Guys, we are right now, more than ever, caught between a rock and a hard place.

[boston bean]

Wanna spend the next five weeks fighting a scotus seat and not trumpass?

Giving the fascists a voice?

Over something we cannot change??

I say let them do what they gonna do No matter what we do or say and hold normal hearings.

We need power. We don’t have it. But we need it to fix this major nationality calamity.

So, just accept the religious nutcase will be on the court and move on to fighting to get Joe and a Kamala elected November 3.

[Wounded Bear]

1. You have to pick your battles...nt

[essaynnc]

2. Here, here !!!

This can be seen as just another diversion to get us to take our eyes off the ball. DON'T !!!!!

[dawg]

3. There's nothing we can do to block this nomination.

All we can do is to make sure that voters realize what an extreme candidate she is, and what the likely consequences will be if they don't elect a Democratic President *and* a Democratic Senate on November 3rd.

[CincyDem]

4. Trump would rather have us focused on Barrett than him over the next 5 weeks. For sure. n/t

[boston bean]

5. We also must have the senate. I am believing that is almost more important.

[smirkymonkey]

23. +1000

I also believe this is do-able. More than ever, we need to GOTV.

[vlyons]

6. I fear you're right. That we are powerless from preventing

the cult Christian Taliban from staking over the SC. I'm 73 and need not worry about abortion. However I feel sorry for the women of child-bearing age. We need raw power.

[Arkansas Granny]

7. As painful as it is to accept, there's no way to stop Barrett's confirmation.

Our best option, our only option, is to get Biden elected by a margin so large that it can't be disputed.

[boston bean]

8. It is painful. But we gotta work with what will work for us.

[Rule of Claw]

9. Fine cut a deal

offer no delay so long as the process starts post-election.

But considering his stated game plan, just lying down will not be so-signed by me.

[boston bean]

10. That is acceptable.

[Rule of Claw]

12. I will recommend the offer to the

appropriate people then.

But under this cloud having her seated to hear any elections case is unsettling.

[boston bean]

16. Yes.

[Miigwech]

11. No! Fight, stand up, but be smart like Ruth!

Be brilliant, like Ruth. Ruth rhymes with truth. Tell the truth! The last thing I want to see is our leaders not taking the fight right to their bellies, for the whole world to see. This woman is going to play the poor, perfectly pure woman who needs protection by the big burly (Barf) repup men from those horrible godless Democrats (LOL). Just don't play the game. RBG taught us how to do this... do it! For the sake of history.

I have one observation about the future court. Is it possible that perhaps Justice Roberts might become far less conservative because as we know the justices have shifted over time and balanced the courts. The Warren Court comes to mind.

[Rule of Claw]

13. Believe it or not

Kavanaugh's tears in my opinion was not guilt for anything other than the side he aligned with.

Watch him to become one of those "liberal" jurists in the next years.

Call it a gut feeling. I said the same with Roberts in 2005.

But I have faith Kavanaugh, Roberts, Sotomayor Kagan and Breyer will not turn over the Republic to a dictatorship.

[MrsCoffee]

25. Oh ffs. That's just gas.

Cuz there is not a fucking chance in hell of that scenario ever happening. Kavanaugh is a piece of shit through and through.

“Not guilt for anything”?

[boston bean]

15. We do not have the power to stop it. That is the tRuth.

So we got choices all of them bad.

Take the least bad. Let them have their freak on the court and win the senate and presidency. Or give them something else to talk about and rile up their voters helping them.

Democrats cannot stop the end result no matter what we do or say. It will happen.

[uponit7771]

18. The truth is kGOP can put her in on Monday

[genxlib]

14. More specifically

I wonder about the time and attention of Kamala Harris.

Is it the best way to use her time tied up in this fight versus out on the campaign trail?

You could argue the exposure granted by any public hearings could be worth more than traditional campaigning. That may be especially true in this weird covid year where traditional campaigning is a challenge. But I doubt it. I don't think swing voters watch hearings. Anyone tuning in will have already been cemented in one way or another.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. It makes a real difference whether the seat is filled before the election or during lame duck

Obamacare is on the docket for November 8, and numerous election related cases might be decided by an 8 person Court if the seat isn't filled before the election. And if Biden wins by a landslide, and Kelly wins in AZ, not only might the lame duck Republican majority be reduced, but a couple of Republican Senators might get cold feet jamming through a Trump nominee after Trump was soundly repudiated by the electorate.

[boston bean]

28. I agree, for the next 5 weeks our options are limited.

[Efilroft Sul]

19. Electoral-Vote.com has an idea to put the brakes on confirmation.

"Lawsuit: Nobody seems to be discussing this option, but this is where we think the real opportunity is for Team Blue. Let's start with a couple of absurd examples. Imagine that McConnell declares that all deliberation on SCOTUS nominees will be done in the men's locker room of the Senate gym. Or maybe he says deliberation will be done in six feet of water, such that only members 6'4" or taller will be able to breathe. These things, if they did happen, would be obvious abuses of his discretionary authority as Senate Majority Leader. Put another way, McConnell has a lot of power, but there are limits to what he can do, over and above what is spelled out in the rules of the Senate.

"Meanwhile, keep in mind that in the Senate, precedents are binding. It has always been this way because the very first senators and representatives operated in the tradition of the English parliament and of English common law. This fact is what makes the filibuster-killing 'nuclear option' possible; if the 60-vote filibuster is overturned once on a point of order (which requires just 51 votes), then a new precedent is established and it's overturned forever.

"Taking these things together, the Democrats could argue that when he applied the McConnell Rule to Merrick Garland, the Majority Leader established a precedent that is just as binding as an actual Senate rule. Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough might (or might not) be asked to weigh in, but she would likely agree. Either way, Senate Democrats could file a lawsuit in federal court arguing that by disregarding the McConnell Rule, McConnell is guilty of an abuse of his discretionary authority. It's plausible that the Democrats might even prevail on the merits. More importantly, however, as we have learned many times in the past four years (see taxes, Donald Trump's; subpoenas, congressional), it generally takes a while for the various levels of the Court system to make their rulings. Toss in the holiday season, when the courts are closed, and it's entirely possible that such a lawsuit could run out the clock on Donald Trump's term if he is not reelected."

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Sep19.html#item-1

[pfitz59]

21. I like what you're saying.

I've had similar thoughts, but you say it so much better. A very sound strategy. "Hoisted by their own petards!"

[boston bean]

22. I am cool with that because it frames fairness which the court is "suppose" to be.

If it is possible.

[Bayard]

24. I have thought the same thing

Tie it up in court till after the election, or even better--January 20th.

Many other options as well:
https://democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=14133727

I do think our Dem Congressional members can walk and chew gum at the same time--there are plenty who are not up for re-election, and don't need to be out on the campaign trail.

[njhoneybadger]

20. Good advice, all focus needs to be on winning the Presidency and Senate

[ancianita]

26. Absolutely.

[ismnotwasm]

27. Pretty much

The time to do something about the Supreme Court was in 2016.