The move would extend her 36-year House career and continue to freeze her would-be California successors in a long-standing holding pattern.

  • jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Newsom would appoint her replacement though?

    And still, the house has zero influence on SCOTUS appointments? So even if she somehow got replaced by a Republican (ig we’re assuming Newsom has a stroke and goes insane in this situation?), it would have no impact on SCOTUS appointments or any other judicial appointments, since those are done in the Senate.

    • nik0@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      The president should also have zero influence on the supreme court. Yet there was this whole thing with Obama and such that led to Trump having the perfect window of opportunity to send MTG to stand.

      • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think you have that the wrong way around. According to the constitution, the President appoints a Supreme Court Justice with the Senate giving advice and consent. It’s the Senate that’s supposed to have the lesser role, but Mitch McConnell chose not to follow the spirit of the constitution on that.

        At any rate, the House of Reps have never been a part of the process, so it has nothing to do with Pelosi, and never has.