SCOTUS

[NattyBohChamps04]

Questioning a judges record of rulings is now ‘drugging down the process’?

What else are we allowed to ask this judge?

We know Republicans won’t concoct positively phony stories about Judge Jackson’s personal life, so I just don’t know what else to ask other than her judicial record.

I guess we would ask if she likes lacrosse, but I was advised here the other day we are not allowed to ask any hypotheticals.

Confused….

Understandable that you're confused. You must not be following the hearings and listening to what's being asked and suggested.

And they certainly don't have any leg to stand on after the McConnell stunt. That has irreparably damaged the process for a generation.

[Peter Brown]

Questioning a judges record of rulings is now ‘drugging down the process’?

What else are we allowed to ask this judge?

We know Republicans won’t concoct positively phony stories about Judge Jackson’s personal life, so I just don’t know what else to ask other than her judicial record.

I guess we would ask if she likes lacrosse, but I was advised here the other day we are not allowed to ask any hypotheticals.

Confused….

Understandable that you're confused. You must not be following the hearings and listening to what's being asked and suggested.

And they certainly don't have any leg to stand on after the McConnell stunt. That has irreparably damaged the process for a generation.

You’re correct, I wasn’t watching. She’s going to be confirmed. No one is falsely accusing her of rape.

By the way, I can tell you every single vote she’ll make as a SCOTUS judge. She’ll vote against private property and the entire Bill of Rights when the DNC finally takes off the mask.

But I turned it on, only to see the Democratic Party’s number one phony, Shelley Whitehouse. Not only does Newport Shelley belong to a country club which has never had a black, Jewish, or Latino member, he belongs to two!!!

Old Shelley Two Step is droning on about dark money, which if one didn’t know better is something only Republicans do. Yet, more dark money by far supports Democrats than does Republicans!!

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/29/us/p ... onors.html

The hypocrisy is really something else with our friends, the Democratic Party.

[jhu72]

Shelley had the republiCON's collective lunch.

[NattyBohChamps04]

LMAO. "It didn't happen because I wasn't looking"

It's so similar to the guy saying "I don't know what CRT is but it's the most important issue in the race and we shouldn't teach it to kids"

Sums up so many of the problems we face today in America.

[Peter Brown]

LMAO. "It didn't happen because I wasn't looking"

It's so similar to the guy saying "I don't know what CRT is but it's the most important issue in the race and we shouldn't teach it to kids"

Sums up so many of the problems we face today in America.

If Democrats don’t invent fake rape stories, does that mean rape never happens?

(I wonder if Democratic hypocrisy and dishonesty is the actual problem?)

[Peter Brown]

Shelley had the republiCON's collective lunch.

shelley belongs to two country clubs which have never had even one black, Jewish, or Latino member.

Interesting,

[Kismet]

Shelley had the republiCON's collective lunch.

The real question is what is going to be done about it?

[a fan]

Well, there's a reason we don't elect our Federal judges, including Supreme Court justices. Imposing changes to the SC based on polling data makes less sense than electing judges.

That's fair, but how else can we the people affect change on the Court? These polls let Congress know just how popular some of these ideas are...and might (might) lead to legislation.

SCOTUS judges and all federal judge appointees should be limited to one 10 year term. How is that for starters?

Outstanding!

[CU88]

Dick Durbin just called out Republicans complaining about court packing by noting that the only living senator who has changed the size of the Supreme Court is Mitch McConnell when he refused to give Merrick Garland a hearing.

[cradleandshoot]

Dick Durbin just called out Republicans complaining about court packing by noting that the only living senator who has changed the size of the Supreme Court is Mitch McConnell when he refused to give Merrick Garland a hearing.

There is an argument to be made that Merrick Garlands substandard performance as AG to this point sort of vindicates the decision Mitch made. That being said he should have been given an up or down vote. That vote should have been hell no. That outcome would not have sat well with the FLP folks. The tone of the discourse from the far left would change to good ole Merrick got borked. I could have happily lived with that outcome. Judge Bork had to live with being voted down, Merrick Garland would have gotten over the snub as well had he been kicked to the curb in an actual vote.

[ggait]

That all ended with Judge Bork.

There's a lot of what-about-ism bull shirt thrown around when people talk about Bork and Thomas.

People always conveniently overlook the fact that Bork was rejected on a bi-partisan basis. Two Dems voted for Bork. Six Reps voted against him. Bork did have some views well outside of the mainstream and Senators of both parties, on the merits, said no thanks.

Also, note that the Dem controlled Senate actually allowed Bork's nomination to come before the full Senate for a vote. Where a simple majority would have carried the day. That is something that Mitch/GOP would never allow to happen (e.g. Garland).

Thomas, people also overlook, was confirmed by a Dem controlled Senate. He's on SCOTUS only because 11 of 57 Dems voted for him. Two Republicans voted against him. And he also owes his seat to the fact that the Dems, even though they controlled the Senate, didn't filibuster Thomas. They allowed his nomination to be voted on. Obviously something the GOP would not have allowed (e.g. Garland).

[ggait]

SCOTUS judges and all federal judge appointees should be limited to one 10 year term. How is that for starters?

You'd have to amend the Constitution to get rid of life tenure for federal judges.

You do not have to amend the Constitution, however, to term limit SCOTUS justices. Constitution guarantees life tenure for federal judges only as Article III federal judges. Not as SCOTUS justices.

Best idea for SCOTUS is an 18 year term limit. So one vacancy comes up every two years. So each presidential term gets two. Which would eliminate the current BS where each justice (barring health surprises) can time his retirement and effectively name his/her successor.

[Peter Brown]

That all ended with Judge Bork.

There's a lot of what-about-ism bull shirt thrown around when people talk about Bork and Thomas.

People always conveniently overlook the fact that Bork was rejected on a bi-partisan basis. Two Dems voted for Bork. Six Reps voted against him. Bork did have some views well outside of the mainstream and Senators of both parties, on the merits, said no thanks.

Also, note that the Dem controlled Senate actually allowed Bork's nomination to come before the full Senate for a vote. Where a simple majority would have carried the day. That is something that Mitch/GOP would never allow to happen (e.g. Garland).

Thomas, people also overlook, was confirmed by a Dem controlled Senate. He's on SCOTUS only because 11 of 57 Dems voted for him. Two Republicans voted against him. And he also owes his seat to the fact that the Dems, even though they controlled the Senate, didn't filibuster Thomas. They allowed his nomination to be voted on. Obviously something the GOP would not have allowed (e.g. Garland).

Back in the day when Republicans welcomed squishy faux conservatives. Know any?

No more, kimosabe,

[jhu72]

That all ended with Judge Bork.

There's a lot of what-about-ism bull shirt thrown around when people talk about Bork and Thomas.

People always conveniently overlook the fact that Bork was rejected on a bi-partisan basis. Two Dems voted for Bork. Six Reps voted against him. Bork did have some views well outside of the mainstream and Senators of both parties, on the merits, said no thanks.

Also, note that the Dem controlled Senate actually allowed Bork's nomination to come before the full Senate for a vote. Where a simple majority would have carried the day. That is something that Mitch/GOP would never allow to happen (e.g. Garland).

Thomas, people also overlook, was confirmed by a Dem controlled Senate. He's on SCOTUS only because 11 of 57 Dems voted for him. Two Republicans voted against him. And he also owes his seat to the fact that the Dems, even though they controlled the Senate, didn't filibuster Thomas. They allowed his nomination to be voted on. Obviously something the GOP would not have allowed (e.g. Garland).

+1 Get real tired of listening to republiCONs whining about Bork and Thomas. Bork not being confirmed was hardly the uncommon earth shattering event the whiners make it out to be. Thomas was ethically challenged then, and continues that way today.

[Peter Brown]

That all ended with Judge Bork.

There's a lot of what-about-ism bull shirt thrown around when people talk about Bork and Thomas.

People always conveniently overlook the fact that Bork was rejected on a bi-partisan basis. Two Dems voted for Bork. Six Reps voted against him. Bork did have some views well outside of the mainstream and Senators of both parties, on the merits, said no thanks.

Also, note that the Dem controlled Senate actually allowed Bork's nomination to come before the full Senate for a vote. Where a simple majority would have carried the day. That is something that Mitch/GOP would never allow to happen (e.g. Garland).

Thomas, people also overlook, was confirmed by a Dem controlled Senate. He's on SCOTUS only because 11 of 57 Dems voted for him. Two Republicans voted against him. And he also owes his seat to the fact that the Dems, even though they controlled the Senate, didn't filibuster Thomas. They allowed his nomination to be voted on. Obviously something the GOP would not have allowed (e.g. Garland).

+1 Get real tired of listening to republiCONs whining about Bork and Thomas. Bork not being confirmed was hardly the uncommon earth shattering event the whiners make it out to be. Thomas was ethically challenged then, and continues that way today.

This is the least unexpected post ever.

You know that quote jhu72, anyone who isn't embarrassed of who they were last year probably isn't learning enough.

[jhu72]

So Kellyanne, spin it for us. What makes Bork so special?? 36 other SCOTUS candidates failed confirmation. What makes him so special? He failed confirmation in a bipartisan fashion. What makes him so special??

[RedFromMI]

SCOTUS judges and all federal judge appointees should be limited to one 10 year term. How is that for starters?

You'd have to amend the Constitution to get rid of life tenure for federal judges.

You do not have to amend the Constitution, however, to term limit SCOTUS justices. Constitution guarantees life tenure for federal judges only as Article III federal judges. Not as SCOTUS justices.

Best idea for SCOTUS is an 18 year term limit. So one vacancy comes up every two years. So each presidential term gets two. Which would eliminate the current BS where each justice (barring health surprises) can time his retirement and effectively name his/her successor.

Put the past term SCOTUS judges in a pool that can be used randomly to fill in for use at the appeals court level and/or SC on a per case basis while there is a vacancy. And if you have 18 year terms, you can make each new term start in odd years (at the end of the year) and make the distance between confirmations and any national election a fairly long time.

The 18 year term idea also means that except for when a vacancy from an early retirement or death each presidential term gets two appointments.

[seacoaster]

That all ended with Judge Bork.

There's a lot of what-about-ism bull shirt thrown around when people talk about Bork and Thomas.

People always conveniently overlook the fact that Bork was rejected on a bi-partisan basis. Two Dems voted for Bork. Six Reps voted against him. Bork did have some views well outside of the mainstream and Senators of both parties, on the merits, said no thanks.

Also, note that the Dem controlled Senate actually allowed Bork's nomination to come before the full Senate for a vote. Where a simple majority would have carried the day. That is something that Mitch/GOP would never allow to happen (e.g. Garland).

Thomas, people also overlook, was confirmed by a Dem controlled Senate. He's on SCOTUS only because 11 of 57 Dems voted for him. Two Republicans voted against him. And he also owes his seat to the fact that the Dems, even though they controlled the Senate, didn't filibuster Thomas. They allowed his nomination to be voted on. Obviously something the GOP would not have allowed (e.g. Garland).

+1 Get real tired of listening to republiCONs whining about Bork and Thomas. Bork not being confirmed was hardly the uncommon earth shattering event the whiners make it out to be. Thomas was ethically challenged then, and continues that way today.

Right, well, let's talk about South Carolina's secession from the Union. That still p*sses me off.

[Peter Brown]

So Kellyanne, spin it for us. What makes Bork so special?? 36 other SCOTUS candidates failed confirmation. What makes him so special? He failed confirmation in a bipartisan fashion. What makes him so special??

Well, can we start with the hysterics of your impeccable squad?

Here’s Democratic hero, Ted the Murderer Kennedy,

“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back‐​alley abortions, Blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens.”

Sounds like every leftist controlled country I’ve been to!!

That lying sack of melting Ben & Jerry’s, Pat Leahy:

“Robert Bork has shown that he is hostile to the rule of law and the role of the courts in protecting individual liberty”.

Was it Opposite Day?!

I could go on. It was a setup from go. It deteriorated American culture and comity. The most ironic part of it all? Bork would have been far more moderate than guys like Scalia and Thomas. Democrats never learn.

[ggait]

Put the past term SCOTUS judges in a pool that can be used randomly to fill in for use at the appeals court level and/or SC on a per case basis while there is a vacancy.

Correct. They can stay on as federal judges (full or senior status) and work on circuit judge panels. No constitutional issue, just a Congress law passing issue.

Conservatives (CJ Roberts for one) and libs both endorse the idea.

But very unlikely that the Senate GOP (which thrives by always bringing a howitzer to the SCOTUS gun fights) would go for such a reasonable idea.

The real SCOTUS story is that we are exactly T -100 days from when we will get to see how aggressively activist the uber-activist new SCOTUS majority is going to be.

I think they will exceed the expectations of their sponsors.