Yes, as Rush and others have pointed out, such is being bandied about. Heretofore the McConnell* (and others) “next election” ploy. To the effect, ~~ you know things are close in the Senate, we really need more Republican there and in the House. Better to have this Supreme Court thing out there to help turn-out support for Republicans, otherwise if we get someone through now voters will think things are in order and not turn out and Democrats will take over and stop Trump’s agenda. ~~.
This set forth by Republicans not known for championing Trump’s agenda.
There are a number of reasons to get a conservative nominee through NOW. For one thing any justice including one of the conservatives could expire/retire suddenly. If it were a liberal who were to retire, all the better, but they are certainly intent on weathering what they consider the great setback.** Another vacancy could happen from the departure of a conservative as happened to us with Scalia’s passing. And the damage of liberal jurisprudence is ongoing.
The electoral politics of the SCOTUS nomination and approval process left dangling this fall seems to me to work more for Democrats. Better it be taken off the table for them. Let their organizers and funders be demoralized and resigned to defeat as Trump’s policies also work to free Democrat plantation residents, White, Black and Brown from their yokes and blinders.
The Democrat die-hards will overplay their hand with the SCOTUS position filled. They will talk of the need to stop Trump, try to inspire revolution, riot will be their persona. The radicals will dominate. That will turn off significant numbers of weak but otherwise fairly dependable Democrat voters. It will energize Trump supporters and leaners. I think that is at least as likely a scenario as one to keep the position unfilled so as to inspire Republican turn-out. Besides it is not certain that a percentage of Trump voters would not be disgusted with Republican leadership for their failure to confirm and not turn out or vote third party.
True, the Democrats will be nutty either way but there are other nuances to this in my judgement. As alluded to in articles linked to or set forth below a Senate vote prior to the fall election (late summer hopefully) may predictably result in a victory ala Gorsuch. More Senate Democrats are up and a number of them in states that Trump carried. A vote against Trump on such a high-profile timely matter is awful risky for them (assuming McConnell’s competence). If they do vote against the Trump nominee will that not inspire Trump supporters to turn them out thus helping with the next appointment and the Senate majority? Arguably voting on a nominee ASAP gives the Democrats the rope to hang themselves.
The politics of this is not 100% predictable but a vote soon is a bird in the hand scenario and could garner two in the bush. R Mall
Articles of interest:
Not only is she not going to get any Republicans to vote against Trump’s SCOTUS pick, there will likely be a handful of Democrats who vote with them. According to Tom Goldstein of the highly respected SCOTUSblog, Trump’s SCOTUS nominee will get 56 Senate votes. “The real issue is this, Democrats are going to have to vote because there’s no procedural way to stop it before the midterm election and there’s just too many people who are running in elections, senators, in states that Donald Trump won,” Goldstein said on MSNBC
*McConnell says he will pursue the SCOTUS hearings and a vote ASAP prior to the fall election (it should be prior to early voting) and presumably swat down any delaying tactics by Democrats. That he must do.
**It would be nice if one or more would be induced by the arrival of a solid conservative majority to give up and retire. All the better, but we doubt it.