Why is everyone saying that if Trump and the Republicans steal another Supreme Court seat they will lose re-election to the Dems for sure?
And that the Democrats will then just add more justices to the Supreme Court to even it out (which they would be completely justified in doing)
- Lois GriffinLv 71 month agoFavourite answer
because those whose rights are under assault will be motivated to vote.
even you admit they would be "completely justified in doing" ---- so, does that answer your question?
- Anonymous1 month ago
I don't think that the electoral results are sure yet. But I do think that a rushed confirmation would probably be more helpful to Biden than Trump.
The reason that it might help Trump is that it gives him another accomplishment to campaign on. His pitch to voters in general is the economy but to conservatives it's also about judges. He's appointed a lot of conservative judges and if you agree with conservative politics then he's done a lot of good in shaping the judiciary. The prospect of having a long term 6-3 conservative majority on the court would be a real feather in his cap.
But I think that will be of limited electoral help for him. That's because the appointment is mainly of importance to conservatives. No one who isn't conservative is going to see this as a reason to vote for him. On the flip side, I don't think that any conservatives who are so turned off by Trump that they're actually going to cross the aisle and vote for a Democrat, are suddenly going to jump back on the Trump train because he appointed a new Justice. That ship's probably already sailed. Maybe he can prevent a little bit of deterioration of his conservative support by shoring up people who haven't quite made the break with him. But that's probably about it.
On the other side, I think that while a rushed Trump appointment would be a policy debacle for liberals it would be an electoral bonus for Biden and other Democrats. Biden has done a great job of reaching out to centrist, and even conservative, voters who are disgusted with Trump. But there's concern that maybe he's not doing enough to keep more left wing voters in line. These people helped sink Clinton's candidacy last time around and if they decide to stay home then they could sink Biden's too. But Ginsburg's death will probably help shore up this part of the voter since it makes the idea of Supreme Court vacancies very real. Left wing voters won't want Trump to get a chance to appoint any more justices and will probably be more likely to vote for Biden in November.
It will probably also, on balance, help Democratic candidates. In the House it's largely a non issue, although if it juices overall Democratic turnout it will help those candidates. In the Senate it will help. Democratic Senators won't have to take awkward positions on the vote because all of them except Alabama Senator Doug Jones are in safe Democratic states (and Jones is almost certain to lose anyway). But the vacancy will probably help Democratic challengers in the Senate races. It will be a fundraising boon and probably help increase turnout. It will also offer new lines of attack in closely run states. For example, after Ruth Bader Ginsburg's family, the person who this death is probably worst for is Susan Collins of Maine. The moderate is locked in a tough competition against her Democratic challenger Sarah Gideon. She's already reeling badly in Maine for her vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh. Now theres this. If Collins votes to push through a rushed nomination then Gideon is just going to absolutely hammer her with it. She could lose the race. OTOH, if she votes not to go forward with the nomination then the more conservative voters in the state might abandon her, and she could lose the race. Maine is probably the starkest difficulty that a Republican Senator will face on this but it could impact other races as well. The big problem for them is that all of these Senators up for reelection (except for Martha McSally in Arizona and Kelly Loeffler in Georgia who are in special elections) were in office in 2016 and publicly took the position that it was completely inappropriate for a President to nominate a Supreme Court Justice in an election year. To appoint one now they'd have to completely go back on their previous statements and that's going to be difficult for them, and perhaps politically costly.
- Anonymous1 month ago
Scared tactic by the terrified media
- Anonymous1 month ago
Everything you just said is complete nonsense. Supreme Court Justices are confirmed by the Senate they cannot e stolen and in order to add Justices to the Supreme court would require not only the Democrats to win the White House which appears highly unlikely but the Senate as well and hold the majority in the House of Representatives. The chances of all three happening this time around are about zero percent but keep dreaming!
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- CatharineLv 51 month ago
I'm not saying that. I pity the *Americans* that r unbothered by his compulsive lying and shady dealings with the 2+ trillion that was supposed to help the country not pad the pockets of him and his buddies. Obviously corrupt and cheating on numerous levels. He is corrupt and so are those that dont mind the demise of our country for the sake of their political party keeping power at all costs
- CMoneyLv 41 month ago
Everyone is correct on that!
- thomas fLv 71 month ago
What we really need is a Constitutional Amendment that addresses Abortion. Roe v. Wade has made the US Supreme Court way, way too politicized.
- Pearl LLv 71 month ago
cause that could happen