'Lindsey Graham, who's also up for reelection, is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He told the Atlantic in 2018 that "if an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait to the next election"—and then added, "hold the tape." Here's the tape.
Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner is up for reelection in Colorado, which is now a lean-blue state. His career may be over already. It will certainly be over if he votes to confirm a new justice before the election. Sen. Martha McSally is trailing in her race in Arizona. North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis is narrowly trailing in his. Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst is an a tight race, while Texas Sen. John Cornyn, Montana Sen. Steve Daines, Georgia Sen. David Perdue, and, well, Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell all have races they can't sleep on. For some of them, it might be useful to enthusiastically activate their state's Republicans despite the ferocious backlash from Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters. For others it won't. They'll all have to figure that out immediately.
[...] What McConnell's statement does not say is
when "President Trump's nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate." He left himself room, in other words, to hold the confirmation in the lame-duck session. If Trump wins reelection, that's the ballgame anyway. If Biden wins? Lame-duck senators won't be accountable anymore.'
https://slate.com/ne...ml?via=taps_top
'The Top Contender for RBG's Seat Has a Fundamentally Cruel Vision of the Law
[...]
Faced with two plausible readings of a law, fact, or precedent, Barrett always seems to choose the harsher, stingier interpretation. [...] "Should they protect refugees denied asylum on the basis of xenophobic prejudice? Barrett said no. Should they shield prisoners from unjustified violence by correctional officers? Barrett said no. Should minors be allowed to terminate a pregnancy without telling their parents if a judge has found that they're mature enough to make the decision? Barrett said no. Should women be permitted to obtain an abortion upon discovering a severe fetal abnormality? Barrett said no."
[...] there is no doubt that Barrett would dramatically expand the Second Amendment, invalidating gun control measures around the country. It's quite possible, perhaps even likely, that within a year of her confirmation, Americans will be forbidden from terminating a pregnancy in 21 states—but permitted to purchase assault weapons and carry firearms in public in every state.
Abortion and guns, however, are just the beginning. Barrett's confirmation would heighten the odds that the Supreme Court will eradicate the entire Affordable Care Act in 2021, stripping health insurance from more than 20 million people.
[...] All available data indicates that people will die as a result of such a ruling.
[...] The current conservative justices have already telegraphed their desire to invalidate federal statutes that direct executive agencies to limit pollution, guard against labor exploitation, monitor Wall Street, and protect consumers from predatory practices. Barrett's confirmation would be a catastrophe for the climate: She may well overrule the landmark 5–4 decision, long despised by conservatives, that compels the federal government to regulate carbon emissions. Even if Congress passes new legislation to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the court's conservative supermajority may strike it down, much as the Republican-appointed justices blocked the Clean Power Plan in 2016.
Many more precedents that have become ingrained in the fabric of American life would be thrown into peril upon Barrett's confirmation. Affirmative action. Miranda rights. Marriage equality. DACA. Independent agencies. What remains of the Voting Rights Act.'
https://slate.com/ne...tus-future.html
This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 19 September 2020 - 09:58 PM
Help
amphibian, on 19 September 2020 - 02:02 PM, said:
