Well, really, wouldn't delaying until after the mid-terms be a smart move by the GOP?
Think about it: The ELECTION is in November - but the new Congress that is going to get elected doesn't get seated until January.
The democrats aren't stupid (despite all the evidence to the contrary.) They know they have very little real chance to stop a SCOTUS nomination with the Republicans holding a majority in the senate.
What they're doing now is trying to use this to mobilize their base. Dems always do poorly in mid-terms because their base usually doesn't care enough to come out and vote unless there's an Obama or a Bill Clinton to vote for. What percentage of dem voters can name even one of their senators?
Right now they're trying to whip up the narrative of "Republicans is the party of rapey white males! Stop the rapey white males before they rape us all!" It's a stupid narrative but if it gets 5% or 10% increase in turnout then it benefits them.
I haven't looked at the projections for the senate races (since only 1/3 of the senate gets elected each election cycle) so I don't know if it's even possible for the Republicans to lose control of the senate. But let's assume arguendo that they do. Let's assume that November 6th is exactly the "blue wave" that democrats have been having wet dreams about for two years.
So what? Even if every republican that is up for election loses and the senate flips to the Democrats, that won't take place until January. Meanwhile, the still-republican controlled Senate could meet on November 7th or 8th and confirm whoever they wanted and the dems could do f*ck all to stop them.
Could they scream their heads off? Jump up and down? Yell "it's an atrosmissy?" Well, that wouldn't be much different from what they've been doing over the past 2 years so I don't know that anyone would even notice.
Voting for the SCOTUS nominee AFTER the election deprives the Dems of the value of the current circus.






Reply With Quote
