Democrats boycott Barrett vote; Senate GOP pushes ahead

Republicans also warn that Democrats will “pack the court” by adding more justices if they win the White House and the Senate, although key Democrats have not said that would be a priority.

And if Republicans hadn't sought to rush her nomination through in order to secure a Republican majority in the Supreme Court for a generation, they would have had no incentive to do so.

Like so many of the US's institutions, there is a democratic deficit.

Republicans have bristled at Democrats’ claim that the Obama-era health law, known as “Obamacare,” is in jeopardy if Barrett joins the court.

Time will tell what happens to Obamacare.

Do the Republicans and Trump have a better-than-Obamacare plan?

Trump 'promised' (I know - nothing Trump says can be believed) he'd present his version several months back.

Millions of Americans cannot afford health care, but the Republicans, the party of the haves, have long shown they have zero regard for those at the middle and lower end of the economic scale.

The Republicans are forcing the appointment of a person they think will be their tool.

Republicans also warn that Democrats will “pack the court” by adding more justices if they win the White House and the Senate, although key Democrats have not said that would be a priority.

Given the way the double standards Republican Senators apply to Democratic SC nominations and their own, that would be no more than they deserved. Besides, if Democrats did win the White House and the Senate it would be a clear democratic mandate from the public to go ahead and do as they pleased. If, on the other hand, everyone else is as thrilled with this "groundbreaking, historic moment" as McConnell and Graham then the GOP Senate majority is surely safe.

"Given the double standards," rather. The lack of an edit function here is really tiresome.

Impeachment should be on the table for Kavanaugh

I will admit they are an adolescent bunch.

RBG, who was appointed by Bill Clinton, was approached by Obama to retire after being diagnosed with cancer but declined for her own reasons. At that time, Obama could have comfortably appointed her replacement. The truth is that she assumed Hillary would succeed Obama, and so she could "gift" the nomination of her own replacement to Hillary. As it turns out, her plan was foiled providentially.

The fact of the matter is that the Republicans have followed the historical precedents, both in denying Obama’s nomination of Garland to replace Justice Scalia and in approving the very highly qualified Amy Coney Barrett. Justices have been vetted AND confirmed in as little as ONE DAY but very frequently in under 45 days many times. This is just sour grapes from the democrats who would have absolutely done the SAME THING given the opportunity.

As the Republican wrecking crew in the Senate celebrate their triumph over the Dems with their egregious abuse of power, impudently packing the USSC bench with Barrett's confirmation, they will be supping from a poisoned chalice prepared by their own blatant disregard for decency and democratic norms. They will now get what they wished for, but their revelry will soon come to an end in November when they are given the sobering bill for their arrogance by disgusted voters .

Ah, Ted Cruz again. You know, the guy whose wife was called ugly by Trump and whose father was supposedly responsible for JFK's death. The guy who then praised Trump. The guy who would stab his own family in the back.

Republicans have focused on Barrett's Catholic faith, calling her a role model for conservative and religious women.

In that case, why isn't she slaving away in the kitchen? Did she get permission from her husband to step out? And what exact branch of Catholicism does she belong to?

"impudently packing the USSC bench"

Apparently you don't comprehend the difference between filling a vacant seat and "packing the court" which means expanding the number of seats on the bench.

Hervé L'EisaToday  08:17 am JST

The fact of the matter is that the Republicans have followed the historical precedents, both in denying Obama’s nomination of Garland to replace Justice Scalia and in approving the very highly qualified Amy Coney Barrett. 

I imagine there are quite a few historical precedents for shameless double standards.

Why would Democrats rush to vote her in since she is racist for adopting 2 underprivileged Haitian kids?

Republicans should return the boycott favor the next chance they get - which will probably in the next year or two. Do what Dems do - boycott and resist.

Do what Dems do - boycott and resist.

should they switch to the Republican model of power before the people and hypocrisy?

As if it matters, she’ll be confirmed, that’s all that matters.