Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
  • CRYPTO REWARDS!

    Full endorsement on this opportunity - but it's limited, so get in while you can!

McConnell locks down key Republican votes for Supreme Court fight


Recommended Posts

 

McConnell locks down key Republican votes for Supreme Court fight

By Andrew Desiderio and Nolan D. McCaskill 51 mins ago
 
 
 
 
 
 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is locking down key votes from Republican senators in his bid to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death.

© Jacquelyn Martin/AP Photo Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell needs at least 49 of the 53 Republican senators.

On Sunday, McConnell (R-Ky.) won the support of Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who is retiring and was viewed as a potential swing vote as McConnell seeks to confirm Ginsburg‘s replacement as soon as possible.

“No one should be surprised that a Republican Senate majority would vote on a Republican president’s Supreme Court nomination, even during a presidential election year,” Alexander said in a statement. “The Constitution gives senators the power to do it. The voters who elected them expect it.”

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), a member of McConnell’s leadership team, also backed the majority leader over the weekend, as did Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), a moderate.

Just two GOP senators have said they oppose moving forward with a confirmation vote before Election Day. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) was the first to announce her opposition, and on Sunday, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) followed suit.

“For weeks, I have stated that I would not support taking up a potential Supreme Court vacancy this close to the election,” Murkowski said in a statement. “Sadly, what was then a hypothetical is now our reality, but my position has not changed.”

McConnell can afford to lose only three Republicans, and all Democrats are expected to back Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) in arguing that Ginsburg’s seat should not be filled until 2021. Sens. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) are believed to be possible swing votes, but neither has announced a position yet.

Murkowski, who has frequently bucked her party’s leadership, noted that she did not support President Barack Obama’s effort to fill Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat in 2016, and that “the same standard must apply” this election year.

Collins on Saturday said the winner of the Nov. 3 presidential election should nominate Ginsburg’s replacement, though she is not opposed to the Senate Judiciary Committee‘s beginning to process President Donald Trump’s nominee before Election Day. McConnell has not specified an exact time frame for processing a nomination, which on average takes around two months from start to finish.

When the Senate returns to Washington on Monday, McConnell’s leadership team is expected to meet to discuss the GOP strategy. And on Tuesday, all Senate Republicans will gather for the first time since Ginsburg’s death on Friday evening.

© Bebeto Matthews/AP Photo People hold signs of tribute during a public remembrance to honor the life and legacy of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg outside Brooklyn’s, Municipal Building on Sept. 20, 2020.

Marc Short, Vice President Mike Pence’s chief of staff, said on Sunday that Trump had already narrowed his list and was “prepared to make a nomination very soon.” Trump is expected to announce a nominee later this week, and has said he will choose a woman.

“It’s certainly possible” a nominee could be confirmed before Election Day, Short told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.” “But I think that the president’s obligation is to make the nomination. We’ll leave the timetable to Leader McConnell.”

Democrats have mounted an intense pressure campaign amid McConnell’s stated intention to fill the vacancy immediately, noting that Senate Republicans blocked Obama’s nominee to replace Scalia in 2016, Merrick Garland, from being considered. At the time, Republicans said it was too close to an election for a Senate and White House controlled by different parties to process a Supreme Court nomination.

On Sunday afternoon, Joe Biden, the Democratic presidential nominee, appealed to the handful of Republican senators who control the fate of the next nomination.

“Please follow your conscience,” Biden said in a speech in Philadelphia. “Don't vote to confirm anyone nominated under the circumstances President Trump and Senator McConnell have created. Don't go there. Uphold your constitutional duty, your conscience, let the people speak. Cool the flames that have been engulfing our country. We can‘t ignore the cherished system of checks and balances.”

Democratic lawmakers earlier in the day noted that Election Day is only six weeks away and early voting has already begun in several states. Ginsburg’s absence leaves the court with a 5-3 split in favor of conservatives, and the high court is set to take up a case that could determine the fate of Obamacare just one week after the election.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) told POLITICO that Republicans essentially created a new rule in 2016 that the Senate should wait to advance a Supreme Court nominee in the final year of a presidential term, and that Democrats are united in holding them to that.

“It doesn’t really matter who it is,” he said of the future nominee. “We are unified in the proposition that we want to hold the Republicans to their word, and we will not entertain a nominee until after Inauguration Day.”

Senate Democrats have limited tools at their disposal as the minority party. Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, chairman of the Senate GOP conference, was adamant that the process would move forward this year.

“The president is going to make a nomination,” he told NBC’s Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press.” “We will hold hearings, and there will be a vote on the floor of the United States Senate this year.”

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas went even further, insisting that confirming a nominee before the Nov. 3 election was “the right thing to do.” Cruz cited in 2016 “a long tradition” of not considering Supreme Court nominees in an election year.

At least three Republicans recalled on the Sunday shows that there have been 29 vacancies in a presidential election year, and that presidents named a nominee all 29 times. The big difference, Cruz told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week,” is that the Senate traditionally confirms that nominee when the Senate majority and president are members of the same party.

“It’s not just simply your party, my party,” he said. “The reason is, it’s a question of checks and balances. In order for a Supreme Court nomination to go forward, you have to have the president and the Senate.”

Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas said it’s “too soon to say right now” whether Republicans would confirm a nominee before the election, but he insisted the Senate would move forward “without delay,” echoing the president’s language.

“In 2014, the American people elected a Republican majority to the Senate to put the brakes on President Obama’s judicial nominations. In 2018, we had a referendum on this question,” Cotton told Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday,” citing the contentious confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

“There could not have been a clearer mandate, because the American people didn’t just reelect Republicans. They expanded our majority,” Cotton said. “They defeated four Democratic senators who voted against Justice Kavanaugh. They reelected the one Democratic senator who did vote for Justice Kavanaugh.”

Democrats who appeared on the Sunday shows were uniformly opposed to the Senate’s advancing Trump’s future nominee, especially given that polling shows Biden currently favored to win the election and Democrats could regain control of the Senate.

But the party appeared to try several different tacks rather than one unified strategy. Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware said he would personally appeal to his Republican colleagues, who he suggested should respect the 2016 precedent they set. Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and former President Bill Clinton both recalled that President Abraham Lincoln allowed the election to occur before making a Supreme Court nomination when a vacancy opened this close to Election Day.

And Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said the president’s rush to nominate a replacement was evidence that he is more focused on crushing the Affordable Care Act than the coronavirus, which has killed nearly 200,000 Americans.

Pelosi shut down the possibility of Democrats leveraging government funding to slow down the Senate’s confirmation process but did maintain that Democrats have “arrows in our quiver” to stop the Senate from advancing a nominee. She declined, however, to discuss their options.

“People have something at stake in this decision and how quickly the president wants to go,” Pelosi said on “This Week.” “I don’t think they care about who said what when and all the rest of that, but they do care about their own health and well-being and the financial health and well-being of their families.”

NPR reported on Friday that Ginsburg had dictated to her granddaughter, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.” Republicans have largely dismissed that desire.

“She’s certainly a giant upon whose shoulders many will stand, and she blazed a trail for many women in the legal profession,” said Short, the vice president‘s chief of staff. “But the decision to nominate does not lie with her.”

Clinton, who nominated Ginsburg to the high court and appeared on three programs Sunday, said it would be worth waiting to see whether people care that several senators, including some up for reelection this fall, are going to go against their positions from 2016.

“It would be very interesting to see whether their position could only be justified as: ‘If my party can do it, now I’m for it. If their party can do it, then I’m against it,” Clinton said on “This Week.” “And if that’s the rule of life in America, then who knows what the consequences will be.”

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mcconnell-locks-down-key-republican-votes-for-supreme-court-fight/ar-BB19enMf?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=U453DHP

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mary B said:

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) told POLITICO that Republicans essentially created a new rule in 2016 that the Senate should wait to advance a Supreme Court nominee in the final year of a presidential term, and that Democrats are united in holding them to that.

Garbage, lies, fake news, Dem propaganda. The suggestion , because that actually is what it is, a suggestion. The suggestion to hold off on appointing a candidate to the SCOTUS in a period 10 months prior to a Presidential Election is known as , wait, wait ... The Biden Rule . Yup, in 1992 when George Bush Sr  was given the opportunity to name a replacement to SCOTUS (when Republicans were weaker) Biden was the mouth piece that got this effort through. To restate myself this is a suggestion . It is not a Senate rule or law. So if the Republican controlled Senate passed the candidacy of President Trumps SCOTUS candidate it would be perfectly legal. Pelosi could not impeach Trump or anyone else for doing what is perfectly legal. If a candidate is nominated and confirmed Nancy and the Dems will no doubt be flying around all up in a yuge egotistical frenzied buzz, like a Queen Bee without a hive. Besides, there is zero chance that President Trump will not get re-elected. His landslide victory is assured .

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, new york kevin said:

Garbage, lies, fake news, Dem propaganda. The suggestion , because that actually is what it is, a suggestion. The suggestion to hold off on appointing a candidate to the SCOTUS in a period 10 months prior to a Presidential Election is known as , wait, wait ... The Biden Rule . Yup, in 1992 when George Bush Sr  was given the opportunity to name a replacement to SCOTUS (when Republicans were weaker) Biden was the mouth piece that got this effort through. To restate myself this is a suggestion . It is not a Senate rule or law. So if the Republican controlled Senate passed the candidacy of President Trumps SCOTUS candidate it would be perfectly legal. Pelosi could not impeach Trump or anyone else for doing what is perfectly legal. If a candidate is nominated and confirmed Nancy and the Dems will no doubt be flying around all up in a yuge egotistical frenzied buzz, like a Queen Bee without a hive. Besides, there is zero chance that President Trump will not get re-elected. His landslide victory is assured .

 

Mitch did not allow Obama to place a judge on the bench with months to go before the election, saying Americans should have a say... In other words, let Americans choose the new president then let the president do his thing... Now Mitch says don't wait even a few weeks and let the people pick the next president then let the process go on... Suddenly, Americans shouldn't have a say???? Are they this sure Trump is gone?

 

How do these people live with themselves... This is a classic example of talking out of both sides of your mouth... I remember when Americans didn't like people who talked out of both sides of their mouths... JMHO

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Johnny Dinar said:

 

Mitch did not allow Obama to place a judge on the bench with months to go before the election, saying Americans should have a say... In other words, let Americans choose the new president then let the president do his thing... Now Mitch says don't wait even a few weeks and let the people pick the next president then let the process go on... Suddenly, Americans shouldn't have a say???? Are they this sure Trump is gone?

 

How do these people live with themselves... This is a classic example of talking out of both sides of your mouth... I remember when Americans didn't like people who talked out of both sides of their mouths... JMHO

What about the Biden Rule do you not understand? Did you even read what I wrote. Let me type slowly so you will understand, it is not a law or even a Senate rule, it is a non-binding suggestion . The Dems are the puppets of the Deep State  It is they who will loose all hopes of making the south rise again, if a conservative justice is appointed to fill this vacancy. Hey. wait till tomorrow, Trump may yet wait till after th.e election. Then he may want to stir the hornets nest and go for the appointment.

    Thanks Shelly. Yes President Obama did nominate Merrick Garland, who was blocked by the Senate, siting The Biden Rule. If Obama could live with himself then, than we can live with our nomination now. Johnny don't wanna recognize that . He thinks we are uninformed still, and hate on McConnel for stopping the candidacy the legal way. Here is an idea, don't want Trumps nominee to be passed, go through the legal and binding way of achieving the block .

Edited by new york kevin
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, new york kevin said:

What about the Biden Rule do you not understand? Did you even read what I wrote. Let me type slowly so you will understand, it is not a law or even a Senate rule, it is a non-binding suggestion . The Dems are the puppets of the Deep State  It is they who will loose all hopes of making the south rise again, if a conservative justice is appointed to fill this vacancy. Hey. wait till tomorrow, Trump may yet wait till after th.e election. Then he may want to stir the hornets nest and go for the appointment.

    Thanks Shelly. Yes President Obama did nominate Merrick Garland, who was blocked by the Senate, siting The Biden Rule. If Obama could live with himself then, than we can live with our nomination now. Johnny don't wanna recognize that . He thinks we are uninformed still, and hate on McConnel for stopping the candidacy the legal way. Here is an idea, don't want Trumps nominee to be passed, go through the legal and binding way of achieving the block .

 

So I never said it was law, I said Mitch stated Americans should have a voice in 2016 going into the election... Now he doesn't think your voice matters as he tries to rush  this through in 40 days... Sadly, I guess people missed that part... Ol' Mitch maybe he just forgot...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Johnny Dinar said:

 

So I never said it was law, I said Mitch stated Americans should have a voice in 2016 going into the election... Now he doesn't think your voice matters as he tries to rush  this through in 40 days... Sadly, I guess people missed that part... Ol' Mitch maybe he just forgot...

I hear you Johnny. Who says the American peoples voice isn't being heard ?  Insinuating McConnel is senile, ain't no one as demonstrable feable as Joe Biden . Its just politics really ! You know the majority rules, the rest drool . Or what I am for now, when it does not suit me I will be against later. Like the Dems are for a DACA fix, unless the fix that incorporates more people and funding comes from Donald J Trump . Or when President Barack Obama tossed out that same precedent and nominated Merrick Garland . Again the difference there is that the nomination was legally voted down . So if anyone killed the Biden Rule it was the Dems when it served them to do so.

Edited by new york kevin
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, new york kevin said:

I hear you Johnny. Insinuating McConnel is senile, ain't no one as demonstrable feable as Joe Biden . Its just politics really ! What I am for now, when it does not suit me I will be against later. Like the Dems are for a DACA fix, unless the fix that incorporates more people and funding comes from Donald J Trump . Or when President Barack Obama tossed that same precedent and nominated Merrick Garland . Again the difference there is that the nomination was legally voted down . So if anyone killed the Biden Rule it was the Dems when it served them to do so.

 

I hear you Kev... Although I get slammed by some people here because they don't agree with me, the bottom line is I'm not happy with either party... Trump is an empty box and Biden is too old to lift the box... What's a voter to do????

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, new york kevin said:

I hear you Johnny. Who says the American peoples voice isn't being heard ?  Insinuating McConnel is senile, ain't no one as demonstrable feable as Joe Biden . Its just politics really ! You know the majority rules, the rest drool . Or what I am for now, when it does not suit me I will be against later. Like the Dems are for a DACA fix, unless the fix that incorporates more people and funding comes from Donald J Trump . Or when President Barack Obama tossed out that same precedent and nominated Merrick Garland . Again the difference there is that the nomination was legally voted down . So if anyone killed the Biden Rule it was the Dems when it served them to do so.

 

Merrick Garland was not voted down...he wasn't even given a chance....get your facts straight, Kev.

 

GO RV, then BV 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

Merrick Garland was not voted down...he wasn't even given a chance....get your facts straight, Kev.

 

GO RV, then BV 

My facts are straight he was legally blocked, your facts just curve left . Its all politics baby . Yeah, yeah legally blocked, I put in voted. Woops. I stand corrected. Bottomline the Garland was nominated by Obama, and he was blocked by the Senate. The Biden Rule is just cover, to be used or not used when the fancy is suited.

Edited by new york kevin
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, new york kevin said:

My facts are straight he was legally blocked, your facts just curve left . Its all politics baby . Yeah, yeah legally blocked, I put in voted. Woops. I stand corrected. Bottomline the Garland was nominated by Obama, and he was blocked by the Senate. The Biden Rule is just cover, to be used or not used when the fancy is suited.

 

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter to me, a SCOTUS is beholden to the Constitution, not to any president.  I honestly don't care if they lean left or right, as long as they follow the law and seriously consider precedent.

 

GO RV, then BV 

Edited by Shabibilicious
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would seem Trump is once again controlling the news cycle....the MSM is all lathered up once again...about something we don't know will happen...

 

Trump will nominate someone.....that is his job as President.....and he will be the sitting President until at least the January Inauguration....the Senate decides to hold the hearings and confirmation vote. I suspect the hearings might take place prior to the election with the idea they would be similar to the Cavanaugh hearing that left egg all over the faces on the left... perhaps the left could even boycott and not attend the hearings.....that might make them look even more spineless... 

 

No matter the outcome of the election......the confirmation vote for the SC Justice would be held prior to the inauguration.....and all perfectly legal......and all this speculation will just be dust in the wind.....    JMO

CL 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, coorslite21 said:

It would seem Trump is once again controlling the news cycle....the MSM is all lathered up once again...about something we don't know will happen...

 

Trump will nominate someone.....that is his job as President.....and he will be the sitting President until at least the January Inauguration....the Senate decides to hold the hearings and confirmation vote. I suspect the hearings might take place prior to the election with the idea they would be similar to the Cavanaugh hearing that left egg all over the faces on the left... perhaps the left could even boycott and not attend the hearings.....that might make them look even more spineless... 

 

No matter the outcome of the election......the confirmation vote for the SC Justice would be held prior to the inauguration.....and all perfectly legal......and all this speculation will just be dust in the wind.....    JMO

CL 

 

Have you wondered why the rush??? Is there a chance Mitch doesn't think Trump will be there in the future? I just wonder why there is a lack of confidence..

Edited by Johnny Dinar
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Johnny Dinar said:

 

Have you wondered why the rush??? Is there a chance Mitch doesn't think Trump will be there in the future? I just wonder why there is a lack of confidence..

There is no rush.....It is Trumps job to name a replacement.....he has had his list out there for 18 months.....Biden hasn't issued a list of his potential picks yet..  

 

Mitch will schedule hearings.....and the left as they did with Cavanaugh, will once again embarrass themselves trying to derail the process..  

 

No matter how the election results play out.....there will be a vote on the nominee after the election....and even if the left sweeps the Senate.....holds the House...and wins the Presidentcy.....the Republican held Senate will likely approve the nomination.....even if to just say their last action made a difference..  

 

Trumps pick will be confirmed....the left and MSM can  "pound sand"....(legal term).....a totally legal event...     CL

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

Mitch will schedule hearings.....and the left as they did with Cavanaugh, will once again embarrass themselves trying to derail the process..  

 

Well, I know one thing the Dems can’t do since Trump will nominate a woman.  There shouldn’t be a parade of last minute MeToo Rape accusations.  They will probably make a big thing out of the Religious Beliefs, including an Anti Abortion stance.  

 

Nothing will make the Left happy.  They just want their way and if they don’t get it they threaten us with more unlawful activities.  

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, coorslite21 said:

There is no rush.....It is Trumps job to name a replacement.....he has had his list out there for 18 months.....Biden hasn't issued a list of his potential picks yet..  

 

Mitch will schedule hearings.....and the left as they did with Cavanaugh, will once again embarrass themselves trying to derail the process..  

 

No matter how the election results play out.....there will be a vote on the nominee after the election....and even if the left sweeps the Senate.....holds the House...and wins the Presidentcy.....the Republican held Senate will likely approve the nomination.....even if to just say their last action made a difference..  

 

Trumps pick will be confirmed....the left and MSM can  "pound sand"....(legal term).....a totally legal event...     CL

 

 

Historically speaking it take 70 days to confirm a nominee... They are trying to do it in less than 40... It will be less than 40 by the time the nominee is announced... That seems like a rush to me... JMHO

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Pitcher said:

 

Well, I know one thing the Dems can’t do since Trump will nominate a woman.  There shouldn’t be a parade of last minute MeToo Rape accusations.  They will probably make a big thing out of the Religious Beliefs, including an Anti Abortion stance.  

 

Nothing will make the Left happy.  They just want their way and if they don’t get it they threaten us with more unlawful activities.  

 

If the current trend of hypocrisy from this Republican senate holds firm and the Dems somehow manage to control both houses and the presidency after the election....I imagine the Dems will simply push for D.C. and Puerto Rico statehoods and then add a couple justices to the SCOTUS to more closely even the scales, both actions completely constitutionally protected.  For every action they say....As always, just my opinion and a partial math constant.

 

GO RV, then BV 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Johnny Dinar said:

 

Historically speaking it take 70 days to confirm a nominee... They are trying to do it in less than 40... It will be less than 40 by the time the nominee is announced... That seems like a rush to me... JMHO

 

As soon as the luster wears off and Trump comes to the realization (if that's even possible) that McConnell and the Republicans are pushing him because they know there's a strong chance he loses the presidency, he'll get pissed and pump the brakes to punish their disloyalty.  It will only take one of his administrative slack jaws or an MSM talking head to plant that seed in his head....then step back and watch the show.  As always just my opinion. 

 

GO RV, then BV 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Johnny Dinar said:

 

Historically speaking it take 70 days to confirm a nominee... They are trying to do it in less than 40... It will be less than 40 by the time the nominee is announced... That seems like a rush to me... JMHO

 

The vote on the SC nominee likely will happen after the election.....and before the new Government is seated......plenty of time..  CL

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


  • Testing the Rocker Badge!

  • Live Exchange Rate

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.