this article it requires you to release your e-mail address
These evangelicals keep forgetting that there "guys" and "gals" sitting on the bench can be IMPEACHED............
Mike 03
(16,616 posts)to themselves, "Trump will fill that vacancy during the lame duck session if he doesn't fill it before then, and Trump is kind of a knucklehead, so we can get what we want without actually voting for him again," or else decide, "Voting during this pandemic is such a pain in the ass, and we will get our SC seat, so let's not bother."
If even 5-10% of them stay home, it helps us enormously.
FBaggins
(26,721 posts)More could very easily go down to defeat by not supporting the nominee.
These evangelicals keep forgetting that there "guys" and "gals" sitting on the bench can be IMPEACHED.........
Theres no way that they lose almost 20 senate seats by seating a conservative justice.
Mike 03
(16,616 posts)yesterday. It is almost impossible to impeach a SC justice. Prior that that realization, I thought Kavanaugh would be a good candidate for impeachment, but it's not going to happen.
FBaggins
(26,721 posts)... try doing it when the impeachable offense is I dont like the guy who appointed you
turbinetree
(24,685 posts)if we take back that senate and make DC and Puerto Rico have two senate seats................
FBaggins
(26,721 posts)And if you add four senators its 70.
Not going to happen (not would I bet money that PR would be reliably blue)
turbinetree
(24,685 posts)andym
(5,443 posts)and to a lesser extent gay rights to oppose, the Republican Party would be in deep trouble politically.
The evangelicals wold be much less supportive of the GOP without the abortion issue-- remember that Jimmy Carter himself is an evangelical (born again) and his position on abortion is that Jesus would have opposed it, and it should be minimized (that is even though he supported the SC decision as the law of the land). On the other hand he fully supports gay marriage as something that Jesus would have approved of.
no_hypocrisy
(46,030 posts)1) All nine USSC Justices to be federalist conservatives. No dissents that way. 9-0 no matter what.
2) No non-federalist conservative judges on the USSC and in the federal courts ever again.
3) Replacing Ruth Ginsburg is the tip of the iceberg.
Salviati
(6,008 posts)I think the smart move would have been to do the "honorable" thing and punt the nomination to the next term from the start. It would have been as neutrally rallying to both sides as possible. And in their worst case scenario, they maintain the status quo. (Not that I think he would have done it because he's honorable... I just think that the long term scenarios game out better for them, but that shiny prize was just too tempting...)
If they ram through a nominee before the election, then the whole process looks haphazard and rushed, and will inevitably distract senators from their re-election campaigns, no matter how many corners they cut. If they do it after the election, then they look like they're subverting the will of the American people if they do it with a lame duck president and senate that has been voted out of office. In either case, the Democratic party is going to feel justifiably wronged, and it's really sounding like this will be the wake up call to take the gloves off and start landing some haymakers in retaliation. Confirming a justice at this late date is begging for the court to be expanded, doing so in a lame duck session even more so. What will that have gotten them? Nothing.
As far as their base is concerned, if they do it before the election, then it removes it as an issue, and if they try to go back on committing to do it this term, then they look dumb and feckless.
And it's too late to get the horse back in the barn. The Democrats will still have raised $120+ million on ActBlue alone this week, and our base has been riled up and loaded for bear since mcconnels ghoulish statements last Friday. Right when early voting is starting.
The more I think about it, the more I think he done fucked up.
Disaffected
(4,547 posts)They have a solid majority as of now (5 - 3) which should be enough to accomplish a lot of what the conservatives want. Besides, the Dems are probably not going to retake the Senate so, in that case, the 5-3 could remain indefinitely.
Salviati
(6,008 posts)The odds are that the Democrats will take the Senate. That doesn't mean it's guaranteed, not by a long shot, but they are the slight favorites.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)for this time as well. As long as Republicans control the senate, no matter what "arrows in our quiver" Pelosi et al hold, we need all the help we can get from them. And from the evangelicals and others they've trained as viciously aggressive attack dogs.
My guess is McConnell simply cannot afford to enrage and potentially lose control of the base before the election by refusing to go all out. At very least he'll pretend to, threatening any senators who don't go along with their rage.
Salviati
(6,008 posts)... and let's face it, the tools we have at our disposal are very few if they're determined to ram an appointment through, I think that it will be an extremely pyrrhic victory.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)330 million people, almost none of whom want what they intend.
czarjak
(11,254 posts)Period. Illegitimate! History will record it. Were just screwed until then.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)of congress and filling this seat, I'd choose control of congress and put an end to the ability of the Republicans to stack a 5-4/4-5 court with extreme and corrupt political agents within a couple administrations. And a whole bunch else.
Everything today's Republicans touch has been turned into a problem needing institutional fixes.
Just imagine if the evangelical attack mob they created and lost control of to Trump became enraged into turning on them... I expect McConnell does all the time.