1 1
billeisele

Supreme court nomination

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, airdvr said:

It's been said here before.  When the D's had control they pulled the same stuff the R's are now.  It's about power and control.

Examples please of Democrats refusing to even meet with or hold hearings for any Supreme Court nominee.  Also I am unaware of any examples of Democrats ramming through a Supreme Court nominee while people are actually voting in a national election.  Can you provide an example or two?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, airdvr said:

It's been said here before.  When the D's had control they pulled the same stuff the R's are now.  It's about power and control.

You can say it all you want, but unless you bring some examples you'll get no traction.

 

In fact,what we usually hear from the the righties is that the D's would do the same as the R's if they were in the same position, because then they can weasel their way out of providing any examples. But then when you keep hearing it over and over and over again without ever getting to the point where the D's are actually doing it, the accusation falls just as flat. The Republicans are the party that prioritises winning over everything else in a way the Democrats never have been. It's woven into the very DNA of free-market capitalist conservatism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Elections have consequences.

So do actions.  There was a time (it seems long ago) when elections were bitterly contested, but when the survivors made it to Congress they would roll up their sleeves and try to get some work done, and this meant working across the aisle.  Hard though it may be to believe, Republicans and Democrats often socialized together and even had some pretty solid friendships.

For some time now though, Republicans have adopted a scorched-earth strategy of total obstructionism when they are the minority, and ram-it-up-your-ass policy making when they are in the majority.  This policy has been carried to the ultimate extreme by McConnell, who has pretty much destroyed the Senate as a deliberative body.  Once upon a time the Senate required 60 votes to confirm Cabinet appointments and senior judgeship's including the Supreme Court.  In Obama's first term McConnell was minority leader but still pushed the Republicans in the Senate to block several of Obama's nominees for his Cabinet, and also many nominees the judiciary.  He was not coy about using the filibuster to try to castrate the Obama administration, so that Obama could not seat a full cabinet or fill judicial appointments in a timely manner.  This forced the majority leader, Harry Reid, into a Hobson's choice.  A Hobson's choice is where you have to make a choice but you only have one option.  He eliminated the filibuster (the 60% rule) for most positions that required Congressional approval, but he did not eliminate it for Supreme Court appointments, arguing that such an important appointment should require more than a bare 51 votes to confirm.   Leaving the Supreme Court at 60 votes meant any nominee would need to attract at least a few votes from the minority party, so they could not be too extreme.

The problem with the Democrat's approach is that they still assumed some measure of good faith on the part of the Republicans.  Instead, when the Republicans gained control of the Senate, McConnell blocked almost all of Obama's judicial nominees, creating a huge backlog of empty positions and also a huge backlog of cases waiting to be heard, and ultimately of course he blocked Obama's nominee for a Supreme Court seat.  Then when Trump nominated Gorsuch, McConnell eliminated the 60 vote rule for the Supreme Court so he could ram through Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and now Barrett with not one Democratic vote.

What I meant by "actions have consequences" is that McConnell's legacy will be a Congress in which Democrats will have learned the lesson to never allow the Republicans one inch, because if you do they will fuck you.  The Senate is dead as "the world's greatest deliberative body".  It will for a long time be focused far more on screwing over the other side than on doing any actual bipartisan legislation.  Good job, Mitch.

I have voted for Republicans in the past, when I thought they were the best candidate. Not for president it is true, but I would not have been too alarmed if McCain or Romney had won as I was confident they actually had the best intentions for the country.  No longer.  The Republican "party" has shown itself to be interested only in cementing their own power in place, establishing one party rule, and prostrating themselves before Trump and their corporate masters.  Even if I think a particular individual is OK the party is so corrupt I can never again consider a Republican for any level of government.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GeorgiaDon said:

There was a time (it seems long ago) when elections were bitterly contested, but when the survivors made it to Congress they would roll up their sleeves and try to get some work done, and this meant working across the aisle.  Hard though it may be to believe, Republicans and Democrats often socialized together and even had some pretty solid friendships.

Now elections start the day after the previous election. Which means the entire period of governing is really just a re-election campaign. Means that "owning" the other side is much more important than doing anything positive.

I have a feeling that should the Democrats get the WH and the Senate they are going to try and damage the republicans more so than trying to do what is right for the country....Going to be very hard to break that cycle. My guess is it continues, worsens over time and eventually brings down the "empire".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi folks,

Based upon what I have read ( admittedly, not everything ), it seems as though the Court can be 'packed' only by legislation by Congress.  it seems to me then that the Congress can also reduce the number of Supremes.

Therefore, if Biden wins and the D's get the Senate, I say let's reduce the number of Supremes to seven and toss Kavanaugh & Barrett out on their ears.

Voila, a balanced Court.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi folks,

Based upon what I have read ( admittedly, not everything ), it seems as though the Court can be 'packed' only by legislation by Congress.  it seems to me then that the Congress can also reduce the number of Supremes.

Therefore, if Biden wins and the D's get the Senate, I say let's reduce the number of Supremes to seven and toss Kavanaugh & Barrett out on their ears.

Voila, a balanced Court.

Jerry Baumchen

I have read that although Congress could reduce the size of the court, it would have to be through attrition. The appointments are for lifetime once made. Only impeachment can remove a Justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

I have read that although Congress could reduce the size of the court, it would have to be through attrition. The appointments are for lifetime once made. Only impeachment can remove a Justice.

Hi Ken,

Thanks for the info.

Impeachment:  I'm OK with that.  'You went 5 MPH over the speed limit; you're out.'

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Ken,

Thanks for the info.

Impeachment:  I'm OK with that.  'You went 5 MPH over the speed limit; you're out.'

Jerry Baumchen

Ya, they don't have the guts. SCOTUS is filled with 9 very smart people. Even if they lean to the right they know that they are playing with fire if they go too far. They have to keep the goodwill of the people on their side because the court can be packed. In the end even if the D party has an historic sweep, they won't tamper with the SC. Unless the SC gets too far out of line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

I have a feeling that should the Democrats get the WH and the Senate they are going to try and damage the republicans more so than trying to do what is right for the country....Going to be very hard to break that cycle. My guess is it continues, worsens over time and eventually brings down the "empire".

I have no doubt there would be some of that.  It would be fun to see Mitch McConnell given an office in a toilet stall.  It would be even more fun, though, to see him tossed out of office.

If the Democrats are smart, in the event they keep the House and win in the Senate and the White House, they would do well to realize their time in power is likely to be short (the next election is only 2 years away and Americans tend to blame whoever is in power for every problem) and get to work right away passing good laws.  Firstly, many of the things Republicans really hate (reproductive choice, same-sex marriage, LBGTQ rights such as they are) are based on court decisions but they are not backed up by legislation.  Well crafted laws, written to survive constitutional and textualist scrutiny, would go a long way to shoring up those rights.  Secondly, if Democrats could show that they are the party that can actually govern by passing laws that address real problems and help people they might be able to retain power for a while longer.  Cleaning up the ACA would be a good place to start, and (in my opinion) add a medicare for all buy-in option.  They should remember that revenge is a dish best served cold, and stick it to the Republicans by showing the Republican platform for what it is, mean spirited and designed to subjugate the bottom 90% to the top 10%.  Demographics are changing, the elderly white uneducated evangelical "base" of the Republican party is dying off; give it another few election cycles and we will be able to stick a fork in the present incarnation of the GOP.

That being said, single party rule is always bad, no matter who is in charge.  Maybe the GOP will reinvent itself and come roaring back, or maybe another party (Green party?) will come to the fore.  Even better if it is 2 or 3 parties that come foreward so Americans can have some real choice.  If a reinvented GOP emerged that rejected the anti-immigrant, anti-civil rights, anti-environment, pro-unrestrained capitalist/anti-consumer platform of the current version of the party, maybe they could bring something useful to the table.  Parties do change: the modern Democratic party is very different than the Southern Dixiecrats of the 1960s and before.

Don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2020 at 11:00 AM, GeorgiaDon said:

Examples please of Democrats refusing to even meet with or hold hearings for any Supreme Court nominee.  Also I am unaware of any examples of Democrats ramming through a Supreme Court nominee while people are actually voting in a national election.  Can you provide an example or two?

Its unprecedented.

It will be until it's not anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2020 at 1:33 PM, GeorgiaDon said:

 

What I meant by "actions have consequences" is that McConnell's legacy will be a Congress in which Democrats will have learned the lesson to never allow the Republicans one inch, because if you do they will fuck you.  The Senate is dead as "the world's greatest deliberative body".  It will for a long time be focused far more on screwing over the other side than on doing any actual bipartisan legislation.  Good job, Mitch.

 

I seriously hope the Democrats have learned this in the short term, but I actually doubt it. In the long term it's not a viable strategy for either party if they're serious about 'America' as a single unit - it guarantees increased social pressure and feelings of elections being meaningless. But then I don't think the Republican party gives a shit about what 'America' is. As you said, winning at all cost is all that matters.

 

McConnell is the worst thing to happen to US politics as long as I've been interested. He's far worst than Trump because he's actually got a plan and knows what he's doing.

Edited by yoink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, yoink said:

McConnell is the worst thing to happen to US politics as long as I've been interested. He's far worst than Trump because he's actually got a plan and knows what he's doing.

This. Gingrich moderated minorly when he became Speaker of the House (he had done most of his damage already). McConnell has simply doubled down.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, yoink said:

McConnell is the worst thing to happen to US politics as long as I've been interested. He's far worst than Trump because he's actually got a plan and knows what he's doing.

If a genie showed up and said I got to pick between guaranteeing a Biden win but Mitch remaining, or another Trump term but Mitch turfed forever, another 4 years could look like a reasonable sacrifice.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mistercwood said:

If a genie showed up and said I got to pick between guaranteeing a Biden win but Mitch remaining, or another Trump term but Mitch turfed forever, another 4 years could look like a reasonable sacrifice.

genie wishes always come with a catch, like Mitch drops dead but Cruz takes over.  At least ask for a guarantee that the Senate would flip for, say, 100 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, kallend said:

genie wishes always come with a catch, like Mitch drops dead but Cruz takes over.  At least ask for a guarantee that the Senate would flip for, say, 100 years.

The weird thing is I don't think that would be a lot better. I just want these people to do their jobs properly - governing for the American people rather than their particular party or ideology.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

That she's just as culpable as they are.

Given her religious leanings, I'm not in the least surprised.

Ask almost anyone 'We'll give you a guaranteed job for life in one of the most senior positions in the country if you very, very occasionally thrown us a bone.' and I think most people would go for it.

How many rulings in a SCJ's tenure do they REALLY alter the way of life? I'd be surprised if it's more than 1 or 2. Selling out for that doesn't surprise me. Honestly, I'd probably do it, at least telling myself that when I was in the position I wouldn't necessarily have to do what I was told.

Edited by yoink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, yoink said:

...How many rulings in a SCJ's tenure do they REALLY alter the way of life? I'd be surprised if it's more than 1 or 2. Selling out for that doesn't surprise me. Honestly, I'd probably do it, at least telling myself that when I was in the position I wouldn't necessarily have to do what I was told.

Actually every one alters the way of life for a fair amount of people. 

That's why those cases make it all the way to the SC. And why a whole lot more never do.

 

One issue with Barret is that, if she rules the way those putting her into place expect, then there will likely be a whole bunch of cases that will have a HYOOOOOGE effect on a lot of people. 

Stuff like abortion rights, gay marriage (and a host of other LBGT rights), voter rights (especially for minorities), corporate responsibility and liability, rights of the accused, even gun rights (although this court would likely not rule to restrict them more). 

Keep in mind that the current court was more or less expected to restrict abortion rights with a recent case. Only the fact that Roberts felt that the previous ruling on what was essentially the identical issue was 'precedent' and went with that previous ruling kept those rights in place.

I have very little doubt that, with all the new conservative appellate court judges, that those precedents will be ignored, and there will be a lot of cases coming up that will try to overturn long standing case law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2020 at 10:40 AM, phantomII said:

Just curious, what does it say about the character and judgement of Judge Berrett to be a willing pawn in this powergrabbing charade played by the Republicans?

How is it a power grab?  A Republican President  and a Republican Senate were elected, a vacancy needed to be filled, the President made a nomination and the Senate will either confirm or reject the nominee.  If the Dems win the Presidency and control the Senate, they can (and will) do the same.  It is also worth mentioning the majority of Americans want her to ascend to the SC.

From Gallup:

“WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A slim 51% majority of Americans support federal judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the U.S. Supreme Court seat left vacant by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death last month.”

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1