The false furor over a SCOTUS appointment

[takncarabizniz]

Yes, there is a process and it's not an overnight thing.  Why continue to push a narrative that the Senate will simply railroad someone in without the proper vetting...which would ultimately cause more delays, because you know there would be filings, suits, and filibusters in the senate to stop it. 

I would expect that any nominee could be announced at any time and still take at least 2 months to work through confirmation.  We're already nearly into October, and frankly, Trump would be a total idiot to nominate someone who is not worthy of the position.  He should choose very carefully because a super majority of  moderate justices will serve this nation more appropriately.


https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=365722&p=2471070

The Process
The President usually will consult with Senators before announcing a nomination.

When the President nominates a candidate, the nomination is sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration.

The Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing on the nominee. The Committee usually takes a month to collect and receive all necessary records, from the FBI and other sources, about the nominee and for the nominee to be prepared for the hearings.

During the hearings, witnesses, both supporting and opposing the nomination, present their views. Senators question the nominee on his or her qualifications, judgment, and philosophy.

The Judiciary Committee then votes on the nomination and sends its recommendation (that it be confirmed, that it be rejected, or with no recommendation) to the full Senate.

The full Senate debates the nomination.

The Senate rules used to allow unlimited debate (a practice known as filibustering) and to end the debate, it required the votes of 3/5 of the Senate or 60 senators (known as the cloture vote).  In April 2017, the Senate changed this rule and lowered the required votes to 51 to end debate on Supreme Court nominations (this is commonly known as "the nuclear option").

When the debate ends, the Senate votes on the nomination. A simple majority of the Senators present and voting is required for the judicial nominee to be confirmed. If there is a tie, the Vice President who also presides over the Senate casts the deciding vote.

[Jim]

 
Part #2 is: WHO would even accept a nomination in such a heated time like now?
 

[Truman62]

“For weeks, I have stated that I would not support taking up a potential Supreme Court vacancy this close to the election,” the Alaska Republican said in a statement. “Sadly, what was then a hypothetical is now our reality, but my position has not changed.”

Murkowski joins Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) as the only GOP senators to so far oppose Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s effort to fill Ginsburg’s seat immediately. McConnell can only afford to lose three Republicans.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/murkowski-opposes-moving-forward-with-supreme-court-nomination/ar-BB19enMf?ocid=msedgdhp

So Pence could now break the tie to put Trump's nominee to a vote.
How sad would THAT be?
One more and it puts the brakes on this GOP Power Play, and the American people get to decide.

[chuck_curtis]

There is no railroading.  Announcing a nominee is only the first step, and the Senate will do what the Senate does from there.  This happens all the time, and with many court candidates so far under Trump and other presidents.  What you have is a fake narrative being railroaded.

[takncarabizniz]

Chuck that is how the media and democrats are now portraying Mitch McConnell's statements on this.  That he will use his "super majority" to push someone, anyone through...that is why more fringe groups like "ditch Mitch or die trying" is stealing gullible people's money with their gofundmes and donation campaigns, run by organizations like crooked media...

https://crooked.com/team/


Jim, too true.  A true SCOTUS nominee would say "whoa"...

[wvit1001]

The women Trump planning to replace RBG with

[chuck_curtis]

There have been numerous SC judges appointed and approved in "lame duck" sessions.   There is nothing spectacular here.

[Jim]

 
Lets also not forget that Obama nominated Merrick Garland in his 4th year.  Garland was never confirmed, but he WAS nominated in March of '16.  So you on the Left can just stop with this "its taboo" bullshit.
 

[justincase]

As with everything...it's always wrong if the other side does it.

[fun n games]

.
You otto know justin.

[darkflower]

Merrick was nominated and not controversial. Yes. And what did the senate do for nearly a year? Ignored it. Not one move to consider it. That's the hypocrisy. No principle involved, just who benefits.