What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett (4 Viewers)

IvanKaramazov said:
I'm firmly in the "we should follow the rules as they were written" camp when it comes to this sort of stuff.  But if I was going to steel-man an argument for the other side, I would argue that election rules are kind of like contracts -- they're always incomplete.  Weird contingencies that nobody ever anticipated arise, or rules start working perversely in ways that nobody expected, and you need someone to step in and make sure that the overall intent of the system isn't going off the rails.  So under normal circumstances, it would be fine to set election day as a hard deadline (it is, by its nature, a hard deadline after all), but covid has thrown everything for a loop and maybe we need to reevaluate whether that particular rule still "works" in our current situation.

Like I said, I don't agree with that view because I think it opens the door to motivated, results-based reasoning, but it's not a dumb or crazy position to take.
Click to expand...
In Wisconsin, the context is important. In the Spring election, I was pissed off that our State Supreme Court, and later the SCOTUS, refused to consider reasonable accommodations our governor wanted to put in place.  I had to wait in line wearing a mask for 4 hours, about 3 hours and 45 minutes longer than I've ever had to wait to vote.  However, this time around there are already numerous accommodations in our state election process.  I had my ballot about a month ago and could have mailed it in any time.  We left ours at a drop box about a week ago - they are all over town and open 24/7.  Early voting already started and will be open for a full two weeks prior to election day.  Kavanaugh and Gorsuch both harped on these factors.  If anyone is dropping a ballot in the mail today or after today, with all we know, it really is somewhat on them.  Personally, I am pretty comfortable with the notion that a federal judge shouldn't be changing state election procedures 8 weeks before the election, unless there is something really very egregious going on that violates the federal constitution.

 
I had this question in response to a @jm192 post, but really it can be to anyone - 

Why is 9 the right number? 

I don't know that it is or isn't. But for people who are dead set against expanding the court - why? Is 9 better than 11? Or 13? Or 15? Why?

I guess the reverse question is true also. 

I suspect the answer to both sides is just, "We don't care what the number is, as long as our guys are in control."

 
CletiusMaximus said:
In Wisconsin, the context is important. In the Spring election, I was pissed off that our State Supreme Court, and later the SCOTUS, refused to consider reasonable accommodations our governor wanted to put in place.  I had to wait in line wearing a mask for 4 hours, about 3 hours and 45 minutes longer than I've ever had to wait to vote.  However, this time around there are already numerous accommodations in our state election process.  I had my ballot about a month ago and could have mailed it in any time.  We left ours at a drop box about a week ago - they are all over town and open 24/7.  Early voting already started and will be open for a full two weeks prior to election day.  Kavanaugh and Gorsuch both harped on these factors.  If anyone is dropping a ballot in the mail today or after today, with all we know, it really is somewhat on them.  Personally, I am pretty comfortable with the notion that a federal judge shouldn't be changing state election procedures 8 weeks before the election, unless there is something really very egregious going on that violates the federal constitution.
Click to expand...
Agree with this, if you are voting absentee I'm pretty sure you aren't going to get up on Nov 2nd and decide that.  No reason you couldn't have gotten your ballot in the mail or dropped off by now if that was going to be your chosen way to vote.

 
yak651 said:
Sad that supreme court is politicized.  Aren't judges supposed to be "impartial"??  What is this country coming to when so much is made of the supreme court??  They should just be administrating the law, not changing it to reflect a liberal or conservative view.  If any change to the supreme court is made it shouldn't be the number of judges but the number of years they serve or max age (same with POTUS, need max age)
Click to expand...
Agreed.  Politicization of the court is not good for the country, especially one as fractured as we are.

 
jm192 said:
It's almost like the Senate gives the smaller states equal footing to New York and California. 
Click to expand...
Serious thought/question and not playing gotcha..... I often hear the argument how this is the fair thing to do so that California and York, or the coasts more generally, don’t “run” the country.  And I understand the thought process. But isn’t the reverse also true and there’s a disproportionate amount of power spread out between very small number of people within some of the “flyover” states.  The Dakotas for example having twice the number of senators has California or New York or Texas makes no sense at all.

Yes I understand this is the way the constitution has it, but that’s also part of my point. As brilliant as those men were they couldn’t see 200+ years in the future and the complexities that came with it. There’s got to be a better answer fairly represent the people (all of them) equally.  

 
whoknew said:
I had this question in response to a @jm192 post, but really it can be to anyone - 

Why is 9 the right number? 

I don't know that it is or isn't. But for people who are dead set against expanding the court - why? Is 9 better than 11? Or 13? Or 15? Why?

I guess the reverse question is true also. 

I suspect the answer to both sides is just, "We don't care what the number is, as long as our guys are in control."
Click to expand...
Bingo

 
dkp993 said:
Serious thought/question and not playing gotcha..... I often hear the argument how this is the fair thing to do so that California and York, or the coasts more generally, don’t “run” the country.  And I understand the thought process. But isn’t the reverse also true and there’s a disproportionate amount of power spread out between very small number of people within some of the “flyover” states.  The Dakotas for example having twice the number of senators has California or New York or Texas makes no sense at all.

Yes I understand this is the way the constitution has it, but that’s also part of my point. As brilliant as those men were they couldn’t see 200+ years in the future and the complexities that came with it. There’s got to be a better answer fairly represent the people (all of them) equally.  
Click to expand...
Isn't that what the House of Representatives is for though?  Every state has its own interests and the Senate was a way to make sure that they had a say in the federal system of government.  Even back then the states were never equal on population.

 
whoknew said:
I had this question in response to a @jm192 post, but really it can be to anyone - 

Why is 9 the right number? 

I don't know that it is or isn't. But for people who are dead set against expanding the court - why? Is 9 better than 11? Or 13? Or 15? Why?

I guess the reverse question is true also. 

I suspect the answer to both sides is just, "We don't care what the number is, as long as our guys are in control."
Click to expand...
Didn't know if "thank you" or "sad" reaction was better for this post, but agree with bolded

 
whoknew said:
I had this question in response to a @jm192 post, but really it can be to anyone - 

Why is 9 the right number? 

I don't know that it is or isn't. But for people who are dead set against expanding the court - why? Is 9 better than 11? Or 13? Or 15? Why?

I guess the reverse question is true also. 

I suspect the answer to both sides is just, "We don't care what the number is, as long as our guys are in control."
Click to expand...
9 is not right or wrong. Just a norm that has stabilized the institution for over a century. Start messing with that and we're down a slippery slope that causes all sorts of unintended consequences.

IMO we should go back to the 60 votes required for all federal/SC judges that Reid/McConnell undid. That would then re-instill the need for at least some amount of bipartisanship in the process.

 
whoknew said:
I had this question in response to a @jm192 post, but really it can be to anyone - 

Why is 9 the right number? 

I don't know that it is or isn't. But for people who are dead set against expanding the court - why? Is 9 better than 11? Or 13? Or 15? Why?

I guess the reverse question is true also. 

I suspect the answer to both sides is just, "We don't care what the number is, as long as our guys are in control."
Click to expand...
I guess what I'd offer is--why does it need to be expanded?  

People are talking about it being expanded to match federal circuit court districts.  I don't recall anyone arguing that between January 2017 and January 2020.  Now that Trump has put the conservative justices in a 6-3 majority--suddenly there's a lot of really great reasons to do it.  Would those same people have favored Trump just going ahead and expanding the courts back in say 2018--to match the federal circuit courts?  Of course not.  

At no point have I pontificated on the number of SCOTUS Justices and thought 9 is just perfect.  But we're arguing about a change.  Typically the person wanting to change the system bears the burden of proof.  So I'm not going to defend 9.  Maybe it's not the right number.  Maybe it's 11?  But I have a strong suspicion Joe is going to add enough so that there's a liberal majority.  And you're going to have a hell of a time convincing me that Biden is going to expand the SCOTUS to give his side a majoroity--after being against it years ago--simply because he feels that 13 is the right number.

 
Stoneworker said:
9 is not right or wrong. Just a norm that has stabilized the institution for over a century. Start messing with that and we're down a slippery slope that causes all sorts of unintended consequences.

IMO we should go back to the 60 votes required for all federal/SC judges that Reid/McConnell undid. That would then re-instill the need for at least some amount of bipartisanship in the process.
Click to expand...
And maybe we shouldn't have done away with the fillibuster?  *shrugs*

 
Stoneworker said:
Thanks. I'm sure the American people appreciate "sensible" ideas like yours that go against their will.

In the POLITICO/Morning Consult poll (10/18/20), just 24 percent of voters say Congress should pass a law increasing the number of justices.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/21/amy-coney-barrett-poll-430632
Click to expand...
Polls also showed over half or registered voters believed it was better to wait until after inauguration to fill the open SCOTUS seat.

Seems there is a lot going on against the will of the majority of the American people these days.

And I am 100% fine if my views on expanding the court isn't shared by the majority. And if the majority feels that the number of SCOTUS justices should remain the same, I'm fine with that.

It should be that any judicial, legislative, and executive structures of government work towards the will of the majority, rather than for partisan reasons.

I don't believe that's happening right now.

 
Shula-holic said:
Isn't that what the House of Representatives is for though?  Every state has its own interests and the Senate was a way to make sure that they had a say in the federal system of government.  Even back then the states were never equal on population.
Click to expand...
Of course. But there’s a reason why they call it the lower house and they have two-year terms. The power skews to the Senate and never has that been more apparent then in the last few decades.  Also back then the division of population wasn’t so extreme, there was less than 3 million people in the US at the time the Constitution was written. There’s no way they could have fathomed a country 100 times bigger. 

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
That was my point.  People that are okay with expanding the court are only okay with it if their side gets to choose the judges.  I'm against it.  I'm for term limits.  Just because Trump/McConnell did something doesn't mean Biden needs to retaliate.
Click to expand...
I think that taking the high road is great in theory, but in this case.....I think its a bit more complicated.

This isn't a beanball in baseball where all that's hurt is somebody's pride (and maybe a small bruise). This was a major, morally questionable power play that COULD affect the path of our country for a VERY long time.

Its the grayest of gray areas though. While McConnell may not have done anything illegal, you can certainly argue that he did "wrong" (and not just with the SC appointments.  There's the issues of the lower courts as well). 

Is it the new administration's (if there is one) right (or duty) to "correct" that wrong? I don't really know.  Again, its a complicated issue and no matter what they do, like 50% of the country is going to be pissed about it.

 
dkp993 said:
Of course. But there’s a reason why they call it the lower house and they have two-year terms. The power skews to the Senate and never has that been more apparent then in the last few decades.  Also back then the division of population wasn’t so extreme, there was less than 3 million people in the US at the time the Constitution was written. There’s no way they could have fathomed a country 100 times bigger. 
Click to expand...
The alternative is to abandon the federal system that we've had since our founding.  The country was set up so that the individual states had certain powers and rights.  I think we would agree that smaller states would never agree to give that up.  So what would the alternative be other than to simply strip them of it and change the government?  And if we think we are fractured today I couldn't imagine that scene.

 
Stoneworker said:
IMO we should go back to the 60 votes required for all federal/SC judges that Reid/McConnell undid. That would then re-instill the need for at least some amount of bipartisanship in the process.
Click to expand...
Great idea, and anything that restores some rebalance and momentum towards bipartisanship for the good of the majority is an admirable pursuit. I question whether this is achievable anymore given how polarized and self-interested politicians and the process has become, but that's the way it has to go.

 
Things should go...

President nominates a candidate: "Hey peeps, I think this person could do a good job."

Senate has hearings: "Hey candidate, what do you think of this stuff?"

Senate Judiciary Committee Vote: "We need to vote, what do you peeps think of candidate?  Cool?  Great, lets check with the others."

Senate Floor Vote: "We all think candidate is cool" OR "Not so cool, let's try someone else"

But instead we have two parties that are so dug in against each other it seems like we will have no progress unless we have a president and senate of the same party that can force through whatever candidate best fits their goals with their raw political power.

We really need a third party or at least more independents that aren't completely tied to R or D policy goals.

As an alternative to behaving like rational adults, I also like the Yang Gang plan, although probably not completely original.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Shula-holic said:
The alternative is to abandon the federal system that we've had since our founding.  The country was set up so that the individual states had certain powers and rights.  I think we would agree that smaller states would never agree to give that up.  So what would the alternative be other than to simply strip them of it and change the government?  And if we think we are fractured today I couldn't imagine that scene.
Click to expand...
We're in the SCOTUS thread, so forgive the tangent, but I think it might be time to reimagine some things. I don't live in Tennessee because I believe in Tennessee's state constitution and what it stands for as governing body in the USA. I just live here because I've got some friends here and it's close to my hometown.

I'd have to imagine there are many like me in my generation. I'd also have to imagine there are many others that don't have any reasonable choice whatsoever about where they live.

 
TLEF316 said:
I think that taking the high road is great in theory, but in this case.....I think its a bit more complicated.

This isn't a beanball in baseball where all that's hurt is somebody's pride (and maybe a small bruise). This was a major, morally questionable power play that COULD affect the path of our country for a VERY long time.

Its the grayest of gray areas though. While McConnell may not have done anything illegal, you can certainly argue that he did "wrong" (and not just with the SC appointments.  There's the issues of the lower courts as well). 

Is it the new administration's (if there is one) right (or duty) to "correct" that wrong? I don't really know.  Again, its a complicated issue and no matter what they do, like 50% of the country is going to be pissed about it.
Click to expand...
If one wants to claim McConnell "stole" a seat have at it.  By putting 4 on your side because of that, it's absolutely retaliation on steroids.  If that side wants to do it then have at it.  Just spare the rest of us all the moral high ground bullcrap they usually serve up about doing the right thing, fairness, and all the other crap they spew.

 
Shula-holic said:
The alternative is to abandon the federal system that we've had since our founding.  The country was set up so that the individual states had certain powers and rights.  I think we would agree that smaller states would never agree to give that up.  So what would the alternative be other than to simply strip them of it and change the government?  And if we think we are fractured today I couldn't imagine that scene.
Click to expand...
Good points and I don’t have an answer hence the reason for my question.  No one wants to give up power.  I’m not making a case to give the power to the coasts, I’m trying to stoke a conversation about how to better equally represent everybody.  And yes I think our federal system needs to be reevaluated and tweaked after 200+ years. It’s a very different country, the founding fathers did an amazing job getting us here, a few tweaks could take us another 200 years.  Term limits, lifetime appointments, gerrymandering, re-tweaking of the electoral college, etc. etc. etc. all things that need to be looked at to better represent everybody equally.

I say this largely Because the direction we are going is exposing the weaknesses in the system. 

 
hagmania said:
We're in the SCOTUS thread, so forgive the tangent, but I think it might be time to reimagine some things. I don't live in Tennessee because I believe in Tennessee's state constitution and what it stands for as governing body in the USA. I just live here because I've got some friends here and it's close to my hometown.

I'd have to imagine there are many like me in my generation. I'd also have to imagine there are many others that don't have any reasonable choice whatsoever about where they live.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and it is a tangent so I'll say this and drop it. 

Let's take North Dakota for example, I don't know anyone who lives there but I do know the way of life there is way different from someone in Los Angeles, New York, or even where I live in Alabama.  Their daily lives are likely a bit different from mine, what their problems are, what they want out of their government.  We can all see our differences pretty plainly in today's politics.  We have always lived as one country in my view because there was a shared power between population centers and ways of life essentially.  In the end, your congressional district, your state had some say in government that represented your home's way of life.  The Senate in essence gives your state an equal say.  I don't think changing that is a good thing anytime, much less with the way feelings are today.  I'm sure others may feel differently but that's my belief. 

 
jm192 said:
I mean...how many times have people posted polls saying the people don't support ACB  being confirmed?  

I
Click to expand...
about as many as posted that the people do support it...point was, calling it all the will of the people on adding seats and citing a poll doesn't really mean much...our country isn't and shouldn't be governed by polling.

 
dkp993 said:
Of course. But there’s a reason why they call it the lower house and they have two-year terms. The power skews to the Senate and never has that been more apparent then in the last few decades.  Also back then the division of population wasn’t so extreme, there was less than 3 million people in the US at the time the Constitution was written. There’s no way they could have fathomed a country 100 times bigger. 
Click to expand...
I think the founders got it right. 

The House exists.  And it is the less powerful arm of congress.  But it gives the States population based representation.  

The founders believed that what's good for the larger states isn't always good for the smaller states.  If that weren't a concern--there's no place for the electoral college.  If the biggest few states showed up, places like Deleware and Kentucky have no say in Federal government.  So the electoral college and the Senate level the playing field.  

I assume they worried that the largest, most powerful states would drive resources to themselves at the expense of the smaller states.  

I think absent the Democrats hate Republicans and Vice Versa world we live in today, the system works.  

 
dkp993 said:
Good points and I don’t have an answer hence the reason for my question.  No one wants to give up power.  I’m not making a case to give the power to the coasts, I’m trying to stoke a conversation about how to better equally represent everybody.  And yes I think our federal system needs to be reevaluated and tweaked after 200+ years. It’s a very different country, the founding fathers did an amazing job getting us here, a few tweaks could take us another 200 years.  Term limits, lifetime appointments, gerrymandering, re-tweaking of the electoral college, etc. etc. etc. all things that need to be looked at to better represent everybody equally.

I say this largely Because the direction we are going is exposing the weaknesses in the system. 
Click to expand...
Well, no system is good when Pelosi won't work with the President.  Mitch won't work with Pelosi.  

The House is passing things along Partisan lines.  I don't find that to be a good system.  

The Senate is passing things largely along Partisan lines.  I don't find that to be a good system in either.   

 
Shula-holic said:
Agreed, and it is a tangent so I'll say this and drop it. 

Let's take North Dakota for example, I don't know anyone who lives there but I do know the way of life there is way different from someone in Los Angeles, New York, or even where I live in Alabama.  Their daily lives are likely a bit different from mine, what their problems are, what they want out of their government.  We can all see our differences pretty plainly in today's politics.  We have always lived as one country in my view because there was a shared power between population centers and ways of life essentially.  In the end, your congressional district, your state had some say in government that represented your home's way of life.  The Senate in essence gives your state an equal say.  I don't think changing that is a good thing anytime, much less with the way feelings are today.  I'm sure others may feel differently but that's my belief. 
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't feel represented in the slightest, so maybe that's where the sentiment comes from.

 
Stoneworker said:
IMO we should go back to the 60 votes required for all federal/SC judges that Reid/McConnell undid. That would then re-instill the need for at least some amount of bipartisanship in the process.
Click to expand...
Reid and the Democrats are the ones who did this. McConnell and most of us even warned  it would turn out this way. He’s just playing by the rules set up by Reid and the Democrats who destroyed this norm (like they do with most things). 

 
jm192 said:
I think absent the Democrats hate Republicans and Vice Versa world we live in today, the system works.
Click to expand...
I think the system works but needs tweaking. Again I’m not abdicating to give the larger states disproportionate amounts of power but there has to be away of equalizating it.  Right now the smaller states have a disproportionate amount of power per capita.  

 
jm192 said:
Well, no system is good when Pelosi won't work with the President.  Mitch won't work with Pelosi.  

The House is passing things along Partisan lines.  I don't find that to be a good system.  

The Senate is passing things largely along Partisan lines.  I don't find that to be a good system in either.   
Click to expand...
Agreed.  And all of this is exposing the flaws in the system. I’m not a Democrat, and I hate the packing the court idea.  But it’s a natural evolution of the partisanship and inherited flaws of the system.  We need to make adjustments to better run this country that’s over a 100times larger then it was when the rules were written.  

 
dkp993 said:
Agreed.  And all of this is exposing the flaws in the system. I’m not a Democrat, and I hate the packing the court idea.  But it’s a natural evolution of the partisanship and inherited flaws of the system.  We need to make adjustments to better run this country that’s over a 100times larger then it was when the rules were written.  
Click to expand...
The system is fine.  

The people are the problem.  

 
Widbil83 said:
Reid and the Democrats are the ones who did this. McConnell and most of us even warned  it would turn out this way. He’s just playing by the rules set up by Reid and the Democrats who destroyed this norm (like they do with most things). 
Click to expand...
Yes. And Reid will say he did it because he was frustrated with the GOP, and round and round we go. It's a fool's errand to attempt to identify the Original Sin.

We need Reagan/Gorbachev-type summit(s) to end the partisan arms race.

Unfortunately, that would require one party to take a short-term political hit, but regain the moral high ground by resisting the inevitable counter-escalation in response to the latest partisan power maneuver.

McConnell recently had that oppty and he blew it. Now the Dems have a similar oppty.

 
Widbil83 said:
Reid and the Democrats are the ones who did this. McConnell and most of us even warned  it would turn out this way. He’s just playing by the rules set up by Reid and the Democrats who destroyed this norm (like they do with most things). 
Click to expand...
This is just repeating a false narrative.   Reid did nothing with regard to Supreme Court justices.  Reid's action has resulted in the current Senate seating a ton of federal court judges, but has no bearing whatsoever on Garland or the three Trump appointees.

If you apply this logic, than packing the court is the right next step, because of what McConnell did with regard to Garland and ACB.

Edit:  Reid getting rid of the filibuster for federal appointments was stupid, but McConnell's actions regarding the Supreme Court are his own, and are purely political, if not retaliatory.   If you view those actions as appropriate, than you should be in favor of packing the court, which is the logical next step in this back and forth.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jm192 said:
The system is fine.  

The people are the problem.  
Click to expand...
The people are certainly a massive problem, and they are exposing some flaws in the system.  Congress isn’t headed in a good direction, and hasn’t been for quite some time.  Corrections need to be made.  

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
If one wants to claim McConnell "stole" a seat have at it.  By putting 4 on your side because of that, it's absolutely retaliation on steroids.  If that side wants to do it then have at it.  Just spare the rest of us all the moral high ground bullcrap they usually serve up about doing the right thing, fairness, and all the other crap they spew.
Click to expand...


Looking at the events of Garland/Gorsuch in a vacuum, I dont believe the seat was "stolen". I believe that Garland should have been given a hearing and that (in an ideal world) everyone would have gone into it with an open mind. But at the end of the day, the Republican Senate Majority was under no obligation to confirm him. 

But when you combine it with the fast tracking of the ACB confirmation, it came across as a BS goal-post moving tactic (Obama's nominee 10 months before the end of his presidency is no less credible than a Trump nominee with < 3 months to go in his term, even if another term is still possible). And again, the Republicans could have saved themselves some (not all, but some) grief if they had just allowed Garland hearings and voted against him. We'd likely be in the same spot that we're in today and lots of reasonable people (myself included) would have been ok with it.

Agree that stacking the court with 4 new Biden nominees would be the nuclear option. And I dont think that will happen. All that does is ensure that the Republicans will do the exact same thing next time around, which doesn't really help anybody.

I like the idea of expanding the court, but as someone suggested earlier.....not doing so until after the 2024 election. Give the winners of the following 2 elections 2 appointments each and then institute rolling term limits for Justices going forward to ensure that each administration gets 2 appointments. (with some sort of language in place to rearrange things in the event a Justice dies before their term is up. Maybe the president gets scheduled appointments after 1 year and after 3 years to lower the risk of an an "unscheduled" need for replacement)

 
whoknew said:
Can we talk about the actual SCt decision yesterday? It doesn’t make sense to me to not allow ballots that are postmarked before 11/3 but received after. 
 

Having said that, I’ve read a lot of articles on the decision and haven’t been able to find the language of the WI law. Does anyone have it?

Kavanaugh is getting a lot of criticism for his concurrence. I’d just like to know the statute before I can criticize or not. 
Click to expand...
The ballot shall be returned so it is delivered to the polling place no later than 8 p.m. on election day. Except in municipalities where absentee ballots are canvassed under s. 7.52, if the municipal clerk receives an absentee ballot on election day, the clerk shall secure the ballot and cause the ballot to be delivered to the polling place serving the elector's residence before 8 p.m. Any ballot not mailed or delivered as provided in this subsection may not be counted.
Click to expand...

 
yak651 said:
Sad that supreme court is politicized.
Click to expand...
This is why "I'm voting for this presidential candidate instead of that one because this one will appoint Supreme Court Justices whose rulings I'll like better" is a huge pet peeve of mine.

There's a very good reason why federal judges aren't elected by voters. Acknowledging this, voters should respect the fact that they're not supposed to choose judges. The natural implication is that voters shouldn't choose judges indirectly by electing presidents on the basis of whom they'll appoint as judges.

The federal judiciary has been inappropriately politicized in a number of ways. IMO, any presidential candidate who runs on a platform of promising to nominate politically attractive judges, and any voters who respond favorably to that kind of campaign, are part of the problem.

It's complicated, though, and it's tough to blame the voters themselves.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
This is why "I'm voting for this presidential candidate instead of that one because this one will appoint Supreme Court Justices whose rulings I'll like better" is a huge pet peeve of mine.

There's a very good reason why federal judges aren't elected by voters. Acknowledging this, voters should respect the fact that they're not supposed to choose judges. The natural implication is that voters shouldn't choose judges indirectly by electing presidents on the basis of whom they'll appoint as judges.

The federal judiciary has been inappropriately politicized in a number of ways. IMO, any presidential candidate who runs on a platform of promising to nominate politically attractive judges, and any voters who respond favorably to that kind of campaign, are part of the problem.

It's complicated, though, and it's tough to blame the voters themselves.
Click to expand...
I can't say that I agree with this.  For better or for worse, picking judges is one of the job responsibilities of the president.  I think it's fair to take into consideration how a particular candidate might choose to approach that aspect of his job.  Not so much along the lines of "I want justices who vote this particular way on this particular issue that I happen to care about," but more like "I want justices who share my general philosophy about constitutional government." 

I do agree that voting for a lousy candidate just because you think he'll appoint judges that you like is a pretty lame rationale.  I would rather have spent the last four years governed by Biden with three young RBG clones appointed to the court than to have had to put up with four years of Trump, who I think has been very bad for the country for a myriad of reasons that I won't bother to repeat.  SCOTUS just isn't that important in the overall scheme of things, although nobody ever wants to admit that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jm192 said:
At no point have I pontificated on the number of SCOTUS Justices and thought 9 is just perfect.
Click to expand...
I think nine is a pretty good number, though a decent case could be made for eleven or thirteen.

I think it's fairly obvious that the number should be odd rather than even.

Smaller numbers help keep oral arguments sane.

Larger numbers reduce the political power of any individual justice, reduce the possibility of getting quirky majority opinions due to small sample size, and probably keep the court more politically balanced on the whole.

I think we're already taxing the sanity of oral arguments at nine justices. The other factors might justify going to eleven or thirteen, but I don't think it's super obvious that nine is too few.

 
Layperson's understanding here...

But If I am reading all of this correctly then the WI ruling seems like it was pretty simple. State decided that the ballots need to be in by 8pm election day because that is what law says. A federal court went the other way and said no, you have to extend, because covid. Appeals court overturned that ruling saying it usurped the state's authority to set election laws and that this violated a supreme court precedent of not interfering too close to an election. Supreme court then decided the same. 

Seems kavanaugh is catching a lot of flack for his comments re: "late arriving ballots". People saying absentee ballots arriving many days later in other states as proof that late arriving ballots happen often. This seems misguided to me since those arent late arriving ballots in the context of the laws of those states. Whereas in WI anything after 8pm is. 

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I think nine is a pretty good number, though a decent case could be made for eleven or thirteen.

I think it's fairly obvious that the number should be odd rather than even.

Smaller numbers help keep oral arguments sane.

Larger numbers reduce the political power of any individual justice, reduce the possibility of getting quirky majority opinions due to small sample size, and probably keep the court more politically balanced on the whole.

I think we're already taxing the sanity of oral arguments at nine justices. The other factors might justify going to eleven or thirteen, but I don't think it's super obvious that nine is too few.
Click to expand...
Nine is really quite a lot for oral argument.   I've argued in front of the 9-member Washington Supreme Court, and as soon as they start asking questions your argument is derailed and you have to work very hard to get back to your most important points.   If one justice is particularly interested in a tangential issue, it is unlikely you'll ever get back to your substantive argument.  I can't imagine what it would be like trying to argue in front of 13 justices.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I can't say that I agree with this.  For better or for worse, picking judges is one of the job responsibilities of the president.  I think it's fair to take into consideration how a particular candidate might choose to approach that aspect of his job.  Not so much along the lines of "I want justices who vote this particular way on this particular issue that I happen to care about," but more like "I want justices who share my general philosophy about constitutional government."
Click to expand...
There's a continuum...

"I'm voting for Smith because he promised only to nominate judges who will (uphold/overturn) U.S. v. Doe."

"I'm voting for Smith because he released a list of judges he'll pick from, and I approve of the judges on the list. A vote for Smith is a vote for those judges."

"I''m voting for Smith because I know that he's a fan of (originalism/textualism/pragmatism/structuralism/whatever) when it comes to constitutional interpretation and so am I."

"I'm voting for Smith because I trust him to nominate competent, honest judges whose favored modes of constitutional interpretation are within respectable bounds whether or not I agree with those modes or their expected outcomes."

I am condemning only the first two. The third is unobjectionable. The fourth is admirable -- though generally not actionable because nearly every candidate passes that test. (Even Trump, based on his first-term appointments.)

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
There's a continuum...

"I'm voting for Smith because he promised only to nominate judges who will (uphold/overturn) U.S. v. Doe."

"I'm voting for Smith because he released a list of judges he'll pick from, and I approve of the judges on the list. A vote for Smith is a vote for those judges."

"I''m voting for Smith because I know that he's a fan of (originalism/textualism/pragmatism/structuralism/whatever) when it comes to constitutional interpretation and so am I."

"I'm voting for Smith because I trust him to nominate competent, honest judges whose favored modes of constitutional interpretation are within respectable bounds whether or not I agree with those modes or their expected outcomes."

I am condemning only the first two. The third is unobjectionable. The fourth is admirable -- though generally not actionable because nearly every candidate passes that test. (Even Trump, based on his first-term appointments.)
Click to expand...
That works.  Thanks for clarifying.

 
-fish- said:
Nine is really quite a lot for oral argument.   I've argued in front of the 9-member Washington Supreme Court, and as soon as they start asking questions your argument is derailed and you have to work very hard to get back to your most important points.   If one justice is particularly interested in a tangential issue, it is unlikely you'll ever get back to your substantive argument.  I can't imagine what it would be like trying to argue in front of 13 justices.
Click to expand...
Isn't it common wisdom that oral argument is pretty much just a spectacle anyway though?  I've always been told and believed, by the time they get to argument, the decisions have been made based on the briefs in most cases.  That was certainly my experience many moons ago when I was a law clerk.

 
CletiusMaximus said:
Isn't it common wisdom that oral argument is pretty much just a spectacle anyway though?  I've always been told and believed, by the time they get to argument, the decisions have been made based on the briefs in most cases.  That was certainly my experience many moons ago when I was a law clerk.
Click to expand...
I have seen oral argument seem to sway decisions.   In my case, the trial court had ruled in our favor and the court of appeals had reversed, so my assumption was that it was a close issue.   During oral argument, one justice asked very pointed questions of the opposing counsel and his argument fell apart.   The issue the justice focused on was a secondary issue in my brief, but when I saw that  was where they wanted to go, I made it the focus of my rebuttal.   The final ruling covered both the main and secondary issues.

 
Shula-holic said:
Isn't that what the House of Representatives is for though?  Every state has its own interests and the Senate was a way to make sure that they had a say in the federal system of government.  Even back then the states were never equal on population.
Click to expand...
If you dig minority rule. Let’s make the House have some role in the Supreme Court then let’s talk. Dems have won the popular vote six out of seven presidential elections but we have a 6-3 conservative majority. If it was the other way around conservatives hair would be on fire. 
 

I think we all understsnd the fundamentals of government but one side is abusing them. 

 
Jackstraw said:
If you dig minority rule. Let’s make the House have some role in the Supreme Court then let’s talk. Dems have won the popular vote six out of seven presidential elections but we have a 6-3 conservative majority. If it was the other way around conservatives hair would be on fire. 
 

I think we all understsnd the fundamentals of government but one side is abusing them. 
Click to expand...
I think though....the only one you can even remotely cry foul on is Garland; and that idea of being robbed would be reduced even further if McConnell allowed a vote.

I don't think Kennedy would have retired if Clinton won.  It's kind of my understanding that Kennedy retired with the demand that  Kavanaugh got his seat.

Even RBG....I get not wanting to walk away; but if she were worried about the sanctity of her "seat" she could have walked away during Obamas early years.

I don't really like defending Trump era Republicans.......but I blame the Democratic voter for them not having a 7-2 majority on the SC.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Democrats Planning to Add 4 New Justices to the Supreme Court
3 4 5
Replies
242
Views
7K
John123
J
GordonGekko
Should Ruth Bader Ginsburg Have Retired Before Her Passing To Protect Roe v Wade? (6/27/22 17:59 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Top