The irony of all this is that RBG contemplated retiring in 2014, before the November Senate elections. Us Dems still held the Senate, and even though the GOP could’ve filibustered, we could’ve used the nuclear option (reducing the votes needed for cloture from 60 to 51) and confirmed a younger replacement. However, we…

I think you discount how many people are exceedingly indecisive when it comes to spending money. Some (in fact, many) have a psychological disposition against voluntarily spending their money on anything that isn’t a direct necessity. These people want/need the sensation of something being sold to them. And you…

From my relatively short experience as a salesman around 10 years (high volume Honda dealership), plenty of people might not need a salesman, but they need someone with knowledge about the vehicle.

Used to work as a salesman for a high volume Honda dealer, and used cars were a dream. The margins we had on used vehicles were immense compared to new, and considering that Honda’s don’t have nearly as many options that can pad the price, most of the salespeople, on any given sale, would prefer to sale a used car.

New…

^This.

Amazon shareholders were pissed for many a year (nearly two decades) because Bezos and Co. showed little to no profits, as they rolled them back into expanding the business in areas that many shareholders wouldn’t think would be proftable or, at the very least, economically worthwhile in the near term.

You’re right about the date. My mistake. However, you’re very much overstating the impact the Kavanaugh nominations had on the results of the Senate elections.

Trump would get any nomination through regardless of his victory. People just don’t understand how elections and the transfer of powers work.

Not to defend McConnell, but his and the GOPs usage of that phrase (and its derivatives) was specifically to avoid the charge from conservatives that they’d voted against a judge who is relatively centrist/right-wing in his views. Here’s why.

What are you talking about, losing 4 Senate seats after the Kavanaugh hearings?

I’m almost certain that if the Supreme Court has the choice between hearing challenges that come from multiple states, or simply leaving them to the appellate courts to decide, they’ll do the latter, for the reasons you stated.

Ehh.

Redistricting and gerrymandering is a very useful tool for Representatives, but it doesn’t do jack shit when it comes to the Senate, as Senators are chosen by a statewide vote regardless of district.

Doesn’t matter.

I think Mitt is threading a fine needle in terms of a future White House bid.

You’re absolutely right, but you’re missing one element: McConnell and Co didn’t even have to make up that rule.

Allow me to say something that will both suck and give you a bit of relief: Trump and the GOP are going to fill this seat regardless of whether it’s before or after the election.

Bush v. Gore is a bit different because it fell to only one state, which is rather easy to litigate because you’re only dealing with one set election rules.

Oh, it’s even simpler than that.

Simplest way to do it is to give an option: sign up for mandatory voting or do a compulsory stint of 2 years in the military as soon as you turn 18 if you don’t have a university/college deferral.

The filibuster has effectively been eliminated (for federal and Supreme Court nominations, at least) since 2017 and the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

It’s still valid for things such as legislation (where anything less than 60 votes can be filibustered), but there’s a reason why McConnell was…

The irony is that in 2016, with the Garland nomination, the GOP could’ve very easily let his nomination go to a vote, and simply voted him down.