Democrats face limited options to stop Trump from replacing Ginsburg

They’d need to convert at least four Republican senators to stop a Supreme Court nomination. If that fails, some see their only option as expanding the court after the fact.

Image: Chuck Schumer

Democrats are confronted with the challenge of how to stop a Trump Supreme Court nomination. But there’s not much they can do. Susan Walsh / AP

Sept. 19, 2020, 5:15 PM EDT / Updated Sept. 19, 2020, 4:09 PM EDT

By Sahil Kapur and Leigh Ann Caldwell

WASHINGTON — With President Donald Trump and Senate Republicans gearing up to rapidly fill a Supreme Court seat vacated by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Democrats are confronted with the daunting challenge of how to stop them and honor the liberal icon’s dying wish.

But there’s not much they can do to stop a nomination.

Senate Republicans have a 53 to 47 majority, and they abolished the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations in 2017. They can confirm a new justice even if they lose three of their own members and win zero Democrats (in which case, Vice President Mike Pence would cast the tie-breaking vote).

Democrats would need to convince four Republicans to vote against the nomination to block it. Failing that, progressives say their only method of retaliation would be to capture the White House and Congress and add seats to the Supreme Court. (Read more)

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Writes Scathing 35-Page Dissent In Birth Control Case – Huffington Post

image

Click on photo to read what Ruth Bader Ginsburg had to say reported on the Huffington Post.

A depressing but unsurprising decision by the majority, and a rational dissent by Justice Ginsburg. I think that Justice Ginsburg is correct that the Court has stepped into a minefield. I also think that it’s going to explode at some point and inflict a lot of damage. The religious beliefs of corporations, closely held or not, should play no role in the coverage offered in health plans for employees. What if the business is a closely-held corporation in which the employers’ faith prohibits blood transfusions, does this decision mean that the corporation can refuse to cover blood transfusions in their health plans for religious reasons? Far-fetched? Not in the least. There are religions that oppose blood transfusions and this decision certainly could be used to argue the closely-held corporation’s right to act according to its owners religious beliefs.

"The Supreme Court delivered a blow to universal birth control coverage on Monday, ruling that closely-held corporations can refuse to cover contraception in their health plans for religious reasons. But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sharply disagreed with the five conservatives on the court, delivering a scathing, 35-page dissent and defense of mandatory contraception coverage."

"In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs," Ginsburg wrote. She said she feared that with its decision, the court had "ventured into a minefield." by Sheria Reid 

Note: I am not only friends with Attorney Sheria Reid on Facebook but I know her on a personal note. She is originally from Wilson NC. I met her when she worked for the NC Justice & Policy Center whereby I went through training with her and I received Certificates from the Education & Law Project in the late 90’s. Sheria is a strong intelligent black female.