It looks like it’s probably an interpretation of Arizona law regarding emergency senatorial appointments that courts are probably likely to buy – that once the vote is certified in Arizona, the vote winner becomes the sitting senator.
It’s likely to be a court fight that would involve an injunction that could keep McSally from being seated on court order for a lame duck session should she lose that election.
That means the majority is 50 and not 51 if there are only 99 seated senators. Then Democrats would need Murkowski, Romney and one other to block a lame duck appointment.
Your lips to gods ears. Or some second amendment fan as mr Trump says.
rei
5176
I’m not (openly) wishing for harm on him or ShitGibbon but pointing out turtle’s advanced age too. Heck Nancy and Chuck are worrisomely old too.
Menzo
5177
I don’t know why anyone would think McConnell will wait for a lame duck session. This is the guy who gambled and won when he blocked Garland. He’s going to ram this through in the next couple weeks and let the chips fall where they may in November.
This is his legacy. Packing the Federal judiciary with conservative judges and tipping the scales on the Supreme Court is what he wants to be known for after he dies. Who cares who wins the Senate in November?
Of those two things, I would think McConnell would prioritize keeping the Senate Majority (for at least another two years) if at all possible. I don’t think he would push for confirmation before 11/3 if he thought it could jeopardize that position. Dangling that open seat as bait for borderline R voters could even help his position, but that cuts both ways as those won’t be the only voters who are motivated.
But during Lame Duck, all bets are off and it’s going to come down to whether he has the votes. I could even see a scenario where Trump pushes for late October confirmation, McConnell tries to slow walk it slightly for strategic reasons, then a desperate Trump turns against the Senate.
Then there is yet another angle of only having 8 justices for a potential Bush v. Gore election situation.
It’s only marginally more likely (at least seems to me) that you’d get a different decision from a court likely to split 5-4 with Ginsburg on it and a court that could split 5-3 without her.
CF_Kane
5180
This for real. Bush v. Gore 2: Trump v. Biden would be a 5-4 if Ginsburg was sitting, and will be a 5-3 without her. Which of Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanagh do people think would be to the left of Anthony Kennedy or Sandra Day O’Connor in a new Bush v. Gore?
As folks wake up this morning, the ActBlue ticker is back to showing absurd donation levels again. $11m in the last two hours.
BTW, bringing up Bush v Gore isn’t great precedent for…well, really anything.
That was a very narrow announcement with two separate rulings.
Most folks forget that the Court ruled 7-2 that Florida having multiple standards in its recount methdology was an equal protection violation. The court then ruled 5-4 that Florida didn’t have time in the 24-hour window allotted by its own constitution and the US Constitution to set a statewide recount standard.
Lots and lots of states have set standards for recounts since, even with different jurisdictions and localities within the states using different voting methods.
LockerK
5183
I’m sure there were a number of us three sheets to the wind last night that were waiting to make any financial decisions. Uh, hypothetically of course.
JonRowe
5185
Also, where should I donate money to, so that the senate can be flipped?
There is no difference between a chalk 5-4 with RBG and 5-3 without her, but there is a difference between 5-3 and a potential 4-4 with Roberts crossing over as he has done a few times. My casual take is that Roberts cares about his legacy as Chief and would be a wildcard in a potential SCOTUS decision that would effectively pick the next POTUS, but then there is the Voting Rights thing so…
Alstein
5188
Roberts has one goal , retain his voice as the swing vote to control the court.
He doesn’t want Dems packing the court, but also doesn’t want a packed Republican court.
I think the answer depends on the circumstances. If Trump v Biden is a case where Trump is asking the Court to overturn a clear and certified result in multiple states on the specious grounds of ‘mail ballots are fraudulent’ — i.e. the likely scenario — then I think both Roberts and Gorsuch might balk.
Edit: That said, a little bird reminds me that 4-4 SCOTUS outcomes mean that lower court rulings stand. And that’s a crap shoot, where it would depend entirely on where the case came from.
Canuck
5190
I’m not as freaked out as I was night. This is bad but not long term catastrophic assuming that the Dems win and get hold of the senate. If they can grant statehood to DC and PR then I think they have a better chance of hanging onto the Senate in the future. The there are two Scotus judges in their seventies and one in their eighties so assuming that the Dems can hang onto power for 8 years then they should have a decent chance to tip the scales back.
Breyer retiring under Biden doesn’t do anything to tip the scales back, and Alito and Thomas are both more than ten years younger than Breyer. Hell, they’re younger than Biden is.
