What if Trump wins but we take the Senate? Shouldn't the new Senate vote on a nominee to the SC?

[Polybius]

While at least one or two Republicans have said who's ever elected President should nominate a SC pick, no one is talking about the new Senate voting on a nominee. Seriously, if we take the Senate but Trump wins (entirely possible), those Republicans who said the new President should nominate someone will just vote for Trump's pick if he wins, and it wouldn't even be a broken promise.

We must not only get Republicans to pledge that that next President get's to choose, but also that the next Senate gets to vote.

[NCjack]

1. They will get to vote on the House's impeachment for lying in

her Senate hearing.

[Polybius]

2. I have no idea what that even means

What does the House or impeachment have to do with this? Please explain in detail.

[NCjack]

5. Consistent with Trump's previous picks for SCOTUS who lied to DEMs in

their Senate confirmation hearings, the upcoming Trumpster candidate is expected to lie to DEMs about past activities. The House can impeach her for lying, and send the impeachment to the Senate for a trial. Speaker Pelosi would control the timing until after the new Senate under DEM control is sworn in.

[Polybius]

7. I'm still not understanding one part

They can't be impeached until they are confirmed and on the bench. So in your scenario, a Justice is nominated (say it's Amy Coney Barrett). Then the Justice is confirmed in November. Then the House impeaches.

Ok, I follow that. But what good is it? There's nothing to stall anymore, Barrett would be on the bench already. No way would we have 67 votes to remove.

Unless you incorrectly thought that a Justice could be impeached before he/she took office?

[NCjack]

9. Yeah, you have a valid point. DEMs would have to toss out filibuster.

Too many steps for this path to be taken seriously. Thanks for your correction!

[Miguelito Loveless]

11. An impeachment vote has nothing to do with the filibuster

67 votes for conviction is mandated By the Constitution.

[FBaggins]

3. They won't get to

If he wins on 11/3, the existing senate will confirm before the new senate is seated

[Polybius]

4. Yes, that's what I fear

Any chance 4 Republicans will commit to the new Senate voting?

[Statistical]

6. No. I don't think so. If Trump wins but the Senate flips there will be enormous pressure to ...

confirm this radical right wing judge before the new Senate can demand a more moderate choice.

That being said I don't think it matters. Trump wins, Trump loses they are going to vote in the lame duck session to ram this through. That is Moscow Mitch's way. The only way that doesn't happen is if somehow Trump wins and the Republicans retain the senate and retain it with the same number of seats or more. I don't think there is even a 1 in 100 chance of that happen but if that were the case it would be better for Mitch to wait till the new Senate.

[FBaggins]

8. Why?

I "get" that our perspective is "is there any way to keep this from happening?"

But if Trump is actually reelected...what would be the rationale? Everyone is saying "the people should pick the president and whoever wins should pick Ginsburg's replacement"

[njhoneybadger]

10. It doesn't matter who wins the presidency or senate

Moscow Mitch will have another Supreme Court judge before Jan 1st 2021

[Demsrule86]

12. We would make sure he didn't get any more judges.

[lame54]

13. Not if they impeach him first