Election 2020

Most Americans Oppose Quick Supreme Court Vote

JM Ashby
Written by JM Ashby

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away on Friday night and when the news broke I was personally broken. The prospect of Trump appointing another anti-abortion transphobic theocrat to the court should frighten everyone even if you aren't a member of a vulnerable class. The line between church and state has already been blurred and it could be nearly eliminated.

Now, it may not matter in the end, but for whatever it's worth a pretty clear majority of Americans are opposed to appointing a new justice before the 2020 election which is just six weeks away.

From Reuters:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A majority of Americans, including many Republicans, want the winner of the November presidential election to name a successor to Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Sunday. [...]

The poll found that 62% of American adults agreed the vacancy should be filled by the winner of the Nov. 3 matchup between Trump and Democratic former Vice President Joe Biden, while 23% disagreed and the rest said they were not sure.

Eight out of 10 Democrats - and five in 10 Republicans - agreed that the appointment should wait until after the election.

The reason it may not ultimately matter what a clear majority of Americans say is because the only thing that still arouses Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is dishonorably violating his own standards and exercising raw power over his opponents.

It's possible that McConnell does not have enough votes to confirm a nominee before the election even if our current timetable would support it, but I'm personally more concerned they'll appoint someone after the election even if Trump loses.

If they do, Democrats will have no choice but to balance the scale next year if they win control of the Senate by adding seats to court and by possibly adding states in Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico. And you know what? Maybe that should be done anyway as at least one court seat was already stolen by denying a vote to Merrick Garland when he was nominated by President Obama.

What happens next could depend on the likes of Senators Mitt Romney and Susan Collins and that does not exactly fill me with hope.

  • Two new states and a bigger court. Sound good to me and, frankly, way overdue. God damn, the conservatives have controlled the SC for decades and had to cheat four years ago to do so. Time for a change.

  • muselet

    Mitch McConnell doesn’t care about public opinion or D outrage or what he himself said four years ago. A more dishonorable man would be difficult to find.

    What Mitch McConnell does care about is power, and he will cling to it as tightly as he can for as long as he can. If he perceives a political advantage to ramming through a vote on a Supreme Court justice before the November election, he will do so; likewise, if there might be political advantage to doing so during the lame duck session, he will do so.

    And if doing so costs him reelection *crosses fingers*, he’ll land on his cloven hooves, never fear. I’m sure his wife’s family will be more than happy to hire him at top dollar until a chair opens up at one of the seven billion Righty think tanks.


    • ozdog

      I think he gets off on making Democrats angry. Sickens me to think he will probably be reelected, despite how previous polls used to show that the people of Kentucky were sick of him.

  • gescove

    It’s laughable to think R’s would be ashamed enough of their own hypocrisy about seating a Supreme in an election year to stop themselves. Look at what that craven worm Lindsay Graham said over the weekend. I am unsure what tools Senate Dems have to stall consideration and a vote, but I say bring out every rule bazooka and procedural grenade they have in the arsenal. No fucking “keeping our powder dry” BS is remotely acceptable. When the inevitable (I suspect) happens and another neo-crypto-Nazi “conservative” is seated, then we better damn sure take the WH and the Senate on November 3. When we do then abolish the filibuster, add seats to the Supreme Court (I’d favor four more), and add new states. Oh, and while we’re at it, eliminate the Electoral College (I know, constitutional amendment) and stop pretending that 2 Senators from Wyoming (population 575,000) should have the same representational power as 2 Senators from California (population 39,000,000).

  • katanahamon

    Public opinion matters not. Questionable legality matters not to the right wing, even..outright illegality, so…they’re going to appoint an extreme right winger. Unless the Dems can get a clear majority and expand the number of justices, and find some way to remove the wacko right wing federal judges Rump has already appointed, well, get ready for minority rule, bye bye Roe v Wade, goodbye environment, hello corporate free for all and welcome to our new fascist state. You know, we tried to warn America last time..even expanding the Supreme Court would be just a band aid to the “Deep state” installed by Rump. Why do you think he yammers about the “Deep State” so much? He’s creating one..

  • moldilox

    at least we know now that mitch mconnel denied the obama appointment because he’s a straight up racist … we have that clarity …