That will be very tough to try but if we can get a 7-2 majority, who knows, maybe we will be able to manage that

The constitutional ground on our side is dubious unfortunately, I could see that as a possibility though

Also don't forget that Sotomayor has Type 1 Diabetes which'll shave about 20 years off of her life

true

i think thomas wants to retire early too

he's really good, shame, but maybe that would be where we could get someone like amy barrett in

ok, so on on the cornyn-grassley bill

it was defeated 39-60 right

so 10 R's voted against it, because it wasn't going to pass anyway, and because it gave up too much (they would flip if it could pass)

Barrasso, Cruz, Daines, Enzi, Inhofe, Kennedy, Lee, Moran, Paul, Thune

so that gets us to 49

I would replace Ginsburg with Barrett probably

3 D's voted for it, which probably are NOs if it's after midterms (Manchin, Donnelly, Heitkamp)

Just for laughs, we replaced Marshall, a black liberal with Thomas, who's a very conservative black man

I think it'd be fitting

then you have Collins, Murkowski, Flake, Sasse who were NOs, and McCain who wasn't there

@FLanon that would be funny

so McCain was replaced with Kyl who is a yes

i think the dems would fillibuster the bill though

Yeah, probably

Inevitably

Predictit has RBG most likely to retire

so it realistically has to be done in a spending bill

Spending bills are going to be tough to pull off if you've already used a once a year appropriations rule

It'd be a shame if she spontaneously combusted.

I imagine if it's not used for the next one, McConnell would probably use it on tax cuts 2.0 or something stupid like that

tax cuts 2.0 you probably don't need to use reconciliation

because 2.0 is going to be making the individual cuts permanent

any dem voting against that in a red state is fatal

even obama with a dem senate extended the bush cuts, remember

The Congress just has to amend the law to end birthright citizenship.

do you need 2/3 for that? would be really tough

It can be restricted, but under current law it's defined as anyone born in the US, plus four other categories.

You need 60% of the Senate.

isn't it amending the constitution so it needs 2/3?

actually

maybe i'm wrong

No.

looks like it was settled through the supreme court in 1898 re:their interpretation of the 14th amendment. so it could be overturned maybe?

The Supreme Court ruled that it's unconstitutional to deny birthright citizenship on the basis of race, but it hasn't ruled out restricting it for foreigners, and it's actually affirmed stripping native tribes of citizenship, so long as they are neither deported nor obliged to pay taxes.

ah