Thoughts on RBG possibly stepping down before 2020? How ugly is the confirmation process and what will Democrats use as a smear tactic. This will be particularly interesting if Trump nominates Amy Comey Barrett. The Democrats will look horrible as the "party of women" if they have a Brett Kavanaugh -esque circus attacking Barrett. This would be a massive win for Trump.
| +50 | Interviews Are So Fake | 33 | 3h | |
| +33 | 2024 UK Election - Tories finished? | 21 | 1d | |
| +29 | ADHD ! | 13 | 1h | |
| +28 | Being Christian in investment banking | 14 | 2d | |
| +26 | Non-Competes Banned | 30 | 6s | |
| How do I become Sigma | 15 | 22h | ||
| +19 | Moelis has the cutest Analysts? | 4 | 2d | |
| +18 | Best NYC neighborhood for single 30M | 12 | 3d | |
| +16 | Underage intern, drinking? | 7 | 2d | |
| +13 | Secretive vs Universal Prestige? | 7 | 2d |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
This is interesting, looking forward for comments
If it happens near the end of the year its a pretty simple response tbh. No Supreme Court Justice in a president’s last year.
I think what you are incorrectly referring to is a nomination during an election year. This is just plain false as there are multiple instances in history where presidents have nominated Supreme Court Nominees in an election year. FDR in 1940, Eisenhower in 1956, LBJ who had 2 failed nominees in the election year in which he decided not to run again, and Reagan who nominated Anthony Kennedy in his final term.
Better get a phresh diploma my man.
I was being completely facetious. There is no rule in any regard. I'm referencing Mitch McConnell subverting the will of the people in order to not allow the sitting President to nominate a judge. If the Democrats are going to showcase that they can govern and not be ran over, they must put their foot down in the same regard and stop trying to act better than the GOP. It is clear that they are not playing on even ground.
That is assuming Trump does not win 2020. It happened to Obama in the last year of his second term. So I don't think it's that simple...tbh.
Trump adds another Scotus pick and win's 2020 despite sabotage from DOJ and other departments.
Highly doubt she steps down before 2020. If she passes away though, that's obviously a different story.
A non smoker with the type of cancer she has doesn’t originate in the lungs, it travels to the lungs.
She’s dying.
You really don't know her medical situation better than anyone else. Bunch of reports today say no more signs of cancer.
Trump should hedge and make a deal with RBG: she steps down and Trump nominates Garland. He’s much more centrist than she is and the Dems get the moral victory of it not going to a conservative. Win/win.
In a plot twist, Trump nominates a liberal and gets his wall in return.
Oh, that’s an interesting idea.
Don’t think it will happen cus he probably wants as much of a crony as he can get to make sure he doesn’t get indicted, but this would probably be the best thing for America since it legitimates the court by giving us the same judges we would’ve had if they hadn’t changed the rules for garland/Obama, and maybe also the best thing for the conservative movement long term since he’s relatively moderate and another obvious partisan like Kavanaugh makes it more likely that we go to 12 or 13 the next time the dems have the chance.
You really think ANYONE believes "his word" at this point? His word is worth less than Jamie Lannister's to anyone who has dealt with him. Also, Mitch McConnell would never allow it anyways.
The Lannisters never filed Chapter 11.
Unless she is unable to perform the responsibilities of a SCOTUS, I highly doubt she would step down.
The reason I bring this up is because she is on record in 2016 saying, " I will retire when it's time. And when is it time? When I can't do the job full steam." One could definitely make an argument that missing oral arguments for two weeks in a row for the first time in her career is an example of not being able to perform the job full steam.
One could also make the argument that taking two weeks off of work to recover from surgery is pretty normal
One question is does she still have the capacity to read 200 briefs and write opinions per year anymore? I never doubted that RBG can do her job perfectly in good health, but with recent treatments and age in general, she might not be able to fulfill her duty.
The Supreme court should have term limits, so should congress. 16 years for the court and 12 years for the house and senate. Or something in that range.
Disagree. Not sure why expertise is discredited so heavily in favor of "fresh blood."
Some thoughts: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/01/18/five-reasons-to-oppose…
That’s why when dems have the chance I think they should increase the number of justices so that they have one more and then propose an amendment including a fixed number of justices and term limits in exchange for kicking out the last Justice and having a balanced court (maybe even force a partisan balance like they do for some of the regulatory agencies) since, as the attempts to reform the electoral college have shown, you’re not gonna convince anybody on the right to give up their undemocratic governing advantages without making it so that it’s immediately in their favor.
Trump has nominated two serious candidates. If he gets a third I hope he has fun with it. Justice Kanye West 2020.
The bad thing is, I actually think you're serious. People really still don't understand how serious the government bodies are do they?
I can only hope she steps down before the 2020 elections
She's a little old for my tastes but I would still smash. SCJILF amirite bois
Honest thoughts on RBG... Forgetting the fall for a moment, because that's the lesser issue here, RBG is a 4x Cancer survivor. The reports that have come out have said that nothing was found post-surgery. They didn't say that she's cancer-free. I want to make that distinction here because it's important. I wouldn't be shocked if she has metastatic or Stage IV as a result. 4 bouts with cancer is a tough ordeal. If I were to advise her, I would hope she steps down to focus on her health and enjoying the rest of her life.
That said, my feeling is that she either dies or steps down before 2020. I don't see her making it through 2020. While I would argue that what happened to Obama with Garland won't happen to Trump thru the election, it will be interesting if the Dems take both houses in 2020, Trump wins and RBG makes it that long. Will they try and push 2 Years without a full bench until the next election (and that will fuck them). But that's neither here nor there, for the moment. Under the assumption that Trump gets a 3rd SC nomination, the issue comes down to who Trump nominates. If it's a guy, I expect it to go much darker, dirtier, and lower than Kavanaugh did. Even if this guy has a spotless record, the Dems will try to throw everything at him. It doesn't matter how deep they dig, they will either find something or manufacture something to smear him.
Now, Amy Coney Barrett (ACB) is an interesting case. First, she's ultra-conservative, anti-abortion, Catholic, and female. They can't nail her on religious grounds The majority of Democratic leadership in both houses (Hoyer, Clyburn, and Jefferies in the House, and Stabenow in the Senate are all Non-Catholic Christian, while Pelosi, Lujan while Crowley in the House and Durbin, and Muarry in the Senate are both Catholic. On the Senate Judiciary Committee, Durbin and Leahy are both Catholic, while the majority of the Democrats serving are all Non-Catholic Christian) are Christian. They won't risk alienating that voting block because she's Catholic. And if someone does, I wouldn't be shocked if they hear from Durbin, Muarry, Pelosi Lujan and Crowley behind closed doors. ACB is a woman and no Democrat on the committee would smear her as sexist because that goes against identity politics. The fact that she's white won't be as big of an issue as people might think because if they harp on that, then they will lose support. They can't get her on being unqualified on a majority of issues because of her background - her education is spotless (Magna Cum Laude from Rhodes College, Summa Cum Laude from Notre Dame Law and Executive Editor of the Law Review), Clerked for judges on the US Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, served in private practice, and is currently teaching. The only area that they can knock her on is time on the bench, but we're almost two years into her tenure, so that's diminishing. As a woman, they can't knock her on being anti-abortion because if it's her body and her right to choose, then her opinion should be valid and respected despite being the antithesis of theirs. The only way this gets bad for ACB is if they dig deep and discover something that is so horrendous, it makes her a racist, xenophobic, transphobic, or it has come to light that she has done something so egregious as to challenge her suitability. Forget the gender gap question too because she's a woman; so that's out of the question. For the Dems to smear her, they would need to go extremely low and it will alienate their base. There's no way that her hearings get ugly to the level of Kavanaugh. If they do, then it fractures the Democrats even more.
Simply put, if Trump nominates a qualified woman, it'll be rough but it won't be tough to get her through even with the majority in the Senate. If he nominates a man, let's just say the Dems will do everything to make it nuclear.
You are aware that Trump has nominated and had confirmed two judges, and only for one of them did the Dems "try to throw everything at him." Which is, of course, because there was an accusation that he was a rapist, in addition to being an alcoholic and a liar without the temperament to be a judge.
This idea that the liberal wing of the Senate is somehow rampantly flouting their duty to the Constitution, their constituents, and the nation as a whole in order to discredit right-wing SCOTUS nominees is inherently absurd. Neil Gorsuch got through with barely a whisper. And the whole fucking point of confirming a SCOTUS nominee is exactly so that people like Brett Kavanaugh don't get through. It's why Harriet Miers didn't either; she (and he, really, though partisanship always wins) wasn't fit to be an Associate Justice. If the Senate GOP had even a shred of dignity or impartiality left, it would have acknowledged all this. Moreover, if Justice Kavanaugh had had even the slightest bit of common sense, his confirmation hearings would never have descended to the point they did. All he had to do was say when those allegations first came to light is something along the lines of "this doesn't sound like me, I wouldn't do something like that, I'm sorry if this person has been the victim of assault but her memory is not accurate," or really anything other than taking it straight to a place of pure partisanship.
Now, it's interesting you brought up Gorsuch because I didn't mention him. His hearings went through without a major hitch - until the Dems filibustered him and it forced a nuclear option on the part of the Republicans. I wouldn't call the use of a nuclear option "barely a whisper". I would say that's a pretty loud bang. That's a partisan move. Lest ye forget the pot shots taken by the Dems on the committee during the hearing. By comparison to Kavanaugh's hearing, it was a rather tame affair. It doesn't mean it wasn't contentious. That said, I was quite specific that if the next candidate for SCOTUS was male, the Dems would try and do everything to not let him get through. The reason why I didn't mention Gorsuch was for that very reason - by all accounts, he is a competent, well-respected jurist who is qualified to serve and saw no major issues arise during the hearings. He got through relatively unscathed. But that's not the issue - it's that now the stage is set post-Kavanaugh for a contentious battle if Trump has another nomination.
With Kavanaugh, the issue here isn't that they tried to throw everything at him. Truth is, I expected that. However, the way in which they did it was a new level of low which politicized the court. The issues with Kavanaugh came to light in such a malicious fashion. I'm not going to argue his temperament nor will I argue his jurisprudence, as I don't think that the underlying issue here centers around that. Kavanaugh, for all of his issues, had completed his hearings on September 7th. The allegations did not come forward until 7 days after the hearings were over - Sen. Finestein knew about the allegations since July and waited until after the hearings were finished to refer the investigation to the FBI. If that's not a low blow (Waiting until after the hearing is complete and sitting on that kind of information then dropping it in that fashion) to discredit someone, then I don't know what is. Again, this isn't an argument on Kavanaugh's qualifications nor is it meant to argue his partisan response, it's an argument on the circus that was this hearing. The Dems pulled out a Trump card in the hopes of getting Kavanaugh to recuse himself, which I would have been fine with if this were done during the initial hearings. Instead, they opened a Pandora's box that proved to be a low blow. If it were a non-Trump nominee, I honestly think it would have happened during the hearing and not after it.
Here's the rub, how much of this was because this was a "Trump Nominee" as opposed to a Left-leaning or more moderate nomination? It's 2018, people are looking to bolster their resumes for 2020. Kamala Harris is expected to announce her candidacy in a few days. Cory Booker and Amy Klobacher are both exploring whether to run or not. If you ask me, this makes the theatrics absolutely perfect to help bolster support. I would argue that they aren't flouting their duties, but are they are walking a very thin line. The job of the Senate Judiciary Committee is to listen to testimony, ask questions, and hear the facts that may indicate that the nominee is not fit to serve. This whole Blasey Ford issue should have been addressed during the hearings proper instead of after the fact. Instead, that 11th-hour play was a partisan move that showed the Dems would do anything to stop this nomination. That's a very thin line to walk. It's not about discrediting a nominee. It's their job to raise issues that may prove a nominee is not fit to sit on the Supreme Court Bench. However, it is their job to do it properly and not debase themselves by pulling stunts at the last minute to get their way. That's a blatant move to discredit someone they don't agree with, and that's where the problem lies. The candidate Trump nominates, regardless of gender, will have to prepare to expect this kind of behavior. It further drives the court in a partisan direction and it would not shock me if we see the next Democrat-controlled government try and stuff the courts if he can to obtain a left-leaning majority. Again, that's partisan behavior which walks that thin line.
Now, if you don't think the next male nominee is going to have an extremely difficult time getting through the committee or if ACB gets nominated, she's going to get through relatively unscathed, I'm interested to hear your thoughts on that.
Hopefully she'll live to 120
There are no moderates on the left. Only communists in sheeps clothing.
The moderates in the Left are turning to the Republican Party and moderating the Republicans. In less than a decade, the GOP and old-line Democrats are going to be allied in trying to preserve capitalism and freedom of speech in the United States. I've got a gay liberal co-worker who hates Trump who is genuinely terrified at what's happening in the Democratic party. He hasn't been entirely clear about how he'd vote if Bernie Sanders were nominated, but from what I gather he would not pull the lever for Sanders.
Anyway, we've seen this happen in the UK. New Labour abandoned the Labour Party when the communists (with little hyperbole, they are Maduro-supporting communists) took over the Labour Party. That move has basically left the Tories the default party for center-left and right voters.
I think that it's going to happen faster than you think. I don't think it's less than a decade. I think it's after the 2020 election we see the real schism happen. We're already seeing that with Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. Her policies and agenda are on the far left and it's causing some fracturing within her own party. She has already been scolded by Rep. Cleaver about her actions with a warning to "fall in line" and "not attack her own party". Going it alone would make her agenda much harder to push, and this warning sounds like a back-door pushback against what she is doing. This sentiment has been echoed by 20 or so other Democratic legislators. There are democrats concerned over the push to put her on committees that she hasn't earned the right to serve on yet. Just imagine if she's on the Finance Committee - that would roil the markets.
Not only that, one of the biggest progressive groups she supports (Justice Democrats) is openly targeting Blue-Dog Democrats and has their sights set on unseating Henry Culver of Texas. Culver's seat is one of the few strongly secure democrat seats in the deep south, which makes that an interesting race to watch for 2020. Who knows if they will shoot for more seats, but a move like that would further fracture the party and turn those seats red if voters don't like the message they are hearing from these progressive candidates.
With the far left pushing an identity politics/social justice based agenda, the amount of pressure that the Democrats face to keep things together is growing. The fracturing is growing. For old-line Democrats, 2020 is where they have to stand and begin preaching more conservative values if they want to keep their seats, stand up for free speech and capitalism. It's going to be an ugly race in 2020 for that reason. Personally, I think 2020 is the tipping point with this identity politics bullshit and people finally become 100% fed up with the entire ordeal. I have a feeling that I'm in the minority with that viewpoint, but I firmly believe it will get a lot uglier regardless of who wins the presidency.
Very few moderates period these days, left or right
ACB groped me between 1980 and 1982 just want to put it on record. May not have been born yet, but I'm so credible.
What happens if Trump goes full meme and nominates Ivanka?
I don't think even he would do that, but liberals would jump out of buildings.
There's a rumour she'll be head of the World Bank, which is terrific. A worthless person in a worthless institution, depriving it of a legitimacy it doesn't deserve.
Ya'll still on the Trump train?
Can't believe that seemingly accomplished and intelligent people would still want the man child around until 2024... Come on how many times can be blatantly lie before people start seeing him for what he is...
I'm honestly hoping he runs opposed, because the left looks scary.. for the future.
Non a suscipit quas distinctio omnis dolorum ipsa. Totam quidem ipsam saepe fuga aut porro dolore. Quia ut sint ut commodi.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Necessitatibus fugit aut adipisci explicabo beatae in. Sed et omnis ex non. Necessitatibus harum tenetur quam sequi voluptatum.
Et in odit molestias vel magni quae occaecati debitis. Quo ea esse dolor aut rem est.
Quis reiciendis consequuntur quia sint. Aut voluptatibus iure et sed. Temporibus id ipsam vel ut eos.
Blanditiis aliquid sed quos tempore cumque aperiam. Error sunt dolore error eum alias voluptatibus. Et quidem quia atque et rerum ratione.