i dont disagree. unfortunately elections have consequences. for instance the election of 2008 led to us having the most expensive affordable free universal healthcare in human history.

The precedent is that a nominee will be confirmed whenever the president and the Senate majority belong to the same party, and that it comes down to numbers and public opinion in all other cases. In 2016, McConnell took a big gamble that could have backfired on his caucus when he blocked Obama's nominee for quite a long time. But there was no real backlash, voters instead equipped the GOP with a trifecta.

To be fair though: I think the GOP was kinda lucky that the Trump show, which was already in full swing by then, drowned out the Garland obstruction in the news cycles. Either way, I dont think that it would be possible for a Senate majority to block a president from the other party from filling a SCOTUS vacancy for much longer than 1 year without having public opinion really turn on them.

Durbin is such a miserable swamp demon my goodness

elections do indeed have consequences, like losing your house mandate and having to convince the American GOP that SCOTUS justices and executive orders are all your campaign promises coming to fruition.

Is there any argument that this judge shouldn't be confirmed? Or that she would be a poor justice?

Really no red flags jumping out except being an "originalist" which has so much interpretation involved, so much more interpretation than textualism. But one isn't definitively better than the other, just different approaches.

This post was edited by Skinned on Oct 13 2020 02:34pm

I think it has more to do with the history of her personal life and statements that she has made that raise the concern in people about the separation of church and state.

From what I've watched of the hearings though, she does seem genuine in her efforts to not allow any personal bias influence her decision making and views her role on the court as an interpreter of the law and not pseudo-legislator. In general, I think that that's an admirable and desirable sentiment that we should expect out of anyone nominated.

Keep grasping at straws.

As long as she is willing to put her personal beliefs aside or recuse when theres a conflict then not really.

However she has a history of pretty much always siding with management, but that's opinion and so not exactly disqualifying

In no capacity, no