# Who will fill RBG's seat



## x65943 (Sep 19, 2020)

Who will President Trump choose to fill RBG's vacant seat? His "short list" has 43 candidates.


Spoiler: Short list



Bridget Bade
Amy Coney Barrett
Keith Blackwell
Daniel Cameron
Charles Canady
Paul Clement
Steven Colloton
Tom Cotton
Ted Cruz
Kyle Duncan
Allison Eid
Steven Engel
Noel Francisco
Britt Grant
Raymond Gruender
Thomas Hardiman
Josh Hawley
James Ho
Gregory Katsas
Raymond Kethledge
Barbara Lagoa
Christopher Landau
Joan Larsen
Mike Lee
Thomas Lee
Edward Mansfield
Federico Moreno
Carlos Muniz
Kevin Newsom
Martha Pacold
Peter Phipps
Sarah Pitlyk
William Pryor
Allison Jones Rushing
Margaret Ryan
Diane Sykes
Amul Thapar
Kate Comerford Todd
Timothy Tymkovich
Lawrence VanDyke
Don Willett
Patrick Wyrick
Robert Young



There is speculation that Trump will fill RBG's seat with a woman. His list only has 12, which would narrow things down quite a bit. The short list of female candidates includes.

*Bridget Bade* | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
*Amy Coney Barrett* | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
*Allison Eid* | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
*Britt Grant* | Supreme Court of Georgia
*Barbara Lagoa* | Supreme Court of Florida
*Joan Larsen* | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
*Martha Pacold* | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
*Sarah Pitlyk* | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
*Allison Jones Rushing* | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
*Margaret Ryan* | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
*Diane Sykes* | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
*Kate Comerford Todd* | Deputy White House Counsel

At the moment many people are focusing on Amy Coney Barrett, a deeply religious Catholic who taught at Notre Dame University (a religious university in VP Mike Pence's home state) as the front runner.

What are your thoughts? Do you think Trump will nominate a woman? Ted Cruz is on his list - would he place Cruz on the highest court in the land?

*Edit: Trump says nominee will likely be woman and that he will choose next week
*
https://www.ajc.com/news/nation-wor...ceive-senate-vote/UX5AKKMXLZAVLDAUJRUPL5KOEU/


----------



## Joe88 (Sep 19, 2020)

He is probably going to nominate a woman, if he nominates a man I can guarantee a whole swarm of sexual assault allegations will pop up out of nowhere in a attempt to delay the vote.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 19, 2020)

Did we need another RBG post?


----------



## x65943 (Sep 19, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Did we need another RBG post?


This thread is more about her successor, which I think is an interesting topic

I didn't see people discussing it in the other threads


----------



## Lacius (Sep 19, 2020)

x65943 said:


> I didn't see people discussing it in the other threads


I don't care either way. I was just curious why you chose to make a new thread rather than discuss it there.

While I think it is likely that Trump will nominate someone before the election (and I think it's likely that person will be confirmed), I don't think it's a foregone conclusion. Depending on how things go, Biden might get to fill the seat.


----------



## x65943 (Sep 19, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I don't care either way. I was just curious why you chose to make a new thread rather than discuss it there.
> 
> While I think it is likely that Trump will nominate someone before the election (and I think it's likely that person will be confirmed), I don't think it's a foregone conclusion. Depending on how things go, Biden might get to fill the seat.


I don't see how that's possible

Also I didn't really want to get off topic in the other thread


----------



## Lacius (Sep 19, 2020)

x65943 said:


> I don't see how that's possible


We know some Republican senators don't want to confirm an appointment before the election, and we know some Republican senators don't want to confirm an appointment before the next inauguration. We don't know what's going to happen.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



x65943 said:


> Also I didn't really want to get off topic in the other thread


It's not off topic.


----------



## x65943 (Sep 19, 2020)

Lacius said:


> We know some Republican senators don't want to confirm an appointment before the election, and we know some Republican senators don't want to confirm an appointment before the next inauguration. We don't know what's going to happen.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


I think this bears its own topic but anyhow

The Rep majority is 53-47 with Pence breaking ties - no way they don't push through a nominee


----------



## Lacius (Sep 19, 2020)

x65943 said:


> I think this bears its own topic but anyhow
> 
> The Rep majority is 53-47 with Pence breaking ties - no way they don't push through a nominee


That means it only takes a handful of Republicans to block it. I agree the Republicans will likely succeed though.

Also, none of this takes into account the judiciary committee and whether or not Trump's appointment can make it out of there.

It's not a foregone conclusion.


----------



## x65943 (Sep 19, 2020)

Lacius said:


> That means it only takes a handful of Republicans to block it. I agree the Republicans will likely succeed though.
> 
> Also, none of this takes into account the judiciary committee and whether or not Trump's appointment can make it out of there.
> 
> It's not a foregone conclusion.


I have a striking suspicion those who are against it will abstain rather than vote against party line - and that they will orchestrate it so that those in districts with close senate elections will be the ones to abstain


----------



## x65943 (Sep 19, 2020)

Trump says nominee will most likely be woman and that he is nominating replacement next week

https://www.ajc.com/news/nation-wor...ceive-senate-vote/UX5AKKMXLZAVLDAUJRUPL5KOEU/


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 19, 2020)

If I was going to go through those I would want to know their histories and general dispositions on things. My primary concerns tending to be intellectual property and rights (civil asset forfeiture* seems to be coming to the fore and will likely be discussed before too long, qualified immunity, possibly some second amendment (guns), and first amendment (free speech) too) but I am interested in it all for the purposes of this sort of thing.

*you are rolling along with some money. Get pulled over. Car searched. Money gets taken ("I suspect this is for illegal stuff") and put into said same police and/or government coffers (no charge given to you, never mind a conviction) and you then get to sue to get it back. They make millions doing this.

Otherwise might as well roll a dice.

A nice map for those not familiar with the locations of things mentioned above


----------



## Lacius (Sep 20, 2020)

x65943 said:


> I have a striking suspicion those who are against it will abstain rather than vote against party line - and that they will orchestrate it so that those in districts with close senate elections will be the ones to abstain


If they abstain, they won't get a majority to confirm the appointment.


----------



## x65943 (Sep 20, 2020)

Lacius said:


> If they abstain, they won't get a majority to confirm the appointment.


It's simple majority right? So unless I misunderstand, doesn't that mean
47 for 47 against (+1 Pence tie breaker) would lead to confirmation?

So then 6 republicans could theoretically abstain?

(Of course this is assuming abstaining as opposed to voting against)


----------



## Lacius (Sep 20, 2020)

x65943 said:


> It's simple majority right? So unless I misunderstand, doesn't that mean
> 47 for 47 against (+1 Pence tie breaker) would lead to confirmation?
> 
> So then 6 republicans could theoretically abstain?
> ...


You're right that six Republicans could abstain, and the nomination would probably go through.


----------



## deficitdisorder (Sep 20, 2020)

Amy Barrett seems like the more logical choice so knowing Trump it'll be Ted Cruz


----------



## Taleweaver (Sep 20, 2020)

If Trump was a politician, he'd pick Merrick Garland. Lemme explain that before y'all think I'm trolling...

The whole reason this discussion is controversial is because the senate in 2016 basically said 'fuck you Barack. You've got all the means to pick a Supreme Judge, but we're simply not going to vote on any of it. We'll leave that seat empty until whomever will become president in ten months picks one'.

Now it's two months until the next election, so there's no way the senate Republicans will keep an ounce of credibility if they just inverse course now. Of course that's an easy choice for them because they already spent all credibility. But that's sort term thinking. At some point, there'll be a vote and the majority might shift. Wil shift, most likely. As a result, Trump has zero interest to maintain friendship with them. 

And why would he pick a candidate he most likely doesn't approve? For starters, it would instantly quell any sort of upheaval over what the senate did. It would send the message that the president is above petty part politics. Democrats (literally the half of America used to remind Trump of his dirty actions) literally CANNOT oppose that nomination.
... And at this point, it's only one of the many actions needed for Trump to be reelected. In 2016 he was the outsider who won due to convincing the undecided voters (who usually vote for change, so actually being the president is a disadvantage). This time, Biden's flirting with 50% of the poll numbers (so easily more than Hillary had at this point in the election).
This, in turn, means that Trump MUST start to appeal to democratic - leaning voters in order to win. This is an extremely uphill battle, as it's pretty much the opposite of his strategy (keep his base happy at all costs), but this would be a strong start.


... But like I said : Trump isn't a politician. He'll just nominate whomever he wants and then creates a new scandal that'll gain (even) more media attention than this one until his fan base thinks this scandal is resolved somehow.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 22, 2020)

Regardless of whomever Trump nominates hopefully they will vote to stop the killing of unborn children, deport every single last illegal alien, get rid of anything related to gender identity politics in our country, get nuclear families back into the picture, stop the indoctrination in our schools, make sure everyone can work so they can purchase health care and stop all the freebie handouts to lazy people that rather not work, take care of their families or be contributing members of society.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 22, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> *you are rolling along with some money. Get pulled over. Car searched. Money gets taken ("I suspect this is for illegal stuff") and put into said same police and/or government coffers (no charge given to you, never mind a conviction) and you then get to sue to get it back. They make millions doing this.



correction, they charge your possessions with a crime, and now you have to prove the innocence of an inanimate object. some stupid bullshit is what it is.


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 23, 2020)

I just hope it's not a Conservative.


----------



## notimp (Sep 27, 2020)

Who is Amy Coney Barrett:


> Whereas Ginsburg was hailed — and hated — as a feminist icon, Barrett, a Catholic, represents not only America's conservative forces but also its most devout. Her nomination could well inflame the country's ongoing culture war. Barrett is considered a vehement opponent of abortion, and has also voted against same-sex marriage and the health care scheme known colloquially as Obamacare. Instead, she has championed the right to own firearms and promoted conservative family concepts.





> Working toward the 'kingdom of God'
> 
> Democrats in particular are worried that Barrett could allow her religious convictions to influence the work of a Supreme Court judge. During her time as law professor at the Catholic Notre Dame Law School, she once said in a 2006 commencement speech that a legal career was only a "means to an end" — and that that end was "building the kingdom of God." This sentence still provokes criticism to this day.





> And Barrett might also be of help to Trump after the presidential election on November 3. He has already said that the election may be contested before the Supreme Court if it doesn't come up with the result he wants. A conservative majority on the bench — and judges who are well-disposed toward him — could provide the support he needs to win another term.
> 
> In any case, if she is confirmed, Amy Coney Barrett could bolster the conservative viewpoint of the Supreme Court for decades to come, with judges appointed for life.



https://www.dw.com/en/who-is-us-supreme-court-nominee-amy-coney-barrett/a-55066592


She also worked on Bush v Gore:
https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/iyvkll/of_course_amy_coney_barrett_worked_on_bush_v_gore/



> Both sides quickly brought in heavyweights to oversee their strategies; leading the Bush forces was former Secretary of State James A. Baker, III, a senior partner at Baker Botts LLP, while former Secretary of State Warren M. Christopher, a senior partner at O'Melveny & Myers LLP, oversaw strategy for the Gore camp.



Look at her, auditioning for the next supreme court position at the Bush v Gore hearings, without even knowing - isnt that swell?





(edit: Sorry slight misrepresentation, image is from her seventh circuit court of appeals nomination hearing in 2017 (as a Trump administration nominee, into her first public office position), that went over not so smoothly (Full CSPAN video: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/opin...rtion-roe-feminism_n_5b3bc164e4b09e4a8b281782 ). Ah, political careers in the fixing..  )


Who is Baker Botts LLP?


> The subsequent SEC investigation ended in 1992 with a memo stating "it appears that Bush did not engage in illegal insider trading," but noted that the memo "must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been exonerated or that no action may ultimately result".[5] Critics allege that this decision was strongly influenced by the makeup of the SEC at the time, which heavily favored Bush. The chairman at the time was Richard Breeden, a good friend of the Bush family's who had been nominated to the SEC by President George H. W. Bush and who had been a lawyer in James Baker's firm, Baker Botts. The SEC's general counsel at the time was James Doty, who had been appointed by President H.W. Bush and as a lawyer in James Baker's firm, Baker Botts had represented George W. Bush when arrangements were made to acquire the Texas Rangers baseball franchise (although Doty recused himself from the investigation.). With Baker Botts representing W. Bush, the Saudi BinLaden family, and W. Bush's funding conduit James R. Bath, Doty was involved in the frivolous litigation campaign launched in the attempt to intimidate BinLaden middleman James R Bath's business partner [[Charles W. ["Bill"] White]] into cooperating with the attempted cover-up of secret BinLaden Family funding of W. Bush's campaigns and businesses. Bush's own lawyer was Robert Jordan, who had been "partners with both Doty and Breeden at Baker Botts and who later became George W. Bush's ambassador to Saudi Arabia".


src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_life_of_George_W._Bush

"Draining the swamp" apparently means - everyone can be enthused, that republican party line is the doctrine, where diverting public opinion isn't allowed, and fasttracking people, that covered past administrations - well indiscretions is too weak of a word.

Democracy apparently means, that you cant have Obamacare for the next 40 years, because a supreme court judge died 4 weeks too early. Oh, and of course, that modern day supreme court judges are working on bringing closer "the kingdom of god".

Questions?


----------



## notimp (Sep 27, 2020)

On the other hand, that guy




(a fellow University of Notre Dame Law Professor)
https://law.nd.edu/directory/o-carter-snead/

says in an op ed in the Washington Post, that liberals have nothing to fear. So - hurray. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-barrett-15-years-liberals-have-nothing-fear/

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Oh and an she _does_ seems to have quite extremist views on law interpretation, but those are counterbalanced by her mad namedropping skills, ... (In a 24 page article on law interpretation, she managed to mention Justice Scalia 130 times, and as the first word of the article, thats impressive... (and then she wondered, if Scalia wasnt too soft - in a sense...))

http://ndlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/NDL502-Barrett.pdf

edit: She was a law clerk to justice Scalia once - so that might make that more ok, idk..  edit: For two years, about 20 years before that article was written..


----------



## notimp (Sep 27, 2020)

This also strikes me as cute:





Mr. President please pick the person you already picked in 2017 for her first political position in a precursor role (circuit court of appeals basically enforces supreme court decisions and then are only overruled by the supreme court itself). Dont forget her! Look, its the wish of people with paper quilling as their hobby!

Oh yes, dear people, I will pick her. What a great idea!


----------



## notimp (Sep 27, 2020)

Oh, btw - because the same people who started the thread, started to ignore it, once their question actually could be answered. And seemed only interested in splitting the discussion that took place yesterday.

Amy Coney Barrett is the new supreme court nominee. In case you didnt know.

And yes she will be ramrodded into office before election.


----------



## notimp (Sep 28, 2020)

Democratic response:

Lets go big. 



edit: At least that seems to be the mood at the creative end of the democratic spectrum.


----------



## duwen (Sep 28, 2020)

CYMK

...it's a colour-space joke


----------



## notimp (Sep 28, 2020)

Oh, and Amy Coney Barrett is also in a secretive catholic cult. Huh, that was unexpected...





> Interviews with experts who have studied charismatic Christian groups such as People of Praise, and with former members of the group, plus a review of the group’s own literature, reveal an organization that appears to dominate some members’ everyday lives, in which so-called “heads” – or spiritual advisers – make big life decisions, and in which members are expected to financially support one another.
> 
> Married women – such as Barrett – count their husbands as their “heads” and all members are expected to donate 5% of their income to the organization.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...t-supreme-court-donald-trump-people-of-praise


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 30, 2020)

I was watching some pretty interesting streams between a couple of lawyers this last few days, one of which really seems to be into this supreme court lark and has what appear to be some reasonable metrics and tests. I certainly imagine it is how I would make such an approach -- expectations vs reality vs what might have predicted that + why some things might not make for a good a set of metrics as you expect + some of her personal history + history of this supreme court nomination process + why some picks might not have done what you expect + traditions surrounding it + what the situation on the ground (politicians and lawyers love them some precedent and appearance of ethics but what will win the current case or be good for the next quarter/election is often more pressing) + attack vectors the other side might deem to use if they were good, if they were stupid and what will just happen to be floating around in the aether to colour some public opinion, albeit with the benefit of being a lawyer in the first place to narrow it all down (I might have been able to do a fraction of that in months).





If the above is accurate (and while he did plump for the other lady he did seem to do his stuff either way, be suitably cynical, and what I saw does seem to comport with all the weird aspects of law I do know for whatever reason) then seems like she will be a weaker pick than some previous efforts and some of the alternatives. In this case possibly intellectually weaker than ideal and what has been previously seen in such roles whilst also being corporate and prosecutorial suck up. I am curious to see what will happen in the confirmation hearings.


----------



## notimp (Oct 1, 2020)

Oh god, shes dumb as a rock, but graduated 'best in class'.


Well Scalia wasnt very bright either. Scalia, Scalia, Scalia, Scalia, ... damn still not reached 130 mentions.


----------



## notimp (Oct 16, 2020)

Amy Coney Barrett is refusing to have an opinion on pretty much anything until her confirmation hearings are over. Kind of moron on a mission. 



I just want to know, if that is standard for republican candidates... (Hearings are largely pro forma, and to instill a sense of weight of the job and responsibility in the candidate, so in theory you could say as little about your intended position as possible to later not be bound to prior comments made - but that little...?)

edit: Uh, found out. Not usual, probably stalling on purpose...  Affer having to hear that.


----------



## notimp (Oct 21, 2020)

Holey S, it gets even better:


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 27, 2020)

Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in last night (October 26th, 2020). I'm glad the Conservatives were able to get Trump's appointee on the Supreme Court. We need more conservatives with honor that value honesty over the crooked demonrats who cherish evil lies and perversions. The Demonrats are all upset now and throwing tantrums like the immature children they are, but that's just the way it goes when your party isn't in power. Hopefully Trump wins again in a week and the conservatives take control of Congress. If Biden wins we'll continue to see everything around us turn into utter garbage as the entire country will face the same troubles Chicago and LA are. The Liberal experiment has failed and it's time we get their kind out of politics.


----------



## Viri (Oct 27, 2020)

> Who will fill RBG's seat?


Amy Coney Barrett


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 27, 2020)

notimp said:


> And yes she will be ramrodded into office before election.




In under the wire is still in.


----------



## leon315 (Oct 27, 2020)

Back at 2016 USA election, Hillary vs Trump, Mrs Clinton had significant 3 million votes more than Trump, but still lost cauz USA's electoral college votes.
Guess at this point, plus Russian's help, we will get ORANGE MAN for another mandate cauz this flawed stupid system.

For anyone who don't know what "USA's electoral college" is, watch this funny cute video:


----------



## notimp (Oct 29, 2020)

More on people of praise (the secretive catholic cult Barrett is/was a member of):


--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Oh, and Barrett was sworn in yesterday:
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/27/...ney-barrett-sworn-in-supreme-court/index.html


----------

