Senate Democrats have already made their first move to slow down the chamber's operation.

[ehrnst]

Trump’s replacement of Ginsburg before the election, or during the lame-duck period if he loses the election, would be “illegitimate,” according to former Attorney General Eric Holder. Holder said Democrats should promise to add justices to the court if they win the presidency and the Senate in November.

“Everything should be on the table,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said on Monday.

Senate Democrats have already made their first move to slow down the chamber’s operation. On Tuesday afternoon, Democrats invoked the “two-hour rule,” which limits the time when committees may hold hearings while the full Senate is in session. The move caused some committees to postpone their hearings on Tuesday.

................................................

The move to invoke the two-hour rule suggests Schumer is willing to go to the mat to stop or slow this nomination ― and, if that fails, to make McConnell and Republicans pay for the hypocrisy of pushing to confirm a new justice four years after McConnell invented a rule that ‘forbade’ him from considering then-President Barack Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-senate-confirmation_n_5f6dfe7cc5b64deddeecee7a

[Laelth]

1. Good. This is no-holds-barred defense.

I am impressed.

-Laelth

[dixiegrrrrl]

19. Esp meaningful, since she was the lawyer for Bush at the 2000 Gore/Bush election fracas

Gore should have never conceded, as we now see all too clearly.

No more Mr./Ms. nice guy.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. The Huffpost Article is extremely well-written and well worth the read.

I applaud our Democratic members of Congress for the moves they are considering against the hypocritical republicans.

We are overdue for aggressive action.

And this article shows just what we can do.

[Cha]

3. TY ehrnst & Dems!

[Maraya1969]

4. I think we should do everything possible to stop this nomination because what if the Senate

is lost because Russia stepped in somehow?

[splunge63]

5. Absolutely no quarter!

[chriscan64]

6. There was no "rule"

there was a cover story. McConnell did not have the courage to just come out and say directly why he was doing what he did. He did not care that we called him an obstructionist then, or that we call him a hypocrite now. If he had the guts to say what he's thinking now it would be "I'm a hypocrite with three justices on the court."

[Miigwech]

7. Fight with every ounce. Show them that Dems have had ENOUGH

just like the rest of America!

[bucolic_frolic]

8. Keep linking it back to Merrick Garland

No Garland, No Barrett

No rush to judgment

[betsuni]

9. Go to the mattresses!

[George II]

10. What happened to unanimous consent and "I object". McConnell and Rand Paul pull that all the time.

[robbob]

11. I'm not sure I agree that we should announce our strategy "if tRumps fills this seat"

ahead of the election. I mean, yeah, grill the offered nominee relentlessly, raise a fuss, get outraged, by why on earth threaten the ReThugs with changing the makeup of the SC ahead of election day? It seems that’s just providing ammo to tRump. “You see what they want to do??? They’re going to tamper with the sanctity of the SC and expand and stack it with radical left wing judges” etc. etc.

I mean, yeah, sure, after the travesty of tRumps appointments of THREE right wing assholes, the last while RBG hasn’t even been laid to rest is more then enough reason to expand the SC, and I’m sure the general voting public will be on board with that, but first let’s use the outrage to gain control of all three houses so that this could become possible. Don’t give the other side ammo, and don’t reveal your strategies ahead of time. Focus on winning the election first!

[Lock him up.]

12. "to tamper with the sanctity of the SC" is not a valid rationale

1- The SC is not "sanctified" in the Constitution.

2- The SC is just one of the three branches of government.

3- The Constitution does not define the number of nominees it has on the bench.


3 easy rebutals right there if the russiapublicans try it.

[Marthe48]

14. Number of justices has varied over time:

https://www.history.com/news/7-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-u-s-supreme-court

[Lock him up.]

16. That's the 4th easy rebutal. TY (no text)

[Marthe48]

18. I thought it supports #3

I remember the lectures in American history class with this information. Thank you for saying

[calimary]

20. Oh crap. They add "the sanctity of (fill in the blank here)"

every damn time they don’t want us messing with something they want.

“... the sanctity of life...”

“... the sanctity of marriage...”

They LOVE that messaging that throws God into everything.

There is no “sanctity of the Supreme Court.” Last I looked, there was nothing about God or the sacraments or Holy ANYTHING regarding the Supreme Court.

Besides, last I looked, this was a SECULAR construct, in what was clearly and firmly established as a SECULAR government. “Sanctity” has nothing to do with it.

[robbob]

24. Um...I was paraphrasing how tRump/rw media

Would possibly frame the issue to fire up their voters. Of course it has no basis in reality; does anything they ever say have much basis in reality? My point was, why announce possible future strategies and give them ammo to fire up the base using hysterical inflammatory language?

[calimary]

25. Your point is a good one, robbob. Why should we tip our hand about how we're going to respond?

Why on earth should we give the enemy a sneak-preview? Or a leg up on what we're planning? Or time to get a counter-strategy together?

NO WAY!

And we have to do a few bold moves, too. Crazy-bold. The kind where you don't ask for permission now, you ask for forgiveness later. Because it's not characteristic of our side, and the bad guys won't be ready for it. They're far more used to us Dems being pushovers.

[robbob]

21. To you, and all who replied (above)...

I was paraphrasing what tRump would say to fire up his base. It seems to me his base doesn’t have much concern for facts or history or logic. They are purely fueled on emotion. My point still stands: why announce your intention ahead of time? Do you think telling tRump that if he confirms a new justice weeks ahead of an election then you will expand the number of justices will do ANYTHING to deter him?

As I said (speculated), all it will do is give him fuel to fire up his base. It’s just a huge distraction. Let’s win the election and the senate, and THEN decide if changes are needed to the Supreme Court...

[Lock him up.]

30. I understand the concern, but everybody seems to forget the fact that...

their crazy base is now a minority and one that is shrinking every year, not growing.

The majority (us) is expanding. Easy to see who wants to abolish all safety-net programs, who blocks measures to counter climate change, who stops everyone from getting universal health care (and moreso in a pandemic), who lies about the deficits when once in power they couldn't care less about it and loot the Treasury for themselves and their deep-pockets donors. It's not rocket science.

I say go on the offensive and expose their wrongdoings over and over again. Use easy rebutals to counter their "holier-than-thou" hypocrisy over and over and over again. Don't be afraid: There are more and more of us than there are of them.

[soldierant]

22. I agree with you. I don't think we should ever give away future, or potential future, strategy.

Maybe I'm paranoid - but why Give them time to prepare?

What they don't know has a better chance of succeeding. Hurried decisions are generally not as good as thought-out ones.

Like Gore's decision to concede, because no one had considered the possibility that Republicans might cheat with the vote counting. As an unprepared decision, it wasn't such a bad one. But it was wrong.

[LiberalFighter]

13. While they are at it they should impeach Kavanaugh.

[Marthe48]

15. and impeach anyone who accepts this travesty

to get the seat.

[Boogiemack]

17. I'll be waiting for some other woman or women to file against Kavanaugh in 2021,

he can still be removed.

[calimary]

26. Welcome to DU, Boogiemack!

I was daydreaming about that same strategy earlier today!

I'd LOVE to see him removed. And replaced. Maybe Merrick Garland, for real justice.

[dware]

31. Removed how?

Let's be realistic, there is no way that we're going to get 67 votes in the Senate to convict and remove BoofBoy, it just isn't going to happen.

We need to expand the SC to balance out the cons. with good progressive SCJ's.

[ehrnst]

29. That would make no sense right now. If we did succeed, that would be another nomination for DT.

Why do you think that Congress didn't do it in 2019?

[dware]

32. Impeach him and then what?

There is no way that we're going to get 67 votes in the Senate to convict and remove him.

[NNadir]

23. We will definitely need to pack the court if this goes through. It is my feeling that the...

...obvious and blatant hypocrisy will hurt the Repukes very badly in this election, so badly that their party may end up dissolved.

Their hatred of their country and its Constitution needs to be addressed by all possible means.

[Grasswire2]

27. we are being asked not to use the word PACK the court.

Please use "RESTORE" instead.

As in restoring proper balance.

[NNadir]

28. Oh, OK. I don't know who's asking "us" but it doesn't matter. The court has been...

...subject to clearly unconstitutional and unprecedented packing by the other side.

After this debacle of clear and unambiguous dishonesty, I fully expect that the Republicans, despite their politicization of the Supreme Court and destruction of Senatorial polity, will ever hold power again.

In this case, though I generally care about language, I don't care what it is called as long as it is done.