The play is simple.
McConnell is likely betting that he can get 50+Pence for a reactionary.
He can lose no more than three votes. Murkowski (R-AK) already seems to be saying no.
7. Update on Murkowski from @lruskin pic.twitter.com/pp4nGzVIui
— Yashar Ali ? (@yashar) September 19, 2020
He can afford to lose two more. His marginals are in bad shape especially if someone, like Romney who has no reason to be loyal to Trump, decides to be an institutionalist as there are a lot of marignals who need a golden ticket.
- Collins (R-ME) is down in recent polling.
- Gardner (R-CO) is down in recent polling.
- McSally (R-AZ) is down in recent polling.
- Tillis (R-NC) is down in recent polling.
- Graham (R-SC) is tied in recent polling
- Ernst (R-IA) is in a toss-up
- Daines (R-MT) is in a toss-up
McConnell is betting that somehow a deeply divisive nomination fight that highlights reproductive rights and the ACA will mobilize more Republican voters than Democratic voters.
I think he will be wrong.
And if he is, he is making a lot of very vulnerable GOP Senators walk the plank for an action that is quickly reversible.
Democrats have a very simple counter-power threat that they can credibly wield against the vulnerable Republican incumbents.
If there is a confirmation before 1/21/21, then 8 + 1 will equal 13.
If there is a confirmation after 1/21/21 then 8+1 will equal 9.
Organize for 13 while making every single Republican incumbent shit a brick when they see the polling on Tuesday morning and read about surge fundraising for Democrats over the weekend.
On The Road After Dark – J R in WV – Roman Ruins Under the Notre Dame Parking Deck
Mousebumples
https://postcardstovoters.org/current/
I just wrote 10 more postcards for Cal Cunningham in North Carolina tonight. And I plan to give more money to WisDems this weekend.
I choose to be inspired and motivated by RBG’s example. I will fight, I will push back, I will dissent, I will persist. She v fought for us, for so long. Now I will fight to have her seat filled after inauguration day, as she wished.
Bluegirlfromwyo
Damn right. If the GOP pulls off a midnight run, I think you’ll see the Sinemas and Manchins of this world receptive to a larger court.
Tim Wayne
I don’t get it.
Another Scott
Yup.
Given the way the SCOTUS 5 have ruled in the last, say, 20-odd years, I’m not willing to say that 13 is off the table no matter what Moscow Mitch does, myself.
Fight for every seat.
Forward!!
Cheers,
Scott.
cain
@Tim Wayne:
I don’t either.
David Anderson
If there is a pre-election or in the case of a Dem trifecta, a lame duck reactionary nominated and confirmed, then the Supreme Court will very quickly have 13 justices, including 5 new nominees at some point in 2021 (assuming Breyer retires after the end of the term) of liberal 44 year old tri-athletes who have all their grandparents alive.
If there is a confirmation after the inauguration of the next president, then the court expansion threat may not be in play at that moment.
Smalla
@Tim Wayne:
If the Republicans confirm someone before the inauguration the the Democrats, who could win the Senate, will add four seats to the supreme court.
Martin
@Tim Wayne: If they confirm before the inauguration, Dems add 4 seats to the Supreme Court and get to add 4 justices.
Cheryl Rofer
I am seeing varied things about what Murkowski may or may not have said this afternoon, before RBG’s death was announced.
Otherwise, good analysis.
cmorenc
So what is the upside for any of the list of vulnerable Republican Senate incumbents up for re-elections or candidates for open seats to defy McConnell and upset their base and vote to postpone any SCOTUS confirmations until after the election or inauguration? Would voting to do so win them over any voters who would otherwise have voted for their Democratic opponent? Insignificantly few, even in a close election. Would they more likely lose a significant fraction of R base voters who would otherwise have voted for them? Probably enough to make a difference in a close election. Will their opponents likely get a fundraising bump from the event? Probably. Will they get any fundraising bump? Much less likely unless they commit to a pre-election confirmation vote.
In short, the incentives are stacked against anyone on the list (except maybe Collins) standing on principle to resist any confirmation votes ahead of the election. And we know how much Collins expressions of “concern” are worth, push come to crunch, so we shouldn’t count much on her.
Mousebumples
@Cheryl Rofer: apparently Collins said something similar, before the news broke.
Juju
I just donated to Bide/Harris and Cal Cunningham. I feel a bit better.
Alison Rose
Thank you for this, David.
cmorenc
@David Anderson:
It is the realistic threat by the Ds to expand the court to swamp out the R majority if they try to ram through a replacement before Jan 21 that is the most valuable weapon, rather than actually carrying through on a “pack the court” scheme post-election. The reason is that there is no terminal limit to the tactic of SCOTUS expansion, so the Rs will retaliate by expanding it to 15 or 17 next time they control both President and Senate, ad infinitim next time Ds control both.
What the Rs get out of acceding to delaying filling RBG’s seat is that even if the Ds win both the Presidency and Senate and Biden nominates someone equally or even more progressive than RBG, the Rs still retain a 5-4 majority with no definite retirements from their bench-side upcoming over the next four or maybe even eight years.
David Anderson
@cmorenc: Ideal for say McSally or Gardner or Tillis would be for an open-seat, non-nominated seat and the ability to position herself to the GOP base as “APRES MOI LE DELUGE” where they can dangle SCOTUS without having to defend themselves against explicit writings of a nominee that say that a woman’s proper place is barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.
That gets the GOP base consolidated without taking Dem base motivation to 11.
Darkrose
@geg6: I feel like Loomis was deliriously happy at getting to post that today.
Jinchi
I agree. Democrats are mourning a legend and furious that a sexual predator will have the opportunity to nominate her replacement. We all know that Trump can’t even pretend to be magnanimous. He will infuriate people even more by bashing her and reveling in her passing. If McConnell fast tracks this, he’ll set off a level of rage that will make the Kavanaugh reaction look tame. His only electoral advantage comes if he dangles the nomination in front of right wingers and holds off the vote until after November 4th.
David Anderson
@cmorenc: We’re in a shitty game right now of norm violation.
Court expansion requires a trifecta. Assuming a Dem 2021 trifecta and a Dem friendly SCOTUS cracks down hard on hard gerrymanders like North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Texas (as well as Illinois as a Dem gerrymander), losing the House long term on neutral-ish maps is a hard challenge.
And if the GOP goes to 21, it is functionally no different than a GOP court that goes 6-3 with 5 justices appointed by popular vote losers and 2 in norm violating seats.
The long term norm escape hatch is either sanity breaking out OR a constitutional amendment that sets a fix number of justices and a fix replacement schedule with some form of agreement enforcement mechanism that strongly encourages confirmation of reasonable nominees.
topclimber
If the GOP pulls this particular fast one, I think there would be a very strong case for Dems to add two seats. Four is a reach.
Blue dogs and independents like Angus King can easily buy into the logic that two seats offset Turtle’s trickery. Adding two additional seats to offset justices that the GOP filled legitimately –like it or not–is not going to be so well received.
I also believe that our hoped-for Democratic Senate will have to kill the filibuster to add even a single seat. Open to correction here, but I believe Congress has to pass a bill under normal procedures to expand any court.
Wouldn’t it be great if RGB’s final legacy was the demise of that Jim Crow golden oldie, the filibuster?
cmorenc
@Jinchi:
And if Trump loses, he will be a vindictive loser who will try to ram a nominee through in the rump session, and query whether enough of the defeated R incumbents will decline on principle the opportunity to lock in a conservative scotus majority for at least another 15-20 years.
patroclus
I like the wording of this. I’m not really convinced that enlarging the Court is either necessary or desirable as we sit today, but if Trump and the Republicans railroad a nominee onto the USSC prior to the next Inauguration, I think my view will change. Maybe a threat like this will work. My preference would be to stop McConnell right now, but if it doesn’t work, well…
Bill Arnold
Might be worth having some firebrand surrogate write up a serious argument about temporarily revisiting Marbury vs Madison until the Democrats confirm 5 (counting another retirement) new Justices. Not sure, but a confirmation by the Republicans either before or after the election but before Jan 2(?) is a step towards a Civil War and the Republicans need to understand that it would be a serious misstep on the part.
I love the actuarial joke.
Calouste
@David Anderson:
A non-nominated seat is not going to happen IMO. The shitgibbon wants to take his chance to have the election handed to him by the court, he doesn’t care about a few senators as long as he has 34 to prevent impeachment.
laura
I made the mistake of reading Loomis’ post. He can eat a bottomless bag of salted dicks. Smug, disrespectful, dismissive, self-important, sexist shite-baggery mansplaining the proper tenure for a capable woman Justice. Not Having It.
zhena gogolia
@Darkrose:
I never heard of him before now. I just looked at his tweets. He doesn’t sound deliriously happy. He sounds just the way I feel.
zhena gogolia
@Jinchi:
And what did we get out of the Kavanaugh reaction? What?
Another Scott
Cheers,
Scott.
geg6
@Darkrose:
I pretty much want to hunt him down and string him up by his tiny little piggish balls. Fuck that mother fucker. I despise him. Just fucking despise him. He showed he is exactly who I thought he was.
Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)
@zhena gogolia:
The 2018 Blue Wave. And it looks like Collins is going to lose her seat this November. She voted to confirm him, remember?
Tim Wayne
@topclimber: ” Adding two additional seats to offset justices that the GOP filled legitimately –like it or not–is not going to be so well received.”
Fuck it. We should do it anyway. We will suffer a bloodbath in 2022 regardless. Might as well get something good out of it.
Tim Wayne
@zhena gogolia: “And what did we get out of the Kavanaugh reaction? What?”
Somewhere between ‘jack’ and ‘shit.’
geg6
@zhena gogolia:
Read his fucking blog. Since 2016. Fuck that mother fucking pig.
CatFacts
@geg6: Yeah, that guy has always had an undercurrent of smug sexism in his “it’s awful, we’re doomed” persona.
David Anderson
@cmorenc: If he loses and tries to jam a nominee, then the response is “we’re going to 13 in January” and a locked in reactionary supermajority where Thomas is the swing vote on most cases lasts for 6 weeks instead of a 4-10 year 5-4 GOP court with Roberts as the swing vote.
@Calouste: Right now, GOP appointed justices hold a 5-3 majority. The swing is still Roberts.
David Anderson
@Tim Wayne: Probably a dozen House seats in 2018 and at least the Maine Senate seat in 2020.
Aleta
@Cheryl Rofer: Could you please link to what you saw about Murkowski? Thanks.
topclimber
@Tim Wayne: You need to develop your thesis about a Democratic bloodbath in 2022. As I understand it, that is a Senate cycle that favors our side. Then comes 2024 (Biden passes the torch to Harris?) which will probably favor Dems as well.
Now 2026, when Dem fatigue sets in with voters…
?BillinGlendaleCA
@laura: I read LGM for a bit, but scratched it off my reading list.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Another Scott: Moscow Mitch
updatedclarified the rules, you can’t nominate a new justice during an election year of the Senate is controlled by the other party. Seriously.donatellonerd
no. the court still needs to be enlarged. unless we successfully impeach BK. for perjury & probably financial stuff.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@donatellonerd:
Do you see any circumstances where you’d get 2/3’s of the Senate to convict, I don’t.