Absolutely not. Why would Trump eliminate one of the biggest draws to electing him? If he pushes someone through before November, he absolutely loses the senate (assuming you believe the polls). No way those purple states with senators up for election are going to carry Republicans who went from "we don't vote for the USSC during final term years" to "RUSH THROUGH THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY NOMINEE!" in 4 years.
The move is to have everything set and ready to go during the lame duck and push hard then if you lose or wait until Jan if you win. Removes the election math from the process.
This is probably the most toxicity I've ever seen in an HN story's comments. Thanks for everything you do... I imagine you've got your work cut out for you tonight.
TIL. I use underscores for italics (as my normal applications work that way), and have just been accepting that my emphasis looks like _emphasis_, instead of emphasis. Thank you.
Also, if it isn't consistent, that's because we only see a portion of what gets posted here, often rather randomly. If you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it. You can help by flagging it or emailing us at hn@ycombinator.com.
With Supreme Court supremacy Republicans don’t have to get re-elected by voters anymore, they just have to dispute the results, lose, and appeal up to the nearest friendly court.
You can have your cake and eat it too by waiting, though.
The looming court seat was a very effective driver of votes for Trump in the previous election, at least that's the conventional wisdom. So have a go at seeing if that will work again. You can also spin it as being respectful, serious, and considered by waiting.
Even if you end up losing the Presidency, and even the Senate, you're still in power for enough time afterward to make an appointment.
The only things I could think of working against that would be: the idea that you just make the appointment immediately and tout it as another success to your base, or perhaps a fear that since it's Ginsburg's seat that's vacant, having it open is actually a more mobilizing force for Democrats. There's also, I suppose, the possibility that you make the move right away on the theory that this upcoming election is likely to be contested and could reach the Supreme Court.
OP is saying that there's no risk, because you can wait until after the election, but before the new term begins (i.e. before January, 3). Trump could still nominate then, and the current Senate could confirm.
But this is also exactly why this gambit doesn't really work - because the voters know that whatever happens at the polls, the end result is the same. They could hold voters hostage to the Supreme Court nomination back in 2016 because there was a split between the president and the Senate that blocked either side from getting what they really wanted until the next term.
Trump and the GOP plan to steal the electrion via the Supreme Court, just like GW Bush did in 2000, except this time they will need SCOTUS a lot more because it won't be as easy for them to justify nulling a landslide for Biden - but they will do it anyway because they have no shame, and if they have power, and they have SCOTUS to do their dirty work, then so be it.
I definitely would expect Trump to calculate whether it is more in his interests to do it before or after election day.
I don't think it's possible to remove the election math, though. Whatever he does, it could influence voter turnout for both sides.
There's also the possibility that something about the election will be disputed and go to the Supreme Court (as happened with vote counting with Bush v. Gore in 2000). So Trump might decide he wants his appointee to already be serving before election day if he thinks that would be more in his favor.
Yep. It's pretty much needed as if the election is contested and needs to be decided by the Supreme Court, not having a justice will be a disaster. Also presidency ends on January 20th - you can't go without a justice for 4 months.
Because this time, most likely there will be a contested election. And because this time it's different because both the WH and Senate are held by the same party unlike 2016. SC judge needs both Senate and WH and that was not the case in 2016.
Interesting point. Trump and McConnell's interests aren't actually aligned, here. McConnell is up for reelection, ahead in the polls, and wants an inoffsensive conservative justice. Trump's behind, is more interested in his reelection than in getting a conservative justice on the court. He can't drag his feet too long or it will look like he's stalling, and he'd have to nominate a judicial version of Judy Shelton so he's playing to his base, but it's someone the Senate wouldn't approve. Or if they have someone they already vetted with skeletons in the closet that just haven't come out yet.
This logic might apply during less polarized times.
American politics right now is full-on us-versus-them, and who has the biggest numbers. McConnell is in Kentucky and ahead in the polls, and he’s smart enough not to full-on troll the left with a flat-out fascist.
The left will respond as if he did anyway, but they’ll have a lot less success in convincing conservatives it’s a bad move if the judge is not beyond what most conservatives will support. That line has shifted far to the right (or, to the far right) over the past 30 years.
I guess I’m saying that opinions on an “inoffensive conservative justice” is a bimodal distribution, and McConnell’s right hump is higher.
Getting a conservative justice on the court is a massive draw for Trump's reelection. That's why he released a list of candidates before both elections.
He can still nominate after the election even if he loses it - his term doesn't end immediately. It's not really like the other two times - not like 2018 because there was no vacancy on the court then, and not like 2016 because the president and the Senate were deadlocked then.
I don't get this theory. There are a lot of people out there who want to see a conservative justice elected, but prefer Biden over Trump in the White House? Or a lot of conservative voters who are apathetic about the presidency and might not vote, but would be convinced to come to the polls if a Supreme Court spot was at stake?
I mean I can believe both of those sets of people exist, but hardly that they're numerous enough to dictate the election strategy.
It's not so much that they prefer Biden over Trump. But they dislike Trump. I know people who cannot stand his antics on Twitter or the way he disrespects women or his blatant infidelity to his wives. However they strongly believe in conservative and Christian values and will hold their nose while the vote for him to try to ensure the supreme court votes their way on issues such as abortion. Trump knows this and uses it as a carrot to encourage these people to vote for him.
Yes, there are lots of people who will tell you how much they dislike Trump, then vote for him. I'm saying that those people still exist even if the Supreme Court spot isn't at stake: a Republican White House still gives them a better chance of legislation upholding conservative values in the future.
Why? Trump is never going to appoint a justice who will legitimately advance any cause of liberty. He’s going to appoint someone who will protect his power and the power of the Republican Party. Trump making more appointments is exactly the same as him getting another 4 years, except it will last decades.
I'm not a right libertarian, so I can't really argue with you. But you have to understand that your perspective on Trump is not necessarily shared by them, regardless of how objective it may be.
Gorsuch is the most libertarian-leaning Justice we’ve had in decades. Others on the short list, such as Barrett or Kethledge, also have significant records of originalism with respect to the scope of the administrative state.
I don’t think libertarians realize where we are in 2020. Lots of culture war stuff from the last few decades where libertarians sided with liberals (abortion, contraception, same-sex marriage) has now flipped and then battleground is keeping the government from forcing people to participate in those things: Catholics being forced to perform elective abortions, nuns being forced to pay for contraception, people being forced to participate in same-sex weddings as bakers (and presumably caterers, etc.)
Nearly all EU countries recognize such conscience rights. Eliminating them would put the U.S. squarely outside the mainstream on this issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objection_to_abo... ("Conscientious objection is granted in 22 member states of the European Union plus the United Kingdom, Norway and Switzerland.").
The context of this is laws that would require providers to provide certain services, under which such a contract would be deemed illegally opting out (as set forth in the court case linked above). That’s the whole point of this effort.
Is there a law in the US that forces a doctor to perform an abortion or a nurse to participate? Aside from one that says that your employer can ask you to fulfill the terms of your contract or lose your job? It seems that the vast majority of laws limiting physician freedom are being proposed or passed to prevent them from performing abortions, counseling patients about abortion, or discuss guns in the household.
Even in the absence of a specific law, medical providers can always be sued. Part of the push to redefine elective abortion from a right rooted in bodily autonomy to being “routine healthcare” is to open providers to lawsuits for refusing to provide them: https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/390968-abortion-refus...
Ah, now you’re reminding me of a case in Ireland where they let the Hindu, not Catholic, patient die because they did not believe in abortion. That is not a scenario I want in my life. Doctors choosing your morals for you and calling it their conscience?
I guess it’s the libertarian thing. Your right to swing your arm ends at my nose.
Except it’s not just about emergency care. (In that case I’d argue it’s a critical public safety issue.) Advocacy groups are targeting the practice generally, because providers opting out can mean that people have to travel further to get an elective abortion, sterilization, contraception, etc. You don’t have to be all that libertarian to believe that in non-emergency situations, doctors should be able to tell people to go somewhere else to get a procedure the doctor doesn’t wish to perform.
And, of course, since the doctor is also an active participant in killing the fetus, it’s not the “doctor imposing morals in the patient.”
There’s more to it. They often know at 8 weeks that an ectopic pregnancy is there. It won’t be for another 30 weeks that it becomes a problem. So, not really an emergency room situation but something where you might be in the room with your Ob/Gyn. If that person thinks abortion is murder they shouldn’t let you know that other doctors will happily murder your fetus to save you. If you die it’s god’s will. If the baby dies in 30 weeks, that’s also god’s will. You’re saying that the doctor should be held harmless withholding that information?
> If that person thinks abortion is murder they shouldn’t let you know that other doctors will happily murder your fetus to save you. If you die it’s god’s will. If the baby dies in 30 weeks, that’s also god’s will. You’re saying that the doctor should be held harmless withholding that information?
Obviously not. To begin, no religion I’m aware of would preclude informing the patient in that circumstance. And few libertarians believe that individual freedom requires allowing deception of others, as in your hypothetical.
Apart from that, weighing individual liberty interests is always context-dependent. E.g. consider the various wrinkles when it comes to self defense. For a libertarian, forcing doctors to perform a procedure that involves killing something (whatever you think that thing is) in non-emergency circumstances just because that might leave too few people in an area willing to do that probably falls too far on the side of ignoring individual liberty. It’s the basic libertarian position: you may have a right to something, but you don’t have a right to make someone else give you that thing.
> Catholics being forced to perform elective abortions, nuns being forced to pay for contraception, people being forced to participate in same-sex weddings as bakers
so the solution is to ban abortions, contraceptives, and same-sex marriage altogether?
In almost 50 years of a conservative Supreme Court majority, what major liberal precedent has been overturned? Basically none. Heck, Roe itself was a 7-2 decision with two Nixon appointees in the majority. Roberts won’t vote to overturn Roe, neither will Gorsuch, and probably neither will Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh, a Kennedy disciple, won’t undo Obergefell, probably neither will Gorsuch. History shows that conservative justice at best hold the line on social issues, or continue to move forward.
Look at the political debates likely to come up over the next 10 years and tell me where libertarians are aligned with liberals. Apart from the things I mentioned above, cases that will come up may include the constitutionality of a wealth tax, changes to equal protection to allow discrimination in favor of particular groups, firearms confiscation, etc. (I’m not saying all of these will happen, I’m pointing out what the next legal battlegrounds will be.)
> conservative justice at best hold the line on social issues, or continue to move forward.
The difference is that—unlike racial justice, women's rights, and gay rights—in this case abortion was a mistake and so the step forward would be to reverse it. If you go back far enough, society has successfully reversed actions that were at the time considered forward progress.
Dude you are really going to town on this posting. Kudos for fighting the good fight, I'm trying to balance out the downvotes but I'm clearly outnumbered lol. I always feel dirty AF after these flamewars so I don't know how you can do it.
Also, I think most of the "right libertarians" are already Trump votes out of sheer disgust and exasperation. Libertarians (of any stripe) are probably the least likely to get hot and bothered by Trump's antics.
There are a lot of evangelical Christians who reluctantly voted for Trump because he'd pack the court (and they like Pence). With one more conservative justice, they might decide the court is adequately packed.
Trump wants to skate from state (NY) let alone federal charges after the election if he loses. The Democrats should use this leverage for all it’s worth. If he’s going to act like a mob boss let’s turn him like one.
