This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/19/us/politics/mitch-mcconnell-trump-supreme-court.html

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
How Mitch McConnell Can Quickly Push Through Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee How Mitch McConnell Can Quickly Push Through Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee
(about 3 hours later)
WASHINGTON — Hours after the Supreme Court announced the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, vowed that the Senate would vote on a replacement named by President Trump, setting up what is all but guaranteed to be a heated fight over the nation’s highest court that carries heavy political consequences.WASHINGTON — Hours after the Supreme Court announced the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, vowed that the Senate would vote on a replacement named by President Trump, setting up what is all but guaranteed to be a heated fight over the nation’s highest court that carries heavy political consequences.
That statement answered the question of whether Mr. McConnell, who in 2016 blocked President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee because it was an election year, would dare try to confirm one named by Mr. Trump so close to an election. He would. Now the question is, can Mr. McConnell pull it off?That statement answered the question of whether Mr. McConnell, who in 2016 blocked President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee because it was an election year, would dare try to confirm one named by Mr. Trump so close to an election. He would. Now the question is, can Mr. McConnell pull it off?
The process is likely to be ugly, but it can be done. Here’s how it works.The process is likely to be ugly, but it can be done. Here’s how it works.
No.No.
Democrats eliminated the 60-vote threshold for most judicial nominees in 2013, frustrated by Republicans’ use of the filibuster to slow and impede Mr. Obama’s agenda. In turn, angered by resistance to the nomination of Justice Neil M. Gorsuch in 2017, Republicans abolished the limitation on Supreme Court nominees, further whittling down the scope of the filibuster.Democrats eliminated the 60-vote threshold for most judicial nominees in 2013, frustrated by Republicans’ use of the filibuster to slow and impede Mr. Obama’s agenda. In turn, angered by resistance to the nomination of Justice Neil M. Gorsuch in 2017, Republicans abolished the limitation on Supreme Court nominees, further whittling down the scope of the filibuster.
As a result, Mr. McConnell could bring the nomination to the Senate floor and approve it with a simple majority vote. Mr. Trump signaled on Saturday that he would formally name someone to fill the vacancy in the near future.As a result, Mr. McConnell could bring the nomination to the Senate floor and approve it with a simple majority vote. Mr. Trump signaled on Saturday that he would formally name someone to fill the vacancy in the near future.
“We have this obligation, without delay!” he tweeted, referring to the selection of justices.“We have this obligation, without delay!” he tweeted, referring to the selection of justices.
It remains unclear, however, whether Mr. McConnell, himself up for re-election along with a handful of vulnerable Republican incumbents, will try to advance the nomination before Election Day. He could also opt to do so in a lame-duck congressional session after Nov. 3. It remained unclear, however, whether Mr. McConnell, himself up for re-election along with a handful of vulnerable Republican incumbents, would try to advance the nomination before Election Day. He could also opt to do so in a lame-duck congressional session after Nov. 3.
It depends.It depends.
Because Republican hold a slim majority — 53 to 47 — Democrats would need only four Republicans to join them in opposition to sink the nominee. (In the case of a tie, Vice President Mike Pence, in his role as president of the Senate, would cast the tiebreaking vote.)Because Republican hold a slim majority — 53 to 47 — Democrats would need only four Republicans to join them in opposition to sink the nominee. (In the case of a tie, Vice President Mike Pence, in his role as president of the Senate, would cast the tiebreaking vote.)
Though Mr. McConnell vowed that the Senate would vote on Mr. Trump’s chosen nominee, he notably made no mention of when that would occur — a signal that he was weighing the political calculus for the handful of vulnerable Republican senators facing tough races.Though Mr. McConnell vowed that the Senate would vote on Mr. Trump’s chosen nominee, he notably made no mention of when that would occur — a signal that he was weighing the political calculus for the handful of vulnerable Republican senators facing tough races.
Given Mr. McConnell’s decision to refuse so much as a hearing for Merrick B. Garland, Mr. Obama’s pick to succeed Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016, a handful of Republicans have signaled a desire to wait until after Election Day to approve a nomination. It is unclear, however, what objections remain to approving a nomination in the lame-duck session between November and the start of a new Congress in January. Given Mr. McConnell’s decision to refuse so much as a hearing for Judge Merrick B. Garland, Mr. Obama’s pick to succeed Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016, a handful of Republicans have signaled a desire to wait until after Election Day to approve a nomination. It is unclear, however, what objections remain to approving a nomination in the lame-duck session between November and the start of a new Congress in January.
Senator Susan Collins of Maine, one of the most vulnerable Republicans facing voters this year, told The New York Times this month that she would be uneasy about seating another justice in October. “I think that’s too close — I really do,” she said.Senator Susan Collins of Maine, one of the most vulnerable Republicans facing voters this year, told The New York Times this month that she would be uneasy about seating another justice in October. “I think that’s too close — I really do,” she said.
Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska told a local radio station in an interview before Justice Ginsburg’s death was announced that she would not vote to confirm a Supreme Court nominee before Election Day.Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska told a local radio station in an interview before Justice Ginsburg’s death was announced that she would not vote to confirm a Supreme Court nominee before Election Day.
Other top Republicans, including Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the Judiciary Committee chairman, and Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, have previously expressed similar reservations given their party’s blockade of Judge Garland in 2016, although it is unclear whether they will hold to their previous remarks. Mr. Grassley, the former Judiciary chairman, had said that he would not conduct Supreme Court confirmation hearings in a presidential election year. Senator Mitt Romney of Utah has not indicated how he might regard an election-season confirmation push, but he has established himself as one of the few Republicans willing to break with Mr. Trump, most notably at his impeachment trial, when he voted to convict the president and remove him from office.
“I want you to use my words against me,” Mr. Graham said in 2016. “If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.” Senate Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, previously said that he would not conduct Supreme Court confirmation hearings in a presidential election year given his party’s blockade of Judge Garland, but he no longer controls the panel.
But on Saturday, Mr. Graham, a loyal ally of Mr. Trump’s who is facing a more difficult than expected re-election fight, signaled that he has changed his mind since then, pointing to comments he made this year in which he said that after the bruising battle over Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s confirmation, “the rules have changed, as far as I’m concerned.” Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the current judiciary panel chairman, also said in 2016 that a Supreme Court vacancy occurring in the last year of a president’s term should not be filled until after the election. But on Saturday, he reversed himself, saying the bruising battle over Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s confirmation had changed his mind.
The proximity of the election is likely to weigh heavily. “I will support President @realDonaldTrump in any effort to move forward regarding the recent vacancy created by the passing of Justice Ginsburg,” he wrote on Twitter.
Ms. Collins is already facing the toughest race of her career in Maine, in part because of her 2018 vote to confirm Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Mr. Graham is also locked in a tough race in South Carolina, with one poll showing him tied with his Democratic opponent. The proximity of the election was already weighing heavily in Republicans’ planning for the confirmation process and its timing.
And the partisan wounds from Mr. Garland’s stalled nomination, the Kavanaugh confirmation and Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial are likely to fester even further with the prospect of another lifetime Supreme Court appointment, galvanizing the most fervent members of each party’s base. Ms. Collins is facing the toughest race of her career in Maine, in part because of her 2018 vote to confirm Justice Kavanaugh, and her political challenges in a state where Mr. Trump is deeply unpopular are likely to stiffen her resistance to a quick confirmation.
Mr. McConnell, who is also up for re-election, counseled his members to avoid stating a position on how they would handle the vacancy. On the other end of the spectrum, several Republicans, including Mr. Graham, are facing difficult re-election races in conservative states where Mr. Trump is revered by the party, and they are spoiling for an election-season fight that can demonstrate their loyalty to the president and activate conservatives.
“This is not the time to prematurely lock yourselves into a position you may later regret,” Mr. McConnell wrote. “I urge you all to be cautious and keep your powder dry until we return to Washington.” For many Republicans, the ideal situation might be to begin the confirmation process quickly, injecting it into the political bloodstream but waiting until after Election Day — when vulnerable incumbents no longer have to worry about being cast out by angry voters — to hold a confirmation vote.
And hypothetically, Mr. McConnell’s majority could narrow even further if Mark Kelly, the Democratic nominee for Senate in Arizona, defeats Senator Martha McSally, the Republican incumbent, and is seated before January 2021. Because Ms. McSally was appointed to her seat and began serving last year, the race is technically a special election. Mr. Kelly could be sworn in as early as Nov. 30. Mr. McConnell, who is also up for re-election, counseled his members to avoid stating a position on how they would handle the vacancy, as he privately gauges how to time any confirmation fight for maximum political advantage.
“This is not the time to prematurely lock yourselves into a position you may later regret,” Mr. McConnell wrote late Friday night after Justice Ginsburg’s death was announced. “I urge you all to be cautious and keep your powder dry until we return to Washington.”
Mr. McConnell’s majority could narrow even further if Mark Kelly, the Democratic nominee for Senate in Arizona, defeats Senator Martha McSally, the Republican incumbent, and is seated before January 2021. Because Ms. McSally was appointed to her seat and began serving last year, the race is a special election. Mr. Kelly could be sworn in as early as Nov. 30.
On Friday, Republican and Democratic election lawyers told The Arizona Republic that such an outcome was possible.On Friday, Republican and Democratic election lawyers told The Arizona Republic that such an outcome was possible.
Yes.
Congress typically reconvenes after Election Day for what is known as a lame-duck session, when lawmakers act on unfinished business before adjourning for the year. Since the newly elected members would not be seated until the new Congress convened in January, the partisan breakdown during this period would be unchanged from what it is now, meaning that Republicans would remain in control of the Senate even if they had lost their majority. Similarly, if he were to lose on Election Day, Mr. Trump would remain president until former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. was sworn in in January.
That means that even if Mr. Biden won the presidency and Democrats secured control of the Senate, Mr. McConnell would remain majority leader for the remainder of the year, with the ability to force votes provided that he maintained the support of a simple majority. Given his zeal for filling the federal courts with conservative jurists, Mr. McConnell would almost certainly avail himself of the opportunity to do so to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
Nicholas Fandos contributed reporting.Nicholas Fandos contributed reporting.