Assume we win the Senate. Do we have the political capital to stop Trump's next nominee for 2 years?

[Alhena]

This is assuming that Kavanaugh is not confirmed (seems likely), that we win the Senate (entirely possible), and that Trump nominates a new solid conservative with no skeletons in his closet (seems likely if Kavanaugh is defeated- Trump has always said his SCOTUS nominees will come from his campaign list of hardline conservative judges).

Is it realistic to think that Schumer, with guys like Manchin in his caucus, would have the political guts and capital to put that nominee on ice for two full years? One year, sure- Garland has provided ample precedent for that. But two years? That would be bold stuff, and I really don't think Schumer has the guts and/or political capital to do it. Especially since red staters would already be screaming bloody murder over Kavanaugh's Borking.

[bettyellen]

1. Yes. And just close the issue, it's their normal and our payback.

No quarter.

[LandOfHopeAndDreams]

2. They Still Have Until January

There is still a lame duck session, that they can ram someone through. So long as they choose someone safe who lies and says that they view Roe V Wade as settled law, so the Idiot Collins believes them.

[mainstreetonce]

9. That's what worries me.We can't stop a Dec.Nomination.

But we still need to try.

[rzemanfl]

3. Bonking, not Borking, is the cause of Kavanaugh's downfall. n/t

[Alhena]

5. What? You don't believe his 30 year old virgin story?

So untrusting.

[rzemanfl]

13. Color me skeptical.

My default position is all Republicans lie all the time.

[ChubbyStar]

14. Really? I look at profiles, yours is interesting

LOL

[honest.abe]

4. Yes, no replacement until next President is seated in 2020.

Just an extension to the McConnell/Garland rule of 2016.

[Alhena]

6. I agree we SHOULD do that, expect someone like Manchin would spoil the party though

[BannonsLiver]

7. Maybe

But keep in mind he'd be on a fresh six year term rather than going into an election year.

[Alhena]

12. True, assuming Manchin isn't forced to commit during the campaign not to do it

I expect the Koch groups will be on him pretty hard to commit not to go along with a two year stall.

[roamer65]

8. Merrick Garland or the seat sits empty.

[Gothmog]

10. Yep

[jpljr77]

11. I don't think it would get that far. If Kavanaugh is withdrawn/defeated, then a Republican Senate

will simply seat the next nominee in the lame duck session. Just for timeline's sake, Trump makes the nomination public, let's say, the week of Oct. 15. There's plenty of time to have a vote by early December.

But if even that were to fail, then the Democratic Senate could simply give a hardline nominee hearings and bring up a vote. If the vote failed, so be it...bring on the next one, and repeat, until Trump finally nominates a Kennedy-like replacement (or set the bar at Garland-like, whatever).

[Alhena]

15. I honestly don't know whether the lame duck option is feasible

They'd presumably have to work through Christmas break, and shortcut the FBI investigation.

You could be right, but I'd like to see an article on the subject from someone with experience on Senate scheduling matters.

[maui902]

16. Two options

1. Assuming Senate is controlled by Democrats, and there is an open seat, offer Trump and the Republican minority the following: nominate Merrick Garland and we'll approve the nomination immediately. Nominate anyone like Kavanaugh and we'll reinstate the 60 vote majority required to approve a SC nominee and pledge to hold a hearing on any such nominee, but good luck getting anything but nominal support from Senate Democrats to approve any such nominee.

2. Keep the seat open until 2020.

I'm a little concerned about option 2 because it stoops to the Republicans' level to use process in a blatant way to block a nomination.
The "you started it" argument just doesn't appeal to me as a winning position, as satisfying as it might feel.

The basic premise behind option 2 is to give Republicans a choice between reversing the wrong they committed by not allowing a hearing for Judge Garland (who was nominated as a compromise choice) or coming up with a more moderate nominee that, together with most if not all of the Republican minority in the Senate, would attract enough Senate Democrats to meet the 60 vote threshold (which I'd do everything I could to force the Republicans to accept going forward).