who will be the next supreme court justice? welp!

I can't take it anymore.

we would be lucky if our kids or our kids kids arent living under whatever worsening darkness is gonna continue to be unleashed.

https://twitter.com/_cingraham/status/1306959260035686400

ginsburg passing away most likely accelerates things dramatically.

Ted Cruz.

https://twitter.com/alexanderbolton/status/1290248244682018816

the rest comes down to the usual pretenders like collins and romney.

republicans could prolly run on this (and having enough conservative sc justices to override john roberts) and effectively pull some of that moderate conservative support from biden.

this shit has 100 different ways for everything to go south.

fam i hate this country (and the fucktards in it too self righteous and blind to the consequences of not voting).

Filling RBG's now empty seat isn't one of them. Not anymore.

Look, that seat is going to get filled by these fuck-heads no matter what. Drumf and McConnell will be putting HUGE pressure on everyone to do so.

Let's say Collins and Romney have principles and decide to hold off before the election. And, let's even imagine the best case election scenario where Drumf loses and the Democrats take back the senate. They'll fill that open seat with some dipshit out of spite.

Only way that seat stays open for whoever wins to fill it is Republicans act like decent human beings. Which they're not.

So yes, vote on election day. But don't assume it's going to change who gets appointed to the SC.

>But don't assume it's going to
>change who gets appointed to the SC.

if the seat is still open then i am voting on who i want to fill the seat.

if things change at some point then my calculus will too.

im not automatically throwing up the white flag when the battle lines havent even been drawn yet.

Reeq dont you think it’s likely theyll wait until the lame duck period to move? 1.) use the issue to drive turnout 2.) avoid the taint of unfairness until after the election when it won’t matter as much?

she def said before the election. could be her just speaking casually and not parsing things out or her (more likely) being deliberate about the time span.

and yeah...i think its more likely the lame duck period for the reasons you mentioned. plus repubs who lost their elections will prolly wanna give a parting gift to whatever donors are giving them their post-politics lobbying/consulting gig.

even during the lame duck.

https://twitter.com/jmartNYT/status/1307112333253148672

shes trying to win an election where she is down significantly tho. she could easily flip flop after she gets defeated and push ti fill it during the lame duck period.

maybe some other republicans facing tough elections might actually take a similar stance (at least until their election is over) depending on what the polling is like is in their state. iono. just tryna find some silver lining(s).

>

like shit about mail in ballots being slowed by usps or other forms of blatant voter suppression...

that shit will get decided by a 5-3 or 6-3 conservative majority supreme court where even john roberts couldnt moderate in the name of not totally delegitimizing the court.

and trump/repubs know this so expect the worst in the next 2 months.

but RIP Justice Ginsburg

https://twitter.com/brownandbella/status/1307104504500936713
-----
2016 was the time. 2020 is the consequence.
-----

“ Immediate implication of this is disputed 2020 election scenarios that wind up before the Supreme Court.

Reverberations everywhere.”
https://twitter.com/jelani9/status/1307107111684505600?s=21

this is the shit we read about going on in other countries.

..she played a dangerous game and we all lost

Chill

shit half of us dont even realize that we are on the left/team (by default and in contrast to the right).

.. that I hate to hammer the dead but ... fuck it I blame her.

but this shit is way too important for our country for people to be tryna hit personal vanity milestones.

just look where we are.

everyone did. even Trump

unless you're talking a couple years earlier. i dunno

Couldn't have been 2015 or later cuz by then dems already knew how McConnell would act.

A great loss.

i saw someone tweet that years ago about 2016 and it always stuck with me.

they saw a black man get elected president and said nope we aint even risking that shit againt.

peace & blessings,

x.

www.twitter.com/poetx

=========================================
I'm an advocate for working smarter, not harder. If you just
focus on working hard you end up making someone else rich and
not having much to show for it. (c) mad

They are playing the Bejing Dragons, who are a Five year run away from taking down the champs.

Our hubris makes us think its us vs. white supremacy. We have been a tool for white supremacy for 300 years.

https://twitter.com/ikemoses/status/1307117579677376517?s=21

:(

https://twitter.com/Yamiche/status/1307120096796700673?s=20

Hell’s fire ain’t burning hot enough and could use some kindling.

before the election.

so theyre most likely shooting for the lame duck at best.

https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1307153018182348800
-----
News w/ @jdawsey1: McConnell urges Senate Rs to keep powder dry on whether RBG's successor should be confirmed this year.

"This is not the time to prematurely lock yourselves into a position you may later regret," McConnell says in letter obtained by WaPo

https://t.co/fkhSFarynx
-----


https://twitter.com/Tierney_Megan/status/1307156860869410816
-----
Emphasis on keeping your powder dry says it all. McConnell may not have the votes for a pre-election confirmation, but he doesn't want to get locked out of a post-elex confirmation. If Biden wins, shoring up 50 votes for lame duck confirm will be painful if 4 were no in pre-elex
-----

im sure we all realize how that was bullshit right?

people in other countries have had to rise to the occasion and correct the course of history even under the most dire circumstances.

its our time now. aint no other way out of this.

run off the cdc’s recent statement about masks

get folks comfortable with going to the polls again
push the early vote ...

>im sure we all realize how that was bullshit right?
>


Firing shots at Michelle and at people who didn't vote.

And the idea that cheaters never prosper.....yes, they def do and that turn the other cheek and be better than them thing just results in massive political L's. Gotta play the same game to win

Like, that's exactly what the GOP is counting on: for people to be on some "It doesn't matter anymore" shit.

But this one is tough. Goddamn.

In this instance the fatalism is a result of almost-literal helplessness.

- they can pretty easily cram someone thru before the election
- if they decide not to, that only makes them look "good" to moderates, which could possibly galvanize voters in their favor and swing some important Senate races in their favor, as well as possibly the prez election
- the election has a high likelihood of being contested, especially if Trump loses. Now any election case goes to a 5-3 conservative court
- even if all goes right in November, we're counting on proven pieces of shit like Collins and Murkowski to keep their word and not vote for Cruz or Cotton during the lameduck period

Again I get what you're saying, but this situation is pretty hopeless if repugs decide to do repug things. And even if they kinda don't.

I have a friend who is working on moving to Canada w/ her husband. She was like "We're fucked" and I had to go ahead and hit pause for a minute.

And then she put this in the chat. "It's peak I want to sound like I'm ready to rock but I'm really just being passive and want someone else to do the heavy lifting for me."

https://twitter.com/arb/status/1307113672423215105?s=20

Needed that.

>https://twitter.com/arb/status/1307113672423215105?s=20

https://twitter.com/Yamiche/status/1307120096796700673?s=20

https://twitter.com/JimDabakis/status/1307120855454044160
-----
BREAKING: A high-level Romney insider tells me Mitt Romney has committed to not confirming a Supreme Court nominee until after Inauguration Day 2021. #Mittrevenge #utpol
-----

I'm not very hopeful for team wishy washy to save us.

gonna be like well i was gonna do the right thing but some college kids yelled at me in an elevator.

gotta find hope somewhere thoough

https://twitter.com/SenMcSallyAZ/status/1307123253845032960

she wasnt even elected.

in fact...az deliberately elected her opponent.

Disclaimer: EVERYONE should go vote for Biden in this election
Hilary/Biden are nowhere NEAR as bad as Trump

With that out of the way, At what point is Democratic Leadership held accountable for not being effective at bringing together their base/winning elections/getting policy implemented?

Over the past 20 years or so I've been loosely following politics I've seen little sense of urgency or long term strategy for achieving goals coming from the Democratic party.

With Republicans it's very clear what they stand for and what they've been continuously working towards:
Repealing Roe Vs Wade
Tax cuts for the wealthy
Maintaining the 2nd Amendment
And since Obama was in office repealing Obamacare

After just giving up a Supreme Court pick in Obama's last term I have little faith they'll put up much of a fight to keep Trump from getting someone in there WEEKS before an election (I hope I'm wrong)

If nothing else between gerrymandering/voter ID Laws/closing of polling centers, losing 2 of the last 5 elections despite winning the popular vote, the Democratic Party should have made Voter Rights a button issue being discussed in the news the last 10 years. And yet it's not

These are not the actions of honest actors who represent the people who voted them in.

I'm voting for Biden, and I Legit couldn't tell you what he plans to do in office other than not be Donald Trump.

That's not a poor reflection of me, that's a poor reflection of the people who's JOB it is to make people want to go vote for that dude.


If you're THAT Bad at messaging
If you're THAT bad at bringing people together
If you're THAT bad at achieving your goals, why the fuck are you still sitting in that seat?

>Disclaimer: EVERYONE should go vote for Biden in this
>election
>Hilary/Biden are nowhere NEAR as bad as Trump
>
>With that out of the way, At what point is Democratic
>Leadership held accountable for not being effective at
>bringing together their base/winning elections/getting policy
>implemented?
>
>Over the past 20 years or so I've been loosely following
>politics I've seen little sense of urgency or long term
>strategy for achieving goals coming from the Democratic
>party.
>
>With Republicans it's very clear what they stand for and what
>they've been continuously working towards:
>Repealing Roe Vs Wade
>Tax cuts for the wealthy
>Maintaining the 2nd Amendment
>And since Obama was in office repealing Obamacare
>
>After just giving up a Supreme Court pick in Obama's last term
>I have little faith they'll put up much of a fight to keep
>Trump from getting someone in there WEEKS before an election
>(I hope I'm wrong)
>
>If nothing else between gerrymandering/voter ID Laws/closing
>of polling centers, losing 2 of the last 5 elections despite
>winning the popular vote, the Democratic Party should have
>made Voter Rights a button issue being discussed in the news
>the last 10 years. And yet it's not
>
>These are not the actions of honest actors who represent the
>people who voted them in.
>
>I'm voting for Biden, and I Legit couldn't tell you what he
>plans to do in office other than not be Donald Trump.
>
>That's not a poor reflection of me, that's a poor reflection
>of the people who's JOB it is to make people want to go vote
>for that dude.
>
>
>If you're THAT Bad at messaging
>If you're THAT bad at bringing people together
>If you're THAT bad at achieving your goals, why the fuck are
>you still sitting in that seat?

>With that out of the way, At what point is Democratic Leadership held >accountable for not being effective at bringing together their >base/winning elections/getting policy implemented?

I view what you're describing as politics as usual.

I hold Democrats responsible for not realizing that the Republicans stopped playing politics as usual. I hold Democrats responsible for not having an answer for that.

Republican gains have been won thanks to increasingly anti-democratic tactics, strategies, and rhetoric.

The Democrats and Republicans aren't a one-to-one comparison...to me. Republicans say the word "democracy" and perform democracy, but they aren't bound by it and surely don't respect it.

>After just giving up a Supreme Court pick in Obama's last term I have >little faith they'll put up much of a fight to keep
>Trump from getting someone in there WEEKS before an election
>(I hope I'm wrong)

I disagree. I don't think the Democrats just gave up a Supreme Court pick. I think they were defeated by actors who don't play by the rules unless it benefits them. They were defeated by actors who, strategically, have turned the logic of abiding by the terms of political losses--*temporary* reduced power and reduced capacity to govern--on its head. They see the future and know it's not White! They know the electorate is changing in ways that make it more difficult for the party to win outright.

Rather than change and form collaborative coalitions that invite minority-majority folks into the fold, what have the Republicans done?
They have protected White power and White interests. Now, they have all but captured *future* legal and political control of institutions to pursue the desires of White power and interests. They have greater power to keep a metaphorical foot on the neck people of color as they do it. And they will!

At minimum, the foot on our necks will be in place for decades. And they will capitalize on it. They will *continue* to push to make sure: White power, White rule.

Some people of color, who are well intentioned, have been playing on the wrong field and playing the wrong game. McConnell wasn't going to tap them on the shoulder and let them know! The Democrats have been sounding the alarm. Our attention was elsewhere when the Republicans began operating the pathetic, poisonous, dark, craven, power grab of minority rule.

>These are not the actions of honest actors who represent the
>people who voted them in.

I wish Democrats understood power.

I definitely agree with you: Democrats should represent people who vote them in. But I think that's about power instead of honesty. I view McConnell's unholy alliance with Trump as a good example of that.

I think James Carville is right: in politics, without power and the courage to use it, you have nothing. And so, I let those
who are skilled at the murky and darker political arts fight it out. I want political representation that understands power, though.

>If you're THAT bad at achieving your goals, why the fuck are
>you still sitting in that seat?

If Democrats don't play nice, Democratic voters should *make* them. Teapartiers and Republicans created, exploited, and used their political power to put their cards in the game to win a desired result. And here we are. It was a team effort.

when not earned

>
>I wish Democrats understood power.
>

You don't get to and maintain a position of Leadership in One of the 2 Major Political parties without understanding power

They had to do something right to get there in the first place
and not be dragged from office.

I think they're VERY good at maintaining their own personal power/income and getting the results their High Dollar donors continue to pay them for.

It's amazing what you can accomplish when you actually believe in something/try

>
>If Democrats don't play nice, Democratic voters should *make*
>them. Teapartiers and Republicans created, exploited, and used
>their political power to put their cards in the game to win a
>desired result. And here we are. It was a team effort.

The Far Right wing of the Republican party doesn't have moneyed interests working against them or massive efforts to disenfranchise their vote. If anything it's the opposite

As best I can tell from somewhat following the news the last ten years, the GOP has had no problems embracing the fringe and courting their vote.

Attempts for the equivalent wing of the Democrat party to voice their opinion, hold their Leadership accountable and pointing out legit concerns with Party Leadership would result in them getting talked down to, accused of creating division in the party and told to fall in line.

Disclaimer Once Again:
EVERYONE AND THE MOMMA SHOULD STILL VOTE FOR JOE BIDEN
No the two Parties are not the same/as bad.

>when not earned
>
>>
>>I wish Democrats understood power.
>>
>
>You don't get to and maintain a position of Leadership in One
>of the 2 Major Political parties without understanding power
>
>They had to do something right to get there in the first
>place
>and not be dragged from office.
>
>I think they're VERY good at maintaining their own personal
>power/income and getting the results their High Dollar donors
>continue to pay them for.
>
>It's amazing what you can accomplish when you actually believe
>in something/try
>
>>
>>If Democrats don't play nice, Democratic voters should
>*make*
>>them. Teapartiers and Republicans created, exploited, and
>used
>>their political power to put their cards in the game to win
>a
>>desired result. And here we are. It was a team effort.
>
>The Far Right wing of the Republican party doesn't have
>moneyed interests working against them or massive efforts to
>disenfranchise their vote. If anything it's the opposite
>
>As best I can tell from somewhat following the news the last
>ten years, the GOP has had no problems embracing the fringe
>and courting their vote.
>
>Attempts for the equivalent wing of the Democrat party to
>voice their opinion, hold their Leadership accountable and
>pointing out legit concerns with Party Leadership would result
>in them getting talked down to, accused of creating division
>in the party and told to fall in line.
>
>Disclaimer Once Again:
>EVERYONE AND THE MOMMA SHOULD STILL VOTE FOR JOE BIDEN
>No the two Parties are not the same/as bad.
>
>

kanye, chance, diddy, nick cannon, ice cube, chris rock, etc and just regular niggas i see on social media.

i dont know what the disconnect btwn black men and black women is when it comes to recognizing the stakes right now...but its blatant now. every other day i see folks basically having to beg niggas not to be self destructive this year. black women seem to so much more perceptible/sensible in recognizing the gravity of our current predicament.

i dont even have the strength to post up some shit im seeing since the rbg announcement.

i hope to God *we* (black men) dont fuck this election up for us. but im not liking what ive been seeing.

And I love Fargo.

This...?

https://twitter.com/notcapnamerica/status/1306667712681213962?s=21

After reading the article, the actual statement doesn't warrant the anger. *shrug*

Chris Rock's point was:Instead of treating the President like an adult and holding him accountable they should be flattering him and tricking him into doing things- like in the documentary The Last Emperor.

His misunderstands reality.

He's always had bad takes on politics - remember that Real Time with Bill Maher where he answered EVERY questions with "Why is the price of gas so high??"

In conclusion - every time something bad happens it's ALWAYS the fault of a democrat. Be less tough - be more tough - etc.

And, in hindsight, it all can be flipped to criticize them if they did the other thing.

Rock added: "Put it this way: Republicans tell outright lies. Democrats leave out key pieces of the truth that would lead to a more nuanced argument. In a sense, it's all fake news."

He's lost - they got him both siding everything now. You're 100% good of EVIL - there's no 99% good - or 92% good. Fake news!

Unless your rich and cheat on your wife - or do blackface on SNL- then there is nuance and intentions matter!

Or hey, he could have been misquoted and the nuance has been left out. (I doubt it.)

I think he thinks Congress had the intel that the president had. And they sat at a desk with two files open : 1)Impeach Trump 2)Stop the corona virus. And they chose to impeach Trump and to not do anything about the corona virus.

You know what - fuck that guy - I just fired off a tweet to him. Take that Chris!

>I think he thinks Congress had the intel that the president
>had. And they sat at a desk with two files open : 1)Impeach
>Trump 2)Stop the corona virus. And they chose to impeach Trump
>and to not do anything about the corona virus.

>He's always had bad takes on politics - remember that Real
>Time with Bill Maher where he answered EVERY questions with
>"Why is the price of gas so high??"
>

What ? That's not a bad take it's a joke.

He firing shots at everybody except the ones who deserve it the usual suspects.

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1307137352620486656
-----
Sen. Lindsey Graham in October 2018: "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."

(video)
-----

obviously doesnt mean anything to him now but he said it.

My vibe is that it's a republican thing. And that this will amp them up.

Hopefully my assumption is wrong.

https://twitter.com/hjessy_/status/1307155658807144448
-----
ActBlue processed $11,383,676 in donations between 9:22 PM and 11:10 PM. That's $105,404.41 per minute, $1,756.74 per second. There's no sign of slowing down.
-----

https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1307115540352323584

that might at least knock off 1 sure confirmation vote.

fucking mitch.

I know she was sick, and was holding on for dear life, and wasn't going to stay in office as long as she could so t.rump couldn't elect another one of his evil cronies; but I guess the lord has other plans for her.

It's such a shame how much damage t.rump has done in just four years and our so-called leaders just sitting on the sidelines watching it happen without actually doing really anything other than what we have been doing in the past which is too passive of an action if you ask me.

Damn I wish someone would just slap the shit out of t.rump on camera, just like a big ass bitch slap that make everyone feel it when they see that hand land on his face and his face ripples and he gets knocked off balance and leaves an redder than red impression on his face.

Anyway, rest in power Ruth Bader Ginsburg. :(

https://twitter.com/hjessy_/status/1307155658807144448

... cuz I've been looking at the loading circle on Jaime Harrison's donation page for the past 3 minutes and now it makes sense.

That is great news. Let's go.

the right is stealing supreme court seats, legislating opposing voters out of eligibility, and gerrymandering impenetrable district maps.

the left still has to launch multi million dollar advertising campaigns just to convince people that theres power in their vote.

.

then there is no helping them

While the right is leaning fully into their fascism.


When they go low, we go nowhere.

Can't really get the streets fired up off of that.

radicals on the right are socially regressive/reactionary baby boomers (and older) who wanna strip other people of their rights and socioeconomic positions to prop themselves up. they are also the demo thats most likely to turnout to vote and they support candidates who echo their sentiments/policies and even turn out to vote in primaries to punish those who dont. so the repub party shifts as they shift because the radicals actually push/support them electorally.

radicals on the left are mostly young people who bitch and whine all day about how their vote needs to be earned and how politicians are failing to appeal to them. then they sit on their ass when it comes time to vote and get mad at politicians that play to moderate voters who actually turnout to vote at twice the rate of young folks.

bernie ran on a platform that was the most in line with young lefties for a major prez primary candidate possibly ever. how did they thank him? by failing to show up to the polls and win him a single county in important states like michigan and florida. they didnt even show up to hand him a state with a significant lefty primary base like washington.

how are you supposed to substantively be a political force when you dont even care to actively participate in politics?

but it's not going to turn "otherwise you'll get something even worse" into a great mobilization tool.

Are there any initiatives in the democratic party to address the flaws of the first past the post voting system? Are they willing to concede some power to allow for a more pluriform (and more representative) political playing field? Are they owning up to their own mistakes in pushing forward Hillary Clinton? Have they even learned from Obama's victories that ideas and ideals matter?

I'm looking at this shitshow from across the pond and it's like all they can muster is "we're not the worst". I'd vote for Biden if I was an American because I agree that fascism isn't a swell alternative, but that's not really going to motivate people on a larger scale.

I actually wonder if leftist radicals are even numerous enough to really make a difference. Are you sure they are the problem, and not a larger mass of politically disinterested voters that don't feel addressed by democrats or trumpists? What are dems doing to reach them?

These questions aren't meant to be rhetorical; I honestly can't see what the democrats' vision is beyond "get rid of Trump". And without a vision, you're going to have trouble getting people amped up.

>I actually wonder if leftist radicals are even numerous enough
>to really make a difference.

they aren't numerous enough to make a difference.
you have diagnosed this correctly:

>Are you sure they are the
>problem, and not a larger mass of politically disinterested
>voters that don't feel addressed by democrats or trumpists?
>What are dems doing to reach them?

nothing.
even though that's why OBAMA, the last Democratic Party president won.
All they have to do is copy the SUBSTANCE of the Obama campaign and win. All they seem to do is copy the artifice (see Buttigieg, Harris).

the "left" isn't the problem.
nor are the third party voters.

it's the lack of attention toward EXPANDING the vote, and trying to impose things from the top down. The "Boss" mentality.

Republicans tell outright lies. Democrats leave out key pieces of the truth that would lead to a more nuanced argument. Bernie had unprecedented support from the youth. Was it enough to overcome their parents and/or grandparents who opposed them? Not yet at least.

"In both of his campaigns, Sanders won younger voters by historic margins, and he won them not with style or charisma but with perhaps the most brusquely ideological platform in Democratic primary history. His five-year struggle simultaneously reflected, galvanized, and shaped the worldview of an entire generation of voters — forging a new and serious bond between the material conditions of Americans under forty-five and the Sanders brand of “class-struggle social democracy.”

As Jacobin’s Connor Kilpatrick has argued, Bernie’s dominance with young voters is significant for at least two reasons that should shape left strategy in the 2020s. First, despite the understandable skepticism about “generational politics,” there is simply no precedent in US history for an ideological candidate winning younger voters on a scale like Sanders did — not George McGovern and certainly not Barack Obama, whose youthful support was much thinner and less evenly distributed. In the 2008 race against Hillary Clinton, Obama won voters under thirty in California by 5 points, and in Texas by 20 points. This year, against a larger primary field, Bernie won that group in both those states by at least 50 points.

In both his campaigns, Sanders won young white voters, he won young black voters, and he won young Latino voters — the latter group by outrageous margins (84 percent!) in states like California. Very probably, he won young Asian voters, young Muslim voters, and young Native voters with similar levels of enthusiasm.

Second, Sanders did not just win big with kids fresh out of school: across five years of campaigning, he showed persistent strength with middle-aged voters in their forties. Of the twenty states that conducted exit polls, more voters under forty-five chose Sanders than all the “moderate” Democrats combined (Biden, Bloomberg, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar) in sixteen of them.

In Missouri and in Michigan, he won voters between forty and forty-five outright. And in key states like Texas, Massachusetts, and Minnesota, where Bernie lost overall, he still managed to win voters under fifty by double digits.

Notoriously, these younger voters did not turn out in large enough numbers to help Sanders on Super Tuesday and beyond. But the media’s glib conclusion on this subject — that youth voting actually declined in 2020 — was based on flawed 2016 exit polls, whose methodology changed significantly this year, rendering crude comparisons about the shape of the electorate practically worthless.

In the context of rising overall turnout, it is almost certain that the absolute number of younger primary voters actually rose in 2020. (In South Carolina, where official state numbers have been released, more than forty thousand new voters under forty-five cast a Democratic ballot, and their turnout rate increased, too.) Though outnumbered by the surge of older, richer Halliburton Democrats, these new, younger voters flocked to Bernie’s standard to an extent that helped change the geography of his coalition.

Though Sanders struggled to win many of the rural areas he had carried four years ago, his strength in cities — and especially in younger, racially diverse, lower-income urban neighborhoods — actually grew from 2016 to 2020. With younger Latino voters now firmly in his coalition, Bernie not only swept the barrios of East LA, he won overwhelming victories in the mixed, immigrant-heavy precincts of San Diego, Denver, Seattle, and Las Vegas.

Sanders showed similar strength in younger, lower-income urban areas all over the country. In the majority-nonwhite ninth ward of Minneapolis, where George Floyd was killed, Bernie won an absolute majority. In smaller cities across the Northeast and the Midwest, his support was undiminished, if not enhanced from 2016 — with younger urban voters helping Sanders in the early states and beyond, from Portland, Maine, to Duluth, Minnesota.

Although easily dismissed by critics as a phenomenon of the “gentrifier left,” latte-swilling graduate students did not power Sanders to victory in working-class cities like Manchester, New Hampshire, or Brownsville, Texas. A much broader group of younger and disproportionately urban voters, who make far less money and own far less property than the Democratic electorate as a whole, formed the core of the Sanders coalition."

from https://jacobinmag.com/2020/08/bernie-sanders-five-year-war

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1307130338565656576


https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1307130338565656576.html


(THREAD) Following Justice Ginsburg's death, Mitch McConnell has already said he'll try to install a Trump nominee immediately—despite his opposite view under far less egregious circumstances in the Obama era. I hope you'll read on for info on how this plays out—and retweet this.

TIMING 1. Median duration from nomination to confirmation is 2.3 months—but McConnell doesn't have that between now and 11/3. But him ghoulishly announcing his intent *in his condolence statement* and Amy C. Barrett's name already being floated confirms Trump is ready to pounce.

TIMING 2. McConnell would be wary of pre-election confirmation hearings for many reasons: it'd rile up the Democratic base; it'd keep GOP senators from their home states in the critical days pre-election; and it'd distract attention from Trump's rhetoric—which *he* may not want.

TIMING 3. On the other hand, a vote pre-election would *also* energize Trumpists, and would occur while Trump is still president and not (should he lose) a lame duck, which strengthens McConnell's hand (he may believe) in the court of public opinion as the hearings are happening.

TIMING 4. But here's the problem for McConnell—speaking only of logistics here; of course the real problem for McConnell is that he's one of the most vile villains in American history—which is that there's only 45 days until election day. That calendar may perhaps be prohibitive.

TIMING 5. Consider: McConnell won't want his senators away from home in the last week pre-election—which means he really only has 38 days. And Schumer and the Democrats have many dilatory tactics they could use to make a nomination process that fast close to impossible for Trump.

TIMING 6. One thing seems clear, though: Trump will announce his nominee almost *immediately*, perhaps even tomorrow—again, ghoulish—and the GOP will begin the process of pushing the nominee forward *immediately*. We can expect no grace or mourning period whatsoever for Ginsburg.

TIMING 7. One reason Amy Coney Barrett's name is already trending on Twitter is because *of course*—people are talking about this—but another is obviously because Republicans *want* the conversation to be moving this fast, so that Trump could announce Barrett tomorrow if need be.

TIMING 8. Only the Senate parliamentarian knows every dilatory (delay) tactic the Democrats could use to make a nomination process in a blinding-fast 38 days impossible, but one thing is for sure: there is no tactic, in the history of Senate tactics, that Schumer *won't* use now.

TIMING 9. To that end, there's already buzz over whether, under Senate rules, an impeachment process always takes precedent over a SCOTUS confirmation process—raising the possibility that Democrats could retaliate for McConnell's ghoulishness by seeking to impeach (e.g.) AG Barr.

TIMING 10. Then there's the possibility that McConnell could *want* this nomination to go forward during the 75-day transition/lame duck period/session, as it would dampen somewhat the effect of the issue on the Democratic base—though not by much, if we're honest with ourselves.

TIMING 11. Seeking hearings *post-election* runs the risk that Trump loses and Schumer has a major public relations upper-hand for the entirety of the nomination process—putting Republicans in the dangerous spot of confirming a nominee with almost *no* public support (say, <25%).

TIMING 12. But it's also the case—see the THE VOTE section, coming next—that McConnell may not be able to afford a post-election process, because he wouldn't have the votes then that he would now. There's a complicated explanation for why. So he could move on Barrett...this week.

VOTE 1. Right now the Senate is 53-47 in the Republicans' favor—with Mike Pence as a tiebreaker for any 50-50 tie. A majority vote can confirm a SCOTUS nominee, assuming the filibuster rule—requiring a 60-vote majority—remains inoperative, which we certainly can assume right now.

VOTE 2. What this means is that McConnell can lose 3 GOP votes, but not 4. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) said in August she wouldn't support a pre-inauguration confirmation vote. It's widely rumored that Mitt Romney (R-UT) has decided much the same. Eyes are on Susan Collins (R-ME) now.

VOTE 3. Senator Collins has historically been a coward of... well, *historic* proportions. She once voted against the impeachment of a president provably guilty of bribery and obstruction because she said she thought he'd "learned his lesson." I'm old enough to remember that day.

VOTE 4. Collins is up for reelection; undermining Trump would likely end her Senate campaign, which gives McConnell a good reason to want the confirmation hearings to happen *after* the 2020 election so Collins can hedge her bets until then. That might be convincing to McConnell.

VOTE 5. But there's a hitch for McConnell. Right now Democrat Mark Kelly is ahead of placeholder senator Martha McSally in Arizona—indeed, ahead by a lot. If Kelly wins on November 3, there's a chance that—because McSally wasn't elected—Kelly could be seated quicker than January.

VOTE 6. What *should* be a complication, but *isn't*, is that other GOP senators—people with *no scruples or moral/ethical code whatsoever*—publicly went on the record when McConnell stole the Merrick Garland seat and said they wouldn't change their view under a Trump presidency.

VOTE 7. One example is Lindsey Graham, who unambiguously promised voters in October 2018—and keep in mind Graham is up for reelection *right now*—that if Trump had an opening after the 2020 primaries had started, Graham would say "wait until after the election" to confirm anyone.

VOTE 8. No one believes Graham—a Trump golfing buddy—would keep his promise, and if the vote were after the election he might even try some tortured reading of his past promise and say that he only meant "election day," not the inauguration. It'd be insane, but he could try that.

VOTE 9. But Democrats shouldn't kid themselves: there are virtually no principled GOP senators. They will do what Trump and McConnell tell them, even if it means seeking confirmation pre-election—something McConnell would be particularly likely to do if he thinks Trump will lose.

VOTE 10. Ironically, if Trump were to win and the Senate were to stay in GOP hands—but move to 52-48, 51-49, or 50-50—McConnell would have a much easier time convincing GOP fence-sitters to take a vote during the transition, as he could point to a Trump win and GOP Senate "hold."

VOTE 11. In short, McConnell must decide whether to go pre-election or post-election—and unless he has 4 clear no votes on the GOP side (there are only 2 now) he likely feels he would do better to go pre-election. Which means Barrett is likely to be the nominee in under 48 hours.

VOTE 12. Media may not be able to get a clear statement from Collins or any other allegedly "moderate" GOP senator—there are, in effect, no others, just "sticklers" who weren't sticklers during the impeachment—because what they tell McConnell privately may determine what he does.

VOTE 13. IOW, it's better for Collins to make no statement and then have McConnell announce he's pushing for a vote pre-election, as then her role in *causing* him to make that decision might be overlooked. But rest assured, McConnell has or is getting a private head-count *now*.

VOTE 14. More likely is that McConnell *already had the headcount* when he issued his ghoulishly fast statement tonight—meaning that he already knows there are *not* four votes against a pre-inauguration confirmation vote, but (presumably) just three, making Pence the tiebreaker.

THE PICK 1. Republicans couldn't be more literal about demographics: their inclination when a Black justice retires is to put forward a Black justice, when a woman retires a woman, and so on—which isn't to say it always works out that way, but that's the temperament of the party.

THE PICK 2. There is *no reason whatsoever* for Trump or McConnell to choose a moderate, nor much evidence that the Heritage Foundation allowed any real moderates on Trump's entirely political pre-election "acceptable picks list" (my term). Expect a hard right-wing nominee, now.

THE PICK 3. There's no reason to pick a moderate because it wouldn't anger Democrats any less—this process shouldn't be happening at all, and any Trump pick would endanger Roe v. Wade, for starters—but it *would* gut any energizing the pick causes among Trump voters pre-election.

THE PICK 4. Just so, because Trumpism is a cult, and because the GOP "moderates" in the Senate who vote "no" are doing so because of timing more than anything else, McConnell basically knows that *everyone* who doesn't oppose the timing will vote "yes" for *anyone* Trump picks.

THE PICK 5. More broadly there's just no evidence that either McConnell or Trump do anything but in the most brazen, audacious, conflict-oriented, sociopathic, norm-destroying way—there's no precedent in their careers or characters for them doing anything but the most vile thing.

THE PICK 6. A far-right pick will energize the right, "keep Trump's promise on judges" and demoralize Democrats. McConnell probably has the Senate votes anyway (as the more conservatives love the pick, the more fence-sitters up for reelection like Collins will have to go for it).

THE PICK 7. Taking all this into account, the most likely scenario—though anything is, of course, possible—is that Amy Coney Barrett is announced as the nominee this weekend or Monday, with Senate hearings starting immediately, and only 3 votes (max) against her from "moderates."

THE PICK 8. If McConnell determines that he's only going to lose three senators, he could "release" Collins to *pretend* that she opposes the process going forward but privately *promise* not to use that against her in her reelection campaign (calling it a matter of "principle").

CONCLUSION 1. What should Democrats do? Anything. Everything. This is evil incarnate: such a profound hypocrisy and abuse of power that America has never seen its like (on this subject) before, and it could *profoundly* change the rule of law in America for *decades and decades*.

CONCLUSION 2. If Democrats must announce impeachment proceedings, they should do so. If they must shut down government, they should do so. If they must flee Washington to make certain processes impossible, they should do so. But none of those things will happen. None. Here's why.

CONCLUSION 3. The other reason McConnell will start the process now is that it makes *everything* maximally political—meaning, *Democrats* must gauge every single action they take based on public polling, and keep in mind that's public polling *during a public health emergency*.

CONCLUSION 4. Democrats can't flee D.C.—they'd be killed in the polls. They can't shut down government when government needs to be mailing pandemic checks. If they start an impeachment obviously responsive to a Barrett pick, they'll get excoriated by the press for abuse of power.

CONCLUSION 5. Trump and McConnell so successfully moved the Overton Window—the window of what's deemed plausible and possible in America—that many Americans aren't even surprised by what these two men are doing, and so will let them do it with little pushback in national polling.

CONCLUSION 6. Because the GOP *stands for nothing but winning even at the cost of burning America to the ground*, nothing is expected of the GOP. But the Democrats say they have morals and ethics, so voters hold them to that and won't let them play realpolitik without punishment.

CONCLUSION 7. The situation is the impeachment trial—specifically the "evidentiary votes"—all over again: the only hope for decency is "moderate" GOP senators, and there aren't enough of them. McConnell is taking the actions he is because he's gamed this out and has already won.

CONCLUSION 8. None of this means Democrats shouldn't fight—but it probably means that anything they could do that would be so extraordinary and startling that it would give them a chance to *win* on the SCOTUS issue would so startle independents they would *lose* the White House.

CONCLUSION 9. But I'm a metamodernist—I won't end on a solution-free note. The metamodern solution is clear: fight the pick within the bounds that don't hurt Biden, but have Biden announce within one hour of the Barrett pick that he plans to expand the size of the Supreme Court.

CONCLUSION 10. If we're going to battle in the election over the Court—which we are—give Democrats something to fight *for* rather than just trying to get a 6-3 court back to 5-4 and maybe (in 15 years) 5-4 in the other direction. Tell us that A BLUE WAVE SAVES THE SUPREME COURT.

CONCLUSION 11. The only way for Biden to make that claim is to give a historic, lengthy, Obama-in-Philadelphia speech in which he declares that the Republican Party has *broken faith with the American people in a way the Democratic Party will not stand for*. Then announce a plan.

CONCLUSION 12. That plan would include *both* an expansion of the Court *and* safeguards to stop what happened here happening again. Make the plan comprehensive, detailed, methodical. But *also* position the GOP as the party of *lawlessness*.

That's right—steal Trump's rhetoric.

CONCLUSION 13. It's the *Democrats* who have a case for being the party of rule of law. Bad cops are lawbreakers—the GOP abets them. Trump is a rapist—the GOP harbors him. McConnell has torched 250 years of Senate history—he attacks tradition.

Democrats will restore rule of law.

CONCLUSION 14. When you get hit hard, in metamodernism, you *make your bruise your banner*. You never accept a defeat as anything but a victory. Trump and the GOP are handing Biden something bigger than a candidacy for president: they've given him a *cause*. Now he must seize it.
Every American should RETWEET this tweet and give to Mitch McConnell's opponent AMY McGRATH right now. Link below:

https://t.co/dv2s5n3zyE?amp=1

And every American should find competitive Senate races and donate to the Democrat—if, that is, you believe in rule of law.

KY: @AmyMcGrathKY
CO: @Hickenlooper
NC: @CalforNC
ME: @SaraGideon
AZ: @CaptMarkKelly
KS: @BarbaraBollier
GA: @ossoff
SC: @harrisonjaime
MT: @stevebullockmt

if you insist on following him still so you can feel like a smart person, then that's your choice.

but he has NEVER had any information that couldn't have been said in 90% fewer tweets


www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking a9

d

He legit hasn't missed the mark on a single thing.

that trump's a criminal? you don't need a 150 tweet thread to explain that.

nothing in his exposes is ever anything new or better organized than what's available elsewhere.

he's just unnecessary.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1307176646726873088
-----
In 2012, there were five votes to uphold Obamacare. One of them just died. Obamacare is headed back to the Supreme Court one week after Election Day.
-----

saving obamacare brought out a lot of traditionally repub and previously inactive voters in 2018.

a lot of people who arent necessarily motivated by the partisan makeup of the court will be motivated by their healthcare getting taken away if they know how that relates to the partisan makeup of the court.

It's unfortunate her passing was already so politicized before it even manifested. Under different circumstances, there'd be space to celebrate her staunch support for the rights of women, LGBTQ+, people with disabilities, voters, etc. Disadvantaged communities have lost a great advocate.

Found a nice article providing a topline summary of how she sided over the years. I guess it all seems so inconsequential now, given the political climate. But still... thanks RBG:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/09/18/i-dissent-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburgs-most-memorable-opinions/2661426002/

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's top opinions and dissents, from VMI to Voting Rights Act

WASHINGTON – Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died Friday at the age of 87, surrounded by her family.

Only the second woman to serve on the nation's highest court, she dressed for decisions and dissents. She had a special collar, or jabot, for announcing majority opinions from the bench and another for her frequent, and more celebrated, dissents.

Throughout her career, Ginsburg’s diminutive presence belied her titanic influence on the law, first as the nation’s preeminent litigator for women’s rights, and more recently as the leader of the high court’s liberal bloc, where she served as a bulwark against an increasingly conservative majority.

Here's a look at some of her memorable opinions:

Decisions
United States v. Virginia (1996): Struck down Virginia Military Institute's male-only admissions policy as a violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The vote was 7-1, with Associate Justice Antonin Scalia dissenting.

Ginsburg described as "presumptively invalid ... a law or official policy that denies to women, simply because they are women, equal opportunity to aspire, achieve, participate in, and contribute to society, based upon what they can do."

Olmstead v. L.C. (1999): Ruled 6-3 that individuals with mental disabilities have the right to community-based housing under the Americans with Disabilities Act, provided that states have sufficient resources and treatment professionals say it's appropriate.

"Institutional placement of persons who can handle and benefit from community settings perpetuates unwarranted assumptions that persons so isolated are incapable or unworthy of participating in community life."

Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (2000): By a 7-2 vote, gave South Carolina residents standing to seek penalties for industrial pollution without having to prove injury, and even though the factory in question had closed.

"A would-be polluter may or may not be dissuaded by the existence of a remedy on the books, but a defendant once hit in its pocketbook will surely think twice before polluting again."

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015): Ruled 5-4 that states can try to remove partisan politics from the process of drawing political maps by creating commissions that take power away from elected legislators.

"Arizona voters sought to restore the core principle that voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around. The elections clause, we affirm, does not hinder that endeavor."

Timbs v. Indiana (2019): Ruled unanimously that states cannot impose excessive fees, fines and forfeitures as criminal penalties. The decision made clear that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against excessive fines applies to states and localities as well as the federal government.

"The protection against excessive fines guards against abuses of government’s punitive or criminal law-enforcement authority. This safeguard, we hold, is 'fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty.'"

Dissents
Bush v. Gore (2000): Ginsburg and her three liberal colleagues each dissented from the court's 5-4 decision halting the presidential recount ordered by Florida's Supreme Court. The majority ruled that no better method of counting votes could be established within the necessary timetable.

"The court’s conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy the court’s own judgment will not allow to be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the presidency of the United States."

Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2007): Ginsburg wrote the dissent in the 5-4 case, which denied Lilly Ledbetter the right to sue her employer for gender-based pay discrimination because of the length of time that had passed since the violation.

"Our precedent suggests, and lower courts have overwhelmingly held, that the unlawful practice is the current payment of salaries infected by gender-based (or race-based) discrimination – a practice that occurs whenever a paycheck delivers less to a woman than to a similarly situated man."

Gonzales v. Carhart (2007): Ginsburg wrote the dissent in the 5-4 case, which upheld a 2003 law passed by Congress outlawing a form of late-term abortion. The majority ruled that it was not an undue burden on abortion rights.

"The act, and the court’s defense of it, cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court – and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women’s lives."

Shelby County v. Holder (2013): Perhaps Ginsburg's most famous dissent criticized Chief Justice John Roberts' 5-4 ruling that struck down a key section of the Voting Rights Act, freeing mostly southern states from having to clear voting changes with the federal government.

"Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet."

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014): Ginsburg wrote the dissent in the 5-4 case, which determined that family-owned and other closely held companies cannot be forced to offer insurance coverage for certain birth control methods they equate with abortion.

"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be perceived as favoring one religion over another, the very risk the Establishment Clause was designed to preclude. The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."

"My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."

What a time to be alive. Like Obama, I also hope we don't lose democracy on our watch. People need to stay the course and think about a future that has not yet been written.

our side cant continue to constantly come up with ways to rationalize sitting out elections.

every single time a republican wins its disastrous for the country/world and does lasting (a lot of it permanent) damage that reverberates for decades.

we could conceivably be looking at a 6-3 liberal majority supreme court that would have been the death knell of the modern republican party simply by protecting voting rights alone. 5-4 majority at the least.

now we are staring down the barrel of autocracy and the erasure of all political gains for non white people in the last half century (maybe even further). republicans are free to pass or trash any law from any point in history that they see fit. and they have the legal cover to do it with a majority thatll be insurmountable for the rest of our lifetime at least (barring some disaster or a *series* of freak physical events).

elections have consequences (c) obama

Biden wins with ease largely on the strength of being a white man.

Liberal and left leaning democrats fucked up by not voting for Hillary. The DNC fucked up by not convincing Biden to run.

Now we are talking about having to kill the filibuster and pack the courts just to try to get the playing field semi-level again. When if we had just won in 16 we could have buried the GOP as a party and a movement.

But Obama turned the page and Dems stuck to
norms.

Shiiiit when you think about it Reagan is what really
led to all this.

Democrats have been scared to be Democrats since
the early 90s.

Hopefully this wakes some of them up at least. The other side
does not play fair no matter what.

If Dems do win big, they can’t waste it again

The system is fucked and you mad at the wrong people, like always.

Everyone knew what the game was - win 270 EVs. Running up the score in California doesn't change anything, at least not currently.

fed to them by the likes of Briahna Joy Gray and Ryan Knight

You're so expressive until someone actually challenges your thoughts. Thats not very productive.

Her campaign was complacent and smug, and she shouldn't have been the nominee in the first place. The people dont love her.

I’m tired of blaming people who didn’t vote, or that hilldawg ran a bad campaign, etc

The blame is squarely on the people who decided to vote for him. It’s their fault.

who


https://www.businessinsider.com/exit-polls-who-voted-for-trump-clinton-2016-11

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/president


take it out on them....most of yall work with these cronies anyway.

is what the fringe said back in 2016



fuck eah and every last one of them

.

is overrated.

trump ran on the supreme court in 2016. he lost by 3 million votes. he got less of the vote share than mitt romney. he got less votes overall than romney in wisconsin. and dems actually picked up a seat in the house.

its just that dem turnout decreased in enough important electoral college states to give him the election.

repubs ran on kavanaugh rage in 2018. pundits said it would provide repubs with more enthusiasm than democrats and possibly tip the elections to them. dems won the house by the biggest vote margin in history. flipped the most seats for the party since watergate (would have been 10-15 more without gerrymandering). flipped senate seats in the sun belt. swept the top of the ticket in every rust belt state but 1. cemented the repub death spiral in much of americas suburbs. and gave dems a greater chance to win in most of the battleground states because dem secretaries of state control the elections now.

so...like most repub hot button issues (immigration, law and order, etc) its not that these things are game changers or great winning isues in any way. its just that those are the *only* issues they have to run on just to be able to be competitive.

the Supreme Court was already fucked before her death.

also, the Supreme Court has been pretty much SHIT through most of the lifetimes of the people reading this post. It's always been an apparatus meant to advance the interests of the worst people in America and possibly on Earth, as constructed.

Roe v. Wade, Obergefell v. Hodges, Lawrence v. Texas, and the like... exceptions, not the rule.

The Supreme Court is much more Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Citizens United, Voting Rights repeal.

A major reason is because the "liberal" judges don't know how or when to retire. Which is bullshit. I'll probably be logged off Earth before I could ever retire. And these motherfuckers have the luxury of doing so.

Since Thurgood Marshall actually died just after Clinton's swearing in, he gets a mulligan. But his retirement enabled the tokenist hire of Clarence "Judge Ruckus" Thomas.

Souter and Stevens retired under Obama (Stevens was actually a Republican who sided with the liberals, not unlike Souter), allowing for Sotomayor and Kagan under Obama.

RBG, who has proven to be quite the Hillary Clinton liberal, should have done the same. Ditto for Breyer.

Why?

because as soon as the Supreme Court (with all the Reagan/H.W. Bush appointees) INSTALLED George W. Bush as president, Rehnquist (who had stage 4 cancer) retired. Sandra Day O'Connor retired under Bush. Now we have Roberts, whose opinion ended the Voting Rights Act, and Alito.

Anthony Kennedy retired under Trump in a cloud of shadiness, thus allowing Kavanaugh.

Scalia would have probably stayed on and then retired after Trump, had he lived. He didn't have to because the goddamn Republicans controlled the Senate, so they didn't have to listen to Obama. Instead, when Trump became president, they nominated the son of a Reagan lackey, corporate ball-polisher Neil Gorsuch.

And now, we're pretty much gonna get some 4chan denizen as a Supreme Court judge because the Democrats don't do shit, and won't do shit.

Let's say Biden wins (and for the record, I hope he does). Let's say the Democrats also take the Senate (I hope they do). I have little confidence that they will do the right thing and take the filibuster away and actually try to hold some fucking power so that another Donald Trump won't have a chance to grab America by the pussy.

this is why I'm mad.

But make no mistake. The Supreme Court is shit. Judicial branch of American government is mostly shit as the rule. It needs a ton of reforms.

We're sitting around pretending to be strategists because an unelected 87 year old died during the wrong president's* administration. The focus of our worry is how to prevent the fundamentally undemocratic institution of the US Senate# from doing one of the only tasks they've shown any interest in accomplishing^ in the last few years.

We are all subjects here. This isn't substantively different than a monarchy and that's because it was set up that way. Time to treat the "RIP United States" as the good thing that it is and move on to whatever's next.

*who was also not directly elected
#representing land isn't the same as representing people, etc.
^to be clear, a bad task of confirming judges

not sure I understand the rules of impeachment...

will it work?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/pelosi-won-t-rule-out-new-impeachment-delay-scotus-vote-n1240568

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., on Sunday would not rule out impeaching President Donald Trump or Attorney General William Barr if the Senate seeks to push through a Supreme Court nomination during the lame-duck session should Joe Biden win the November election.

Speaking with ABC's "This Week," host George Stephanopoulos asked Pelosi about suggestions some have made that if Democrats win this fall and Republicans move forward on a Supreme Court nominee to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the House could move to impeach Trump or Barr in an effort to stall the nomination.

"Well, we have our options," Pelosi said. "We have arrows in our quiver that I’m not about to discuss right now, but the fact is we have a big challenge in our country. This president has threatened to not even accept the results of the election with statements that he and his henchmen have made."

"So, right now, our main goal and I think Ruth Bader Ginsburg would want that to be, would be to protect the integrity of the election as we protect the American people from the coronavirus, and that’s — I have faith in the American people on this Sunday morning," she continued.

Stephanopoulos followed up, asking if she was not "ruling anything out?"

"Yeah. We have a responsibility. We've taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," she said. We have a responsibility to meet the needs of the American people. That is when we weigh the equities of protecting our democracy requires us to use every arrow in our quiver."

Pelosi also pointed to upcoming Supreme Court arguments on the Affordable Care Act, set for Nov. 10, just after the election. Ginsburg's death means one of the justices who voted to uphold the law in 2012 is no longer there, and Obamacare's future may now be in peril as a result, particularly if a conservative-aligned justice is confirmed before then.

"So the president is rushing to make some kind of a decision because he ... doesn't want to crush the Pelosi said. "He wants to crush the Affordable Care Act."

This weekend, Trump pledged to quickly fill the now-vacant Supreme Court seat and nominate a woman to it following Ginsburg's death Friday due to complications from pancreatic cancer. A frontrunner for the position has emerged in the form of federal appeals court judge Amy Coney Barrett, 48. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has promised to quickly begin the confirmation process once the president makes his selection.

Democrats have sharply criticized McConnell, who refused to hold any hearings for then-President Barack Obama's 2016 Supreme Court nominee, federal appeals court judge Merrick Garland, citing that fact it was an election year and that the American people should have a voice in the selection.

McConnell said there was not a contradiction in his two stances because the Senate and White House were under control of differing parties at that time, where as now Republicans control both.

"In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia's death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president's second term," he said in a statement. "We kept our promise. Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president's Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year."

The argument didn't hold water with Democrats, who pointed to remarks from Republican senators like Lindsey Graham who have said they would not consider a Supreme Court nomination in an election year.

"Today it seems that Senator McConnell has lost his faith in the judgment of the American people and wants to hurry up and put somebody on the court," former President Bill Clinton told "This Week." "And the president does too. So they — their position is 'do whatever maximizes your power.'"

On NBC's "Meet the Press," Democrats demanded no confirmation this close to the election.

“The way this happened so close to the election, that the next president should be able to make the decision. The people pick the president, and the president picks the justice,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said. “You’ve got people voting right now, including in my state.”

Republicans countered that if Democrats held both the White House and Senate, they too would move forward with a nomination — regardless of circumstance.

"If the shoe were on the other foot and the Democrats and the White House and the Senate, they would right now be trying to confirm another member of the Supreme Court," Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., told "Meet the Press."

Democrats are now scrambling to figure out how they can possibly stall the selection or counter it if they win the presidency and Senate back this fall.

Currently, their options are limited as they hold a 47 to 53 disadvantage in the Senate, which abolished the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations in 2017. Democrats need to convince four Republicans to vote against a nominee.

Should they recapture the Senate and White House, Democrats may add seats to the Supreme Court.

In a call with Democratic senators Saturday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., suggested an openness to expanding the court.

"Let me be clear: If Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans move forward with this, then nothing is off the table for next year," he said, according to a source on the call. "Nothing is off the table."

In a statement following Ginsburg's death, Schumer repeated McConnell's remarks from 2016 after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president," Schumer tweeted, quoting McConnell.

Obama himself jumped into the fray on Friday and pushed for the Senate to not immediately fill Ginsburg's seat.

"A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment," he wrote.

"A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment," he wrote.

That type of grad school shit didn't work when he was Pres, it certainly won't work now.

Who is that statement even for?


Had Pres Obama been candidate Obama with a little convention Obama we would have been much better off, I'm sorry.


You can run a direct line from the mess were are in to a few events all the way back through Reagan...and Obama and dems not being more bold in 09 is definitely one of those things that got us here.

>
>Had Pres Obama been candidate Obama with a little convention
>Obama we would have been much better off, I'm sorry.
>
>
>You can run a direct line from the mess were are in to a few
>events all the way back through Reagan...and Obama and dems
>not being more bold in 09 is definitely one of those things
>that got us here.
>
>
>


Nothing would change no matter which Obama was President. The direct line goes from white supremacy to white supremacy.

>Nothing would change no matter which Obama was President. The
>direct line goes from white supremacy to white supremacy.

mitch has the votes
im beyond over alllll of this shit
just deleted all the news sites from my browser - i cant do it anymore
I will vote on the first day of early voting, but beyond that im mentally checking out of this whole shit. fuck everything.

You not goin fight ?

what else do you want me to do?
im fucking exhausted and over this shit and feeling pretty powerless right now

Here is the thread


https://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=13404201&mesg_id=13404201&page=

^^^^ What to do.

im done fighting for idiots that won't even fight for themselves
ill be at the ballot box - miss me with everything else
have fun fighting the good fight, im out of fucks to give

n/m

Democrats getting fuckin embarrassed as usual....

The whole debacle of the House/Senate during the Bush admin....

The ACA ending up basically being Romney's exact shit after Ted Kennedy died and then letting Republicans shit all over them about what was essentially a Republican style plan that they would have approved.

Getting rid of the filibuster because Republicans were bending them over on all of their appointments only for it to come back and bite them in the ass.

LETTING A SUPREME COURT SEAT GET HELD FOR ALMOST A FUCKING YEAR and then losing an election to Donald fucking Trump.

They're about to let another seat go because they have no fucking backbone.

Republicans would be politically burning the shit to the ground over this.

Were out here literally burning up Targets and shit and these mfkrs are playing chess.

The Democratic party is on some bullshit.

I'm still voting for Biden but man this is some sorry shit.

Dems once again being strong armed by the GOP.

But hey, at least they took a knee while wearing Kente cloth.

They need someone with some fucking nuts to stand up and get mad about this shit.

We need a candidate who will really fight. I applaud Obama and I have so much respect for that man but man I'm so over this trying to be the most calm and collected in the room shit.

Please save all of the there can;t be an angry black man rhetoric.....I get it.

But someone needs to step up and show some fuckin balls.

...to begin the impeachment proceedings that she never wanted brought forward ..the idea they they will ever "do something" to stop the GOP is laughable at this point ...they will bend over and take it as usual, with absolutely no fight.

it’s over..

It’s time for her to go.

Give the keys to AOC and her crew.

...but she's so good at "raising money" smh

Ran by people over 70. Term limits and even age limits are needed. We have people running this country that were born during WWII.

and we still have these old dirty bastards.

They all need to go.

I should start a tshirt store and just make ageist government propaganda.

If you are over 65 the door is thataway!!!

That they do not even understand or really use. I’m tired of old candidates trying to run this country. I love my grandparents who are in their 80s but they shouldn’t be allowed to drive, let alone be in charge of setting policy and regulations for this country.

using their flip phones with the big ass buttons.

That’s should let us know these people are too fucking old.

Biden is being joked because he looks like he’s lost half the time even if he’s all there. He’s old af.

How did we get here? When will it stop?

countries don't just pull themselves out of this by having better election results. there's going to be more violence and death, possibly for decades.

or not, maybe. The one thing we have going for us that Italy and Spain and Germany and Portugal (they had a peaceful revolution against fascism - but it took decades and they still understood it as a revolution that destroyed something old and created something new, not as liberal reform) is that Trump is super old and maintaining a fascist grip on a country *while* managing a power transition sounds pretty hard. even trying to set up the baby Trumps as heirs is going to require some level of normal politics to present them as fit to govern.

Folks are scared they will fill this seat. Nah. This seat is getting filled.

They have had their eye on the judiciary this entire time. No way they have been putting up with Trump's bullshit to not look like hypocrites to MSNBC.

Its done. It will be filled.

What's scary?


The only two question remain are-

Can Dems win big?

Do they have the balls to expand the court (among other things)?


I actually think they can pull off the first.


The second? I'm scared as shit. I'm imagining a scenario where Dems actually have the power and the public support...and still do nothing but some hand wringing, page turning, and "bipartisanship"


They have let themselves get fucked for at least over 10 years now....I hope this wakes them up.


But nothing has so far. Kids in cages, Russia, obstruction of justice, Barr's shit, winning popular vote but losing, Garland, I could go on and on.

Nothing has shaken them out of their bullshit.

Maybe RBG being somewhat of a folk hero to Dems will help? I dunno.

I don't see it.


Can anyone see the Dems expanding the court? DC a state?


I just can't.


Even when Dems get power, they refuse to use that power to keep it.

and that’s the problem. Dems would expand by 2 and the GOP will expand by 5 or form a loophole and shrink it down to 1 fucking judge.

The problem is the Dems go high when they go low.. and it’s not working.

>and that’s the problem. Dems would expand by 2 and the GOP
>will expand by 5 or form a loophole and shrink it down to 1
>fucking judge.

Can they just expand and pass a law saying "SC is capped at 11" or whatever?

>
>The problem is the Dems go high when they go low.. and it’s
>not working.
>

Yeah I'm not advocating going high. Packing the court would be huge.

But if packing the court is high, what is low? What do you think they should do?

We pack it to 11, the GOP gets in power and they pack it to 15.

I hate the whole “we go high, when they go low” as much as anyone but the GOP will simply just keep going lower than us.

Even getting rid of the filibuster, yeah it sounds like a great idea but what happens when the GOP is in control? Imagine if we had eliminated the filibuster under Obama, the GOP and Trump would have been able to pass whatever they wanted over these last 3 and a half years.

I think our best option right now is to try to get DC, PR statehood and possibly even the USVI. That would help tilt the senate to a more even footing.

Next, I wouldn’t pack the court but I would try to pass term limits on the court, make it a 18 year limit and make it effective immediately, which means you can get rid of Thomas and some of those Bush appointee SCOTUS would be termed out during Biden’s term.

I think people would support term limits on SCOTUS more than packing the court.

>We pack it to 11, the GOP gets in power and they pack it to
>15.
>
>I hate the whole “we go high, when they go low” as much as
>anyone but the GOP will simply just keep going lower than us.
>
>Even getting rid of the filibuster, yeah it sounds like a
>great idea but what happens when the GOP is in control?
>Imagine if we had eliminated the filibuster under Obama, the
>GOP and Trump would have been able to pass whatever they
>wanted over these last 3 and a half years.
>
>I think our best option right now is to try to get DC, PR
>statehood and possibly even the USVI. That would help tilt the
>senate to a more even footing.

you would need to get rid of the filibuster in order to do this.

>
>Next, I wouldn’t pack the court but I would try to pass term
>limits on the court, make it a 18 year limit and make it
>effective immediately, which means you can get rid of Thomas
>and some of those Bush appointee SCOTUS would be termed out
>during Biden’s term.

that would need a constitutional amendment. not gonna happen.

>
>I think people would support term limits on SCOTUS more than
>packing the court.

>We pack it to 11, the GOP gets in power and they pack it to
>15.

Can Dems pass a law setting a number? I honestly don't know.

>
>I hate the whole “we go high, when they go low” as much as
>anyone but the GOP will simply just keep going lower than us.
>
>Even getting rid of the filibuster, yeah it sounds like a
>great idea but what happens when the GOP is in control?
>Imagine if we had eliminated the filibuster under Obama, the
>GOP and Trump would have been able to pass whatever they
>wanted over these last 3 and a half years.

As opposed to...? What did the fillibuster stop the GOP from doing? How did the Trump tax cut get through with the filibuster?

The house has stopped them the last two years.

And...the GOP lowered the threshold for SC picks. Cuz they had to. So...if the Dems in the senate they should...play nice hoping the GOP plays nice next time?

This is the same shit that got us here.

Dems respecting norms the GOP gives two shits about.

>
>I think our best option right now is to try to get DC, PR
>statehood and possibly even the USVI. That would help tilt the
>senate to a more even footing.

Okay, and what laws are going to get passed that won't be struck down by a 6-3 GOP court?

>
>Next, I wouldn’t pack the court but I would try to pass term
>limits on the court, make it a 18 year limit and make it
>effective immediately, which means you can get rid of Thomas
>and some of those Bush appointee SCOTUS would be termed out
>during Biden’s term.
>
>I think people would support term limits on SCOTUS more than
>packing the court.

#1 Dems have to stop worrying about what moderates will fucking support. The GOP certainly gives zero fucks.

#2 I've seen many polls that show people are against filling this seat before the election. As I said, it won't stop the GOP. BUT...the Dems could certainly use that and some good messaging (far fetched) to get people to support court expansion.


So...here's where I am-


The only hope is court packing.


Other stuff- like DC statehood and voting rights- is extremely, extremely important but not as important as the SC.

Shit, just look at voting rights. A Dem gov passes voting rights legislation...it gets challenged and appealed to...a 6-3 court? What happens then?


Theres a reason the GOP will risk losing the Senate for this.


Well theres a few reasons. 1- Its worth it to them and 2- They think the Dems won't do shit about it- like court packing.

High reward low risk.


And, I'll be honest, I see their point. The Dems have been bullied for a decade plus...

I can't picture them expanding the court. I wish I could.

So...we probably (best case) will end up with DC statehood and a voting rights act that will be struck down.

Any other ideas? I'm not trying to be a smartass, but ... The SC is fucking important.


The "we cant do that because they will do it back" is the kind of thinking that got us here.

When Dems get power they need to use that power to stay in power.

All those norms haven't meant shit for years.

After two terms of Obama and a generational shift in rights and platform....

With Donald Trump with only one term so far as President about to possibly undo not just the Obama era gains.....but 50 fucking years of progress.


This shit is disgusting and disheartening to levels I've never seen. The amount of work and sacrifice people put into this shit jsut to see these assholes smugly wipe their asses with it is in infuriating and if the Democrats let it happen then fuck them too.

They need a stronger voice leading that party.

them to suddenly do the right thing now. They are going to hand over the ball on the 5 yard line.

This is it. This is what is all been about.


The problem is- even just focusing on the last 4 years- the GOP has faced very little resistance.

Nancy shut the government down once. For a couple days.


Oh, and impeached him on one very narrow thing- rather than all of his fuck ups.


Even now, they seem to think empty threats about another impeachment and Obama tweeting about what is fair and playing video of the GOP being hypocrites is going to work.

They literally came out and set a precedent with their "not confirming in an election year" bullshit and walked it back knowing it won't mean shit.

The fact that Democrats think that trying to get the public to shame them will somehow work better is also useless.

Trump has done a unconscionable amount of horrible shit and he's still got almost half of the country ready to line up and vote for him.

This battle has to be won with a show of force. They have to out petty them and out fight them. I know they don't want to but that's what it's going to take.

People are also going to have to pack up their niche agenda bullshit and stop pushing to the front of the line. We have to work together and put shit aside until were in position to push the shit through that we want. And we need to get as much done as possible at that point.

>After two terms of Obama and a generational shift in rights
>and platform....
>
>With Donald Trump with only one term so far as President about
>to possibly undo not just the Obama era gains.....but 50
>fucking years of progress.
>
>
>This shit is disgusting and disheartening to levels I've never
>seen. The amount of work and sacrifice people put into this
>shit jsut to see these assholes smugly wipe their asses with
>it is in infuriating and if the Democrats let it happen then
>fuck them too.
>
>They need a stronger voice leading that party.

Every time there's a shift in senate power, 5 more new judges lol
They're gonna have to book the ballroom at the Ramada for hearings by 2036.

All this talk hinges on Democrats taking control of the senate, which is going to take some luck.

But honestly, I can't see a path to stability for congress. It's been nothing but paranoia and retaliation for decades. So you better do what you want when you poppin.

They added an subtracted SC Judges before and it did not get to comical levels.

And they don’t give a fuck so they would pack it more when they got into power, then we would have to pack it some more and so on and so on.

It would basically be a SCOTUS packing arms race.

Going after Social Security and Medicare when it was created and still trying to destroy it now. Still going after Obamacare. You think the turtle wouldn't get rid of the filibuster for SC judges if the Dems didn't get rid of it for federal judges in 2013 ?

We’ve fell into the sunken

You have GOP running on Qanon conspiracies and WINNING!!!

Put nothing past these new idiots bruh

If they win make the most of it.

America likes its bigotry and racism. They wear it proudly.

We really need to stop seeing what we want to see and what should be.

I know it’s frustrating it the faster we accept this shit the easier it will be to navigate thru it.

America/Repubs are Lucy holding the football and we are Charlie Brown.

you need to not replace them when they die/retire and pass a law saying so or pass a constitutional amendment right?

Sounds like it.

?

How has the whole "Dems should respect norms or the GOP might get ideas" thing been going? Did I miss some things?

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/23/dianne-feinstein-supreme-court-battle-420357

Democrats worry Feinstein can’t handle Supreme Court battle

Colleagues fear the oldest senator may struggle to lead Democrats on the Judiciary Committee.

As the Senate prepares for yet another brutal Supreme Court nomination fight, one particularly sensitive issue is creating apprehension among Democrats: what to do with 87-year-old Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

Feinstein, the oldest member of the Senate, is widely respected by senators in both parties, but she has noticeably slowed in recent years. Interviews with more than a dozen Democratic senators and aides show widespread concern over whether the California Democrat is capable of leading the aggressive effort Democrats need against whoever President Donald Trump picks to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The Judiciary Committee is the critical battleground in the Supreme Court confirmation process. At stake, her own Democratic colleagues worry, is more than just whether the party can thwart Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in his rush to fill the seat. Some Democrats privately fear that Feinstein could mishandle the situation and hurt their chances of winning back the majority.


Feinstein sometimes gets confused by reporters’ questions, or will offer different answers to the same question depending on where or when she’s asked. Her appearance is frail. And Feinstein's genteel demeanor, which seems like it belongs to a bygone Senate era, can lead to trouble with an increasingly hard-line Democratic base uninterested in collegiality or bipartisan platitudes.

Just this week, Feinstein infuriated progressives after declaring her opposition to ending the Senate’s legislative filibuster — a top goal of party activists if Democrats win full control of the Congress and White House in November. Some on the left called on her to resign over the comments, although other Democratic moderates have expressed similar views.

In a phone interview, Feinstein pushed back hard against suggestions she could no longer effectively serve as ranking member of the Judiciary panel or is incapable of handling the upcoming nomination fight.

“I’m really surprised and taken aback by this. Because I try to be very careful and I’m puzzled by it,” Feinstein told POLITICO. “My attendance is good, I do the homework, I try to ask hard questions. I stand up for what I believe in.”

Feinstein relies heavily on her ever-present staff to deal with any issues, frequently turning to them for help in responding to inquiries. Feinstein had to be coaxed into wearing a mask around the Senate during the early days of the pandemic, despite being part of the most vulnerable age groups for the disease. She’s only made two floor speeches in the last nine months, her last being in early July, although she remains active in committee hearings.

And then there’s the lingering fallout over Feinstein’s role in the hugely controversial Judiciary Committee hearings for Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, an issue that factors deeply into the questions about her suitability for this latest nomination fight.

Feinstein waited for several weeks before disclosing allegations by Christine Blasey Ford that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when they were teenagers. The bombshell accusations nearly sank Kavanaugh’s nomination, and senators in both parties questioned why Feinstein didn’t move more quickly to disclose Blasey Ford’s statement.

A Democratic senator, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said a group of Feinstein’s colleagues want Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) or Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) to serve as the top Democrat on the Judiciary panel for the upcoming nomination hearings, which are expected to be extraordinarily contentious. This senator is worried that potential missteps by Feinstein could cost Democrats seats.

“She’s not sure what she’s doing,” the Democratic senator said of Feinstein. “If you take a look at Kavanaugh, we may be short two senators because of that. And if this gets up, it may be the same result.”

“I think it could impact a number of seats we can win,” the senator added.

Another Democratic senator said party leaders were “in an impossible position,” pointing out that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y) and other senior Democrats can’t replace a female senator for hearings on an expected female nominee to replace a deceased female Supreme Court justice.

However, the senator said there have been discussions among some Democrats about making changes to the seniority system next year due to their concerns over Feinstein. The California Democrat would be Judiciary chair if Democrats win the majority.

A third Democratic senator put it this way: “She can’t pull this off.”

Other Democrats privately said there have been complaints to party leaders that Feinstein is not capable of handling the Judiciary post in the current situation. Some of these senators said Feinstein should have retired rather than run for reelection in 2018 at age 85. Feinstein’s age was an issue in that campaign and was raised repeatedly in news reports, but she defeated Democrat Kevin de Leon by almost 10 points.

Feinstein has already stumbled once in tangling with Amy Coney Barrett, who is widely seen as the frontunner to be Trump's Supreme Court nominee. At a 2017 hearing for an appeals court seat, Feinstein told Barrett that “the dogma lives loudly within you” — a remark that was instantly seized upon as anti-Catholic bias by Republicans.

Schumer declined to comment on Feinstein or her role on the Judiciary Committee.

To Feinstein, her work on the panel is comparable to what she’s seen from other Democratic ranking members across the Senate.

“And so it's difficult for me to see, I don't know what people expect,” Feinstein said. “I’ve been on the committee for a while. I’ve seen how the committee works and I’ve seen how other chairs on our side of the aisle work. I don’t see, to be very blunt and honest, I don’t see a big difference. I’m prepared, so that’s puzzling to me.”

Feinstein also pointed out that as the minority, Democrats only have limited weapons to wield in any nomination fight. McConnell eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, so Democrats can slow the confirmation process down, but they can’t stop it as long as Republicans stick together.

“Let me say this — I know it’s going to be a fight, I understand that.” Feinstein said. “I don’t have a lot of tools to use, but I’m going to use what I have. We can try to delay and obstruct but they can run this process through. That doesn’t mean that we won’t fight tooth and nail.”

Feinstein — the first woman to serve as ranking member on Judiciary — has built a long record of legislative success since becoming a senator. She authored the 1994 assault weapons ban, pushed to increase automobile fuel-efficiency standards, and has been a leader on environmental and civil rights issues. Feinstein also led a long probe into the CIA's post-9/11 interrogation and detention programs that led to the historic 2014 torture report.

When asked whether Feinstein is still capable of doing the job of ranking member, Durbin said, “I believe she is.” Durbin is next in line on the panel behind Feinstein. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has served longer on Judiciary than any other Democrat, but he serves as ranking member on Appropriations and can't hold both positions.

Durbin said he wasn’t aware of any discussion over replacing Feinstein. And as to suggestions from some of his colleagues that he should take over the Judiciary post, Durbin added, “I’m not going to get into that speculation.”

Whitehouse, a former U.S. attorney, wasn’t eager to discuss the Feinstein situation either, offering only a terse comment on the matter.

“She’s a very distinguished lady for whom I have great affection,” Whitehouse said, declining to comment any further.

There is recent Senate precedent in both parties for replacing senior senators who are seen as no longer capable of handling the job.

The late Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) was replaced as the chairman of the Armed Services Committee during the late 1990s. And in 2008, the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) voluntarily gave up his role as Appropriations Committee chairman. Over on the House side, committee chairs have been forced out at several key panels in recent decades, including Appropriations and Energy and Commerce.

But Feinstein is also not alone when it comes to aging lawmakers in powerful positions.

Feinstein is the second-oldest member of Congress behind Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), who is almost two weeks older. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Finance Committee, is also 87, while Appropriations Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) is 86. Armed Services Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who is seeking reelection this year, is 85. Among House leadership — Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn are 80 and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is 81. Former Vice President Joe Biden will turn 78 shortly after Election Day and Trump is 74.

Some Judiciary Committee Democrats defended Feinstein and said they see no reason to try to replace her as ranking member.

“She’s an extraordinary person and I’m fully confident in her leadership,” said Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.).

“Her leadership has been really steadfast and courageous,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). “She has extraordinary insights and instincts based on her vast experience. I see no reason to question this leadership.”