SCOTUS

[Kismet]

I definitely agree.

Seems clearer and clearer that the Republicans are sacrificing the presidency and the Senate majority to get the supreme court appointment.

If that happens, and if the Dems pack the court, that will be Mitch’s epitaph.

If the dems do pack the court, I would not blame them if they do, does this change the dynamic forever? Every POTUS and Senate of the same party can keep stacking it until they run out of room for benches. The Dems go to 11, the Rs can take it to 13 and so on and so on and so on. They can do it but it sure gets ridiculous after awhile. The vast majority of Americans will not be able to remember all of their names. The SCOTUS would become nothing more than a joke.

Possibly but - The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is authorized at 29 judgeships and most other Federal Appeals Courts have many more judges than you think. There are 179 slots across the 13 circuits for an average of almost 14 judges per circuit. SCOTUS at 9 is very much smaller. Most of the cases are awarded randomly to smaller groups of judges so those filing suits cannot "pick" their judges for favorable treatment. No reason that could not work at SCOTUS for the vast majority of cases.

My preference would be to impose term limits of SCOTUS appointments rather than expand the poll of life appointees.

[Peter Brown]

I'll give you a chance to deny it, ya...do you support the tactics Mitch McConnell uses and has used in the case of SCOTUS nominations? You support Lindsey Graham and what he's been saying, then and now? Do you recognize the rank hypocrisy in these two idiots?

Then tell me how you think it would be dumb for the Dems to retaliate... rinse, repeat...

..

So you want to hang on Mitch and Lindsey and I'd argue ...."the sitting president fills the seat", it is not that complicated. Mitch was just following the Reid Rule, your side started it.

Negative people need drama.

Its Trumps constitutional duty. And the Senates.

Case closed.

This is the perfect post. In strict terms of constitutional power and duty, there is nothing different from this go 'round than when the President nominated Garland: Obama has the power and duty, and the Senate had the obligation. The only difference is faction. I wish you folks could just come out and say it.

If you actually read and understand the Constitution, the government is one that is supposed to encourage, as Senator Bill Cohen once said, deals cut in the name of consensus. This decision by McConnell is simply sanctioning the raw exercise of legal power in connection with an absolutely momentous issue, in which, perhaps, a 48-year old woman may sit on the nation's highest Court for 30 or 40 years. You have to think hard on this to appreciate the potential consequences, because the norm will become the raw exercise of power, and it will go around and come around. The supposed norms that created collegiality and consensus were simply the ways in which, inside the strict rules of governance, we avoided the constant stress tests on governing. It is profoundly ill-advised for the Senate -- which is to say McConnell and his caucus -- to do this. But the prize is too big, and the delivery of this plum to stakeholders is too important.

ACB seems qualified, in the sense of well-educated, good mental horsepower, versed in the Constitution, clerked for a well-known and well-regarded Justice. A vote against her is plainly on the grounds of what we think she portends -- which directly communicates to the importance attached to this pick by McConnell and his shareholders. I'd vote against her, simply because I think the originalists are functionally a fraud, and come to outcomes that don't make sense to me. But the GOP has the votes.

I'll live just fine through a Court commandeered by the Right. Employees will have a harder time. Discrete and insular minorities will have a harder time. Poor women will likely need a ride to the border and some help with their medical bills. Religion will be damaged by its intrusion into and association with politics. And governance will become a question of whether the legal power exists for something, not whether it is prudent or fair or even right.

Botom line

Democrats couldn't get legislation on abortion.

They packed the supreme court.

First the court found a right to privacy somewhere in the constitutional ether.

Then they found a right to an abortion in that privacy vapor.

They know the threads holding their abortion religion together are very thin.

So they've attempted to destroy every conservative judge nominated to the supreme court.

65 million stopped hearts and counting. And you all want more without actually writing legislation.

Don't remember when exactly we traded the ermine robes of a monarch for the black robes of a supreme court judge.

WRITE THE FN LAW THEN VOTE ON IT. INSTEAD OF TRYING TO DESTROY THE CONSTITUTION AND THE CULTURE JUST SO YOU CAN KILL BABIES.

YOU COSMIC DUMB ASS!!

The SCOTUS that made the Roe v Wade decision was 6-3 REPUBLICAN appointed judges!!

Democrats did not pack the court with liberal judges!! What a f*ing moron!

Well, you have been saying since I have been on these forums how stupid Republicans are. You have your own proof right there. Hell you always tell us Republicans never get it right. I guess they got it right for once, at least in your opinion.

It should also be noted that 5 republican appointed judges voted for Rowe, only two democrats!! It was a 7-2 decision. Once upon a time republicans were a party of foresight and honor. Not so much any longer.

Yeah those Republicans are so dishonorable, get on your knees, Intern!

00BCD422-D66B-465D-872A-84E37908A1B5.jpeg (244 KiB) Viewed 669 times

[6ftstick]

I'll give you a chance to deny it, ya...do you support the tactics Mitch McConnell uses and has used in the case of SCOTUS nominations? You support Lindsey Graham and what he's been saying, then and now? Do you recognize the rank hypocrisy in these two idiots?

Then tell me how you think it would be dumb for the Dems to retaliate... rinse, repeat...

..

So you want to hang on Mitch and Lindsey and I'd argue ...."the sitting president fills the seat", it is not that complicated. Mitch was just following the Reid Rule, your side started it.

Negative people need drama.

Its Trumps constitutional duty. And the Senates.

Case closed.

This is the perfect post. In strict terms of constitutional power and duty, there is nothing different from this go 'round than when the President nominated Garland: Obama has the power and duty, and the Senate had the obligation. The only difference is faction. I wish you folks could just come out and say it.

If you actually read and understand the Constitution, the government is one that is supposed to encourage, as Senator Bill Cohen once said, deals cut in the name of consensus. This decision by McConnell is simply sanctioning the raw exercise of legal power in connection with an absolutely momentous issue, in which, perhaps, a 48-year old woman may sit on the nation's highest Court for 30 or 40 years. You have to think hard on this to appreciate the potential consequences, because the norm will become the raw exercise of power, and it will go around and come around. The supposed norms that created collegiality and consensus were simply the ways in which, inside the strict rules of governance, we avoided the constant stress tests on governing. It is profoundly ill-advised for the Senate -- which is to say McConnell and his caucus -- to do this. But the prize is too big, and the delivery of this plum to stakeholders is too important.

ACB seems qualified, in the sense of well-educated, good mental horsepower, versed in the Constitution, clerked for a well-known and well-regarded Justice. A vote against her is plainly on the grounds of what we think she portends -- which directly communicates to the importance attached to this pick by McConnell and his shareholders. I'd vote against her, simply because I think the originalists are functionally a fraud, and come to outcomes that don't make sense to me. But the GOP has the votes.

I'll live just fine through a Court commandeered by the Right. Employees will have a harder time. Discrete and insular minorities will have a harder time. Poor women will likely need a ride to the border and some help with their medical bills. Religion will be damaged by its intrusion into and association with politics. And governance will become a question of whether the legal power exists for something, not whether it is prudent or fair or even right.

Botom line

Democrats couldn't get legislation on abortion.

They packed the supreme court.

First the court found a right to privacy somewhere in the constitutional ether.

Then they found a right to an abortion in that privacy vapor.

They know the threads holding their abortion religion together are very thin.

So they've attempted to destroy every conservative judge nominated to the supreme court.

65 million stopped hearts and counting. And you all want more without actually writing legislation.

Don't remember when exactly we traded the ermine robes of a monarch for the black robes of a supreme court judge.

WRITE THE FN LAW THEN VOTE ON IT. INSTEAD OF TRYING TO DESTROY THE CONSTITUTION AND THE CULTURE JUST SO YOU CAN KILL BABIES.

YOU COSMIC DUMB ASS!!

The SCOTUS that made the Roe v Wade decision was 6-3 REPUBLICAN appointed judges!!

Democrats did not pack the court with liberal judges!! What a f*ing moron!

Well, you have been saying since I have been on these forums how stupid Republicans are. You have your own proof right there. Hell you always tell us Republicans never get it right. I guess they got it right for once, at least in your opinion.

It should also be noted that 5 republican appointed judges voted for Rowe, only one democrat!! It was a 7-2 decision. Once upon a time republicans were a party of foresight and honor. Not so much any longer.

I can't argue the politics. I will say no matter what party you belong to there will NEVER be honor when it comes to abortion. All it brings is death.

YOU COSMIC DUMBASS the vote was 7-2 with the only 2 conservatives on the court Rehnquist and White dissenting.

Harry Blackmun—Appointed by Republican President Richard Nixon, Blackmun ultimately became one of the most liberal justices on the Court.

William Douglas—FDR appointee

Thurgood Marshall—LBJ appointee

William Brennan—Appointed by Eisenhower known for being a leader of the Court's liberal wing.

And all the Nixon appointees APPROVED by democratic senates.

You deny all 7 judges were all liberals dumbass.

Again. Pass a law the way the constitution tells them too. Let the people ELECTED create the laws and let the unelected APPOINTEES enforce the law.

[njbill]

The four justices in Roe you mention were liberal, but it is not correct that all seven in the majority were. Of the other three, one was a conservative, Burger, and two were moderates, Powell and Stewart.

[MDlaxfan76]

Actually, I don't think so...the Senate can kill that with a quick vote to acquit.

Wishful thinking.

Pelosi controls the timing and process until the charges are formally presented. You don't drop the bomb until a few days before election. I think by the written process they can delay a few days, thereafter, forcing Mitch to violate the constitution if he votes before having an actual written copy of the charges. Recall Pelosi delayed a number of days between notification of impeachment and formal presentation of charges for Trump.

The dems use all of the standard parliamentary moves the minority has available, get close to election day and then drop the bomb.

I would not be so quick to dismiss as a possibility. Not suggesting it is a good idea, haven't thought about the effects on the election.

It also plays chicken with the entire Senate. 3 or 4 republicans could stop it at any time.

Which may be why McConnell gets it done over the next 30 days. I think the Senate is not bound to wait for anything, can summarily dismiss, but I'd bet McConnell knows his options better than anyone.

I don't see this being 'stopped' altogether.
But there's gonna be hell to pay for the GOP for ramming it through.

[MDlaxfan76]

The four justices in Roe you mention were liberal, but it is not correct that all seven in the majority were. Of the other three, one was a conservative, Burger, and two were moderates, Powell and Stewart.

Do I have it correct that 6 of the 9 Justices on that Court were appointed by GOP Presidents, just 3 by Dem Presidents?

Exactly how might someone call that "packed" by the Democrats, ala 6ft's nonsense?

Yet only 2 dissents...

[Peter Brown]

The four justices in Roe you mention were liberal, but it is not correct that all seven in the majority were. Of the other three, one was a conservative, Burger, and two were moderates, Powell and Stewart.

Do I have it correct that 6 of the 9 Justices on that Court were appointed by GOP Presidents, just 3 by Dem Presidents?

Exactly how might someone call that "packed" by the Democrats, ala 6ft's nonsense?

Yet only 2 dissents...

Those 'Republicans' were, like you MD, not really conservative, barely distinguishable from any run-of-the-mill democrat, if you could even distinguish them at all.

6ft is correct in the sense that actual conservatives (who were as rare the Loch Ness Monster pre-2009) had no 'real' involvement with those justices; they may as well have been nominated by Teddy Kennedy. The Tea Party and the Federalist Society made sure actual Republicans no longer put forth liberal justices like Stevens and Souter, thank the Lord.

[MDlaxfan76]

I definitely agree.

Seems clearer and clearer that the Republicans are sacrificing the presidency and the Senate majority to get the supreme court appointment.

If that happens, and if the Dems pack the court, that will be Mitch’s epitaph.

I really doubt Biden will go for court packing. He is a creature of the collegial Senate.

I tend to agree, but with this latest unprecedented charade by the Republicans, coupled with the Garland theft, I can see the idea becoming much more appealing to Joe.

Obviously a key step would be eliminating the filibuster. Haven’t heard his thoughts on that. As you say, as a creature of the Senate, he might be against that.

But not his call.

[MDlaxfan76]

In a certain sense, the Ginsburg theft is worse than Garland. When Scalia died, understandably the Republicans wanted to replace him with another conservative. Now that Ginsburg has died, there is a lot of common sense in replacing her with another liberal.

Only if one buys that replacing a conservative with a conservative and a liberal with a liberal is how it should work...emotionally, yes, but not on any other basis.

The sin was in the original BS move to deny even a hearing and a vote, pure power play partisan politics rather than duty to country and Constitution. The Ginsburg just puts that sin into high relief as nothing more than a naked partisan power play.

Which can only beget a reaction in kind.

[ggait]

with the only 2 conservatives on the court Rehnquist and White dissenting.

And Whizzer White was a JFK Dem appointee. The world, of course, sorted out differently back then between Dem/Rep and lib/cons.

[MDlaxfan76]

The four justices in Roe you mention were liberal, but it is not correct that all seven in the majority were. Of the other three, one was a conservative, Burger, and two were moderates, Powell and Stewart.

Do I have it correct that 6 of the 9 Justices on that Court were appointed by GOP Presidents, just 3 by Dem Presidents?

Exactly how might someone call that "packed" by the Democrats, ala 6ft's nonsense?

Yet only 2 dissents...

Those 'Republicans' were, like you MD, not really conservative, barely distinguishable from any run-of-the-mill democrat, if you could even distinguish them at all.

6ft is correct in the sense that actual conservatives (who were as rare the Loch Ness Monster pre-2009) had no 'real' involvement with those justices; they may as well have been nominated by Teddy Kennedy. The Tea Party and the Federalist Society made sure actual Republicans no longer put forth liberal justices like Stevens and Souter, thank the Lord.

Thanks for the history lesson, Petey.
You think Trump and Trumpism are 'conservative'...

Tea Party??? what tea party???
good lord, so dumb.

[jhu72]

I'll give you a chance to deny it, ya...do you support the tactics Mitch McConnell uses and has used in the case of SCOTUS nominations? You support Lindsey Graham and what he's been saying, then and now? Do you recognize the rank hypocrisy in these two idiots?

Then tell me how you think it would be dumb for the Dems to retaliate... rinse, repeat...

..

So you want to hang on Mitch and Lindsey and I'd argue ...."the sitting president fills the seat", it is not that complicated. Mitch was just following the Reid Rule, your side started it.

Negative people need drama.

Its Trumps constitutional duty. And the Senates.

Case closed.

This is the perfect post. In strict terms of constitutional power and duty, there is nothing different from this go 'round than when the President nominated Garland: Obama has the power and duty, and the Senate had the obligation. The only difference is faction. I wish you folks could just come out and say it.

If you actually read and understand the Constitution, the government is one that is supposed to encourage, as Senator Bill Cohen once said, deals cut in the name of consensus. This decision by McConnell is simply sanctioning the raw exercise of legal power in connection with an absolutely momentous issue, in which, perhaps, a 48-year old woman may sit on the nation's highest Court for 30 or 40 years. You have to think hard on this to appreciate the potential consequences, because the norm will become the raw exercise of power, and it will go around and come around. The supposed norms that created collegiality and consensus were simply the ways in which, inside the strict rules of governance, we avoided the constant stress tests on governing. It is profoundly ill-advised for the Senate -- which is to say McConnell and his caucus -- to do this. But the prize is too big, and the delivery of this plum to stakeholders is too important.

ACB seems qualified, in the sense of well-educated, good mental horsepower, versed in the Constitution, clerked for a well-known and well-regarded Justice. A vote against her is plainly on the grounds of what we think she portends -- which directly communicates to the importance attached to this pick by McConnell and his shareholders. I'd vote against her, simply because I think the originalists are functionally a fraud, and come to outcomes that don't make sense to me. But the GOP has the votes.

I'll live just fine through a Court commandeered by the Right. Employees will have a harder time. Discrete and insular minorities will have a harder time. Poor women will likely need a ride to the border and some help with their medical bills. Religion will be damaged by its intrusion into and association with politics. And governance will become a question of whether the legal power exists for something, not whether it is prudent or fair or even right.

Botom line

Democrats couldn't get legislation on abortion.

They packed the supreme court.

First the court found a right to privacy somewhere in the constitutional ether.

Then they found a right to an abortion in that privacy vapor.

They know the threads holding their abortion religion together are very thin.

So they've attempted to destroy every conservative judge nominated to the supreme court.

65 million stopped hearts and counting. And you all want more without actually writing legislation.

Don't remember when exactly we traded the ermine robes of a monarch for the black robes of a supreme court judge.

WRITE THE FN LAW THEN VOTE ON IT. INSTEAD OF TRYING TO DESTROY THE CONSTITUTION AND THE CULTURE JUST SO YOU CAN KILL BABIES.

YOU COSMIC DUMB ASS!!

The SCOTUS that made the Roe v Wade decision was 6-3 REPUBLICAN appointed judges!!

Democrats did not pack the court with liberal judges!! What a f*ing moron!

Well, you have been saying since I have been on these forums how stupid Republicans are. You have your own proof right there. Hell you always tell us Republicans never get it right. I guess they got it right for once, at least in your opinion.

It should also be noted that 5 republican appointed judges voted for Rowe, only one democrat!! It was a 7-2 decision. Once upon a time republicans were a party of foresight and honor. Not so much any longer.

I can't argue the politics. I will say no matter what party you belong to there will NEVER be honor when it comes to abortion. All it brings is death.

YOU COSMIC DUMBASS the vote was 7-2 with the only 2 conservatives on the court Rehnquist and White dissenting.

Harry Blackmun—Appointed by Republican President Richard Nixon, Blackmun ultimately became one of the most liberal justices on the Court.

William Douglas—FDR appointee

Thurgood Marshall—LBJ appointee

William Brennan—Appointed by Eisenhower known for being a leader of the Court's liberal wing.

And all the Nixon appointees APPROVED by democratic senates.

You deny all 7 judges were all liberals dumbass.

Again. Pass a law the way the constitution tells them too. Let the people ELECTED create the laws and let the unelected APPOINTEES enforce the law.

Your original post said DEMOCRATS. Not liberals. As usual, you want to play move the goal post.

IN SHORT, THE DEMOCRATS DIDN'T DO THE THING YOU ACCUSE THEM OF!!!

[ggait]

My preference would be to impose term limits of SCOTUS appointments rather than expand the poll of life appointees.

This really should be the end game to end the eye-for-eye silliness. It is such a reasonable thing to do. Huge bi-partisan support -- Eric Holder, John Roberts, Stephen Breyer, etc. Idea originally came from Steven Calabresi -- Federalist Society founder, Bork clerk, Scalia clerk.

But putting term limits on future nominees (who in the near term will be Dems) is kind of like unilaterally disarming.

And the GOP couldn't be trusted to keep it in place. Because they need to preserve those few places (Electoral College, US Senate, SCOTUS) where their dwindling numbers can still sometimes prevail.

[jhu72]

The four justices in Roe you mention were liberal, but it is not correct that all seven in the majority were. Of the other three, one was a conservative, Burger, and two were moderates, Powell and Stewart.

Do I have it correct that 6 of the 9 Justices on that Court were appointed by GOP Presidents, just 3 by Dem Presidents?

Exactly how might someone call that "packed" by the Democrats, ala 6ft's nonsense?

Yet only 2 dissents...

That is correct! One was a democrat. Go figure. 5 republicans voted for it, just 2 democrats.

But yet we have some people believing the democrats packed the court.

[jhu72]

My preference would be to impose term limits of SCOTUS appointments rather than expand the poll of life appointees.

This really should be the end game to end the eye-for-eye silliness. It is such a reasonable thing to do. Huge bi-partisan support -- Eric Holder, John Roberts, Stephen Breyer, etc. Idea originally came from Steven Calabresi -- Federalist Society founder, Bork clerk, Scalia clerk.

But putting term limits on future nominees (who in the near term will be Dems) is kind of like unilaterally disarming.

And the GOP couldn't be trusted to keep it in place. Because they need to preserve those few places (Electoral College, US Senate, SCOTUS) where their dwindling numbers can still sometimes prevail.

Thomas is going to retire soon, and Alito is making noises I thought that he was getting tired of being a Supreme. Its not clear to me that congress could not make the rule apply as of the day the law passes.

[MDlaxfan76]

My preference would be to impose term limits of SCOTUS appointments rather than expand the poll of life appointees.

This really should be the end game to end the eye-for-eye silliness. It is such a reasonable thing to do. Huge bi-partisan support -- Eric Holder, John Roberts, Stephen Breyer, etc. Idea originally came from Steven Calabresi -- Federalist Society founder, Bork clerk, Scalia clerk.

But putting term limits on future nominees (who in the near term will be Dems) is kind of like unilaterally disarming.

And the GOP couldn't be trusted to keep it in place. Because they need to preserve those few places (Electoral College, US Senate, SCOTUS) where their dwindling numbers can still sometimes prevail.

Unless, a Constitutional Amendment which is a very high bar, but could stick...

[njbill]

The four justices in Roe you mention were liberal, but it is not correct that all seven in the majority were. Of the other three, one was a conservative, Burger, and two were moderates, Powell and Stewart.

Do I have it correct that 6 of the 9 Justices on that Court were appointed by GOP Presidents, just 3 by Dem Presidents?

Exactly how might someone call that "packed" by the Democrats, ala 6ft's nonsense?

Yet only 2 dissents...

Yes, only Douglas (FDR), White (JFK), and Marshall (LBJ) were appointed by Democrats.

Nixon appointed Burger (the Chief), Blackmun, Powell, and Rehnquist. Ike appointed Brennan and Stewart.

Three members of this court “went rogue,” as it were. White became somewhat conservative and Brennan and Blackman became more liberal.

I was 19, a sophomore in college, when Roe was decided. I doubt very much that I had a well developed sense of what the country as a whole thought about the decision, but I remember it being quite popular on campus. I don’t think the vehement anti-Roe v. Wade sentiment and protests began until quite a number of years after the decision came out.

Maybe some of our other elderly ( ) posters could chime in with their recollections of how the decision was received.

[jhu72]

I definitely agree.

Seems clearer and clearer that the Republicans are sacrificing the presidency and the Senate majority to get the supreme court appointment.

If that happens, and if the Dems pack the court, that will be Mitch’s epitaph.

I really doubt Biden will go for court packing. He is a creature of the collegial Senate.

I tend to agree, but with this latest unprecedented charade by the Republicans, coupled with the Garland theft, I can see the idea becoming much more appealing to Joe.

Obviously a key step would be eliminating the filibuster. Haven’t heard his thoughts on that. As you say, as a creature of the Senate, he might be against that.

But not his call.

The Pres would have to sign it into law.

[njbill]

I definitely agree.

Seems clearer and clearer that the Republicans are sacrificing the presidency and the Senate majority to get the supreme court appointment.

If that happens, and if the Dems pack the court, that will be Mitch’s epitaph.

I really doubt Biden will go for court packing. He is a creature of the collegial Senate.

I tend to agree, but with this latest unprecedented charade by the Republicans, coupled with the Garland theft, I can see the idea becoming much more appealing to Joe.

Obviously a key step would be eliminating the filibuster. Haven’t heard his thoughts on that. As you say, as a creature of the Senate, he might be against that.

But not his call.

No, technically not, but I doubt Schumer (if he becomes majority leader) would push for it if Biden is opposed to it.

[njbill]

Thomas is going to retire soon, and Alito is making noises I thought that he was getting tired of being a Supreme.

Always tough to predict retirements. You would think that both would only step down when a Republican president is in office.

But Thomas’s comments about Ginsburg suggested a degree of tiredness and perhaps resignation that I found notable. I think he was really impacted by Scalia’s death. Wouldn’t surprise me if he just doesn’t find the job fun anymore. Does he want to hang on for four more years, or maybe more? I have long thought he would, but I am getting less sure about that.

Alito would seem to be in a similar boat, but I have heard similar things about him possibly leaving as well. Is he going to pull a Souder?

Bottom line for me, it would be quite surprising if both Thomas and Alito stepped down during a Biden presidency. Now if Trump were to be reelected, I could certainly see that.