Who will fill RBG's seat

[x65943]

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]

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]

Did we need another RBG post?

 

[x65943]

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]

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]

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]

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 ---------------------------

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

It's not off topic.

 

[x65943]

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 ---------------------------


It's not off topic.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)

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

 

[deficitdisorder]

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

 

[Taleweaver]

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]

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]

*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]

I just hope it's not a Conservative.