Well, Nancy, Romney just pushed the button on the timer.

[grumpyduck]

Now it's your move.

Show us what you can do.

[Statistical]

1. There is no move. She could start impeachment proceeding in the house ...

... but that would be horrible. It would suck all the oxygen and momentum out of the campaign. All the media attention would shift from the economic and covid to the democrats doing an impeachment again. The election shifts from how terrible Trump is on everything to the Supreme Court.

The status quo right now is if nothing changes before election day, Biden wins, the Democrats flip the Senate, and pickup a few more seats in the House. Short of a last minute snatching defeat from the jaws of victory foot-gun event I don't see that changing.

[Raven123]

3. I think the distraction would be unhelpful. I like Joe's approach - make it about health care

[grumpyduck]

4. Sure, and we get another major right-winger in SCOTUS.

And Roe v. Wade goes out the window.

[Statistical]

7. I am fairly certain that happens regardless.

Pelosi can spend the next couple weeks delivering articles of impeachment to the Senate. Technically it should take priority by the rules of the Senate but when has Moscow Mitch followed the rules. Let's assume he does. He calls for an immediate up or down vote. It goes by party lines exactly like before. Trumps gets to crow about being "found innocent" on this "second witch hunt". The next day the Senate resumes their sham confirmation hearing.

To protect R v W we need to expand the court ... AFTER the election.

[Doremus]

16. Fairy tale thinking. They aren't about to do it.

And even if they attempt it we'll spend Biden's whole tenure on one this one issue.

We need to stop them now by any means necessary. If we have to impeach, so be it. Throw any and all wrenches on the tracks NOW or regret it for the next 30 years.

[Statistical]

19. There is no stopping it. The majority leader of the Senate sets the Senate agenda.

In theory he must act on the articles of impeachment but the Constitution is vague on exactly how and under what timeline. It can be argued it should be acted on promptly but promptly could be a quick up or down vote which results in no conviction and back to business.

If Democratic leadership won't expand the court well then we are stuck with the court.

Fairytale thinking is thinking that the House can prevent a vote in the Senate. If it could well there would be 3 vacancies on the court right now.

[Salviati]

27. Exactly this.

I have zero time for people who are going to get upset at the Democrats for not stopping an appointment. If you aren't going to direct your anger at those who actually deserve it, then I'm certainly going to question your motives, and suspect highly that your aim is to disrupt.

Wishful thinking or not understanding how the government works isn't going to stop a nomination that the republicans want to ram through. republicans have already demonstrated a willingness to shoot the spirit of the law in the middle of the street, I imaging that "acting promptly" on impeachment will slow them down by 60 seconds tops.

[Doremus]

31. I'm really glad LBJ didn't throw his hands up like this.

I don't need to tell you of his accomplishments but you might want to remember the manner in which he achieved them. He didn't take the high road and he didn't give up.

This "we are stuck with it" attitude has been our undoing for many years. Writing stern letters never worked but we're still writing them. pfft

[ahoysrcsm]

35. 60 years ago we still had decorum in the Senate.

Today, there is no such thing as decorum when dealing with the right, they will bully their way.

[ahoysrcsm]

36. What's the time and place of the next Senate sit-in?

Send me the invite and I'll be there. Short of a sit-in to shut them down we have nothing.

[Bettie]

9. Also, marriage rights,

probably civil rights for most everyone except rich white males, anything that helps workers...so much.

[Statistical]

18. So we need to expand the court ... but to do that we need to win the election and flip the senate.

[Bettie]

24. Yes, obviously we need to win

And I think we can do that....well, unless the rightward end of the court decides to award the election to Agent Orange regardless of the voting results.

[Drunken Irishman]

10. Do you think impeachment changes that?

They'll still go ahead with the confirmation. The Senate has no obligation to take up the impeachment right away and there's enough constitutional ambiguity about whether they ever have to. So, they could still proceed with the hearings and confirm. Then what?

Then we risk losing the president and failing to regain the senate. How is that scenario better?

[grumpyduck]

11. Nancy said they have "arrows" in the quiver.

Arrows, as in plural, as in more than one. That tells me impeachment is not the only option.

[Demsrule86]

14. She probably means after we win in November. The House has no influence over the Senate.

[grumpyduck]

22. I'm not going to second-guess her.

I'm going strictly by what she said.

[Statistical]

15. An arrow could be expanding the Supreme Court after the election to restore balance to the court. nt

[Drunken Irishman]

17. I'm assuming that's post-election tbh

[qazplm135]

30. We get that anyways

You think mcconnell is going to throw up his hands over impeachment? Really? He'll delay it until after the sc vote.

[SlogginThroughIt]

2. Why is it Nancy's move?

Somehow this is her fault?

[grumpyduck]

5. Slow down, dude.

All I said is that now she can make a move.

[sweetloukillbot]

26. Don't you know, it's always Pelosi's fault

Or Schumer's.
Never blame the Republican majority that is abusing it's power. Blame the Democrats.
That's the rule.

[Me.]

6. THeir On;y Move Is Viable After the Deed Is Done

[aeromanKC]

8. It's not so much Nancy's move, but OURS!!!

We must take back the Senate!!!!

[safeinOhio]

12. Bingo!

Best idea of all.

[Demsrule86]

13. No, the 'moves ' come after the election.

Nothing to be done now...except beat Trump.

[Doremus]

20. People talking about expanding the court. It isn't about to happen.

They aren't going to do it, and I think everyone here knows it in their hearts.

Even if they did do it, which they aren't, do you really want to spend Biden's whole term fighting for that one issue?

The time to fight this is NOW. If we stand down again we and our children's children are going to regret it for decades.

[Statistical]

23. Why would it be Biden's whole term?

If they have the votes it could happen very quickly. Just like this confirmation will. If they have the votes and refuse to use them well that would be a huge mistake. If the people hand you a mandate you use it. If you don't you will lose that mandate quickly.

There is no "stand" now. The Senate has the votes. They will vote. It really is just a question of before or after the election. The vote will be by party lines or almost by party lines. Moscow Mitch can lose 3 and it still happens and I don't think he will even lose 3. If enough Republicans had defected that would stop it but we now know that won't happen.

[Doremus]

32. They aren't going to do it. You know it, I know it, they know it.

Everybody knows it. They lack the gumption and the steely drive to ramrod a dramatic precedent such as this. It's not in their DNA.

Look, if they're happily willing to throw any kind of defense away now, what makes you think they'll be willing to fight a battle that will prove to be 10x harder? How many blue dogs do we have to protect? How many of them are going to potentially throw their careers away to usher in such a controversial change in the court?

Not going to happen. Wishing for rainbow ponies will be more successful than this BS excuse. They're going to ramrod this appointment, we're going to let them and our daughters and granddaughters will live with the consequences of our weakness.

[Statistical]

33. If you are right then fine they won't do it. That will be a catastrophic mistake IMHO.

It still doesn't change the fact there is no "play" to make now. There is nothing the minority party in the Senate can do to stop this vote. There is nothing the House can do to stop the Senate vote. There will be a vote. It will be almost or mostly by party lines. The nominee will be confirmed. The only possibility to stop it was Republicans defecting but that is increasingly clear it won't happen. The only question really is will be it be before or after the election either way there will be a replacement jurist on the bench before inauguration day.

Not expanding the court doesn't change that. It isn't expand the court OR stop this confirmation. The confirmation is happening. Period.

Still if the Democrats don't expand the court then the Republicans win. We just showed the Republicans that Moscow Mitch's moves in 2016 and 2020 were the correct move. They shifted the court to the right and had zero consequences for it. That is a win. I also means the next time they have a chance to do something similar they will.

[Dr. Jack]

21. I don't think Pelosi has many options right now

Her only option would be impeachment and that would be a horrible idea. You can't win every political battle. The Dems will get their revenge. It just isn't going to be today.

[TwilightZone]

25. The "move" was when people stayed home in 2016.

That's why we're here. There's nothing Nancy can do about it now, until after the election and assuming we have both houses of Congress. Blaming her or any Democrat for not being able to stop something that is now a foregone conclusion is misguided, at best.

[sweetloukillbot]

28. It's deflection

The buttery mail people have to blame someone and still can't accept that it's their fault.
I'm even seeing them blaming RBG because she should've retired during Obama's term.

[Salviati]

29. Exactly.

If you're going to get pissy about the Democrats not being able to stop this appointment, and take that anger out on the Democrats, then you are exactly the reason we're in this situation in the first place. Direct your anger at the appropriate targets. Vote every replublican out of office.

And for those of us committed to that course of action, watch out for this line of attack, I'm sure it's going to be signal boosted by lots of paid trolls, whatever currency their paycheck comes in. That's not to say that everyone who is going to get angry at the Democrats for not preventing something that they realistically cannot, is a paid troll, but I've got zero time for any of those folks, whether they're a professional troll or a useful idiot.

[OnDoutside]

34. "They're coming for your Healthcare" is the move from here to Nov 3rd. It's the one thing that even

has Republican voters scared shitless.

I cannot believe that Dems have not made more of the fact that Trump has his lawyers at the SC a week after the election in an effort to kill the ACA and pre-existing conditions. The ads write themselves, and it would be malpractice not to go after the Republicans on it.