******Official SCOTUS Thread******

[Chaz McNulty 700]

Now that it's going to be 6-3 Conservative, I can't see how abortion and Obamacare will not be challenged.  The Dems only chance would be to increase to atleast 11 and add two liberal leaning judges.

[Maurile Tremblay 21,688]

43 minutes ago, gianmarco said:

To counter this, if they had voted and denied Garland a seat, Obama could still have nominated another candidate that may have been more suited to pass through.  But he was never given that opportunity.  So you could still argue the "stolen seat" rhetoric from that standpoint, no?

Assuming Obama was not going to nominate Amy Coney Barrett, there was nobody more palatable to Republicans than Garland should have been. I believe the Republicans would have voted to disconfirm anyone Obama nominated.

If you want to criticize them for that, I'm right there with you. I hate the practice of voting against eminently qualified nominees just because they're in the opposite party.

But in that case, the criticism amounts to, "Hey, Republicans did to Obama exactly what Obama did to Republicans when, as a Senator, he voted against confirming Alito and Roberts." It's not like Roberts was some nutcase extremist. So that criticism loses some rhetorical force. The "stole a seat" mantra implies that the Republicans did something novel -- not that they simply followed in Obama's own footsteps.

[SaintsInDome2006 47,463]

1 hour ago, Snotbubbles said:

The Founding Fathers said that the President nominates a SC Justice with advice and consent of the Senate.  The rule isn't the President nominates a SC Justice and the Senate must confirm.  Elections have consequences and the 2014 mid-term elections allowed the Republican Senate to gain control of the confirmation process.  The Senate could have gone through a sham meetings with Garland, a sham proceeding and then a sham vote to not confirmed Garland.  Sure, the Republicans would now look better in that situation, but the Garland results would have been the same.  You can agree or disagree on the reasoning, but the reasoning isn't really all that important.

I just want to point out a couple things:

- You’ve blown by my point about the duty and power weighing on and belonging to the Senate, not one man. The Senate has other onuses upon them - impeachment, when it happens, appointments of federal judges, funding the government, etc., as provided for in Sec. I. It’s a violation of duty to ignore those. Having violated one such duty once it has caused a rippling inequity which has caused disturbance in our system, which is precisely what the Founders sought to avoid.

- The way you describe essentially republican/democratic (lower cap) duties as a ‘sham’ is disturbing. Yes I think Senators doing their job per their oath is a sacrosanct responsibility and shrugging it off like this is itself shameful. McConnell’s corruption of a system that for a long time was built on fairness, honor and tradition is sadly despicable.

[Chaz McNulty 700]

12 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

But in that case, the criticism amounts to, "Hey, Republicans did to Obama exactly what Obama did to Republicans when, as a Senator, he voted against confirming Alito and Roberts." It's not like Roberts was some nutcase extremist. So that criticism loses some rhetorical force. The "stole a seat" mantra implies that the Republicans did something novel -- not that they simply followed in Obama's own footsteps.

 

2 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I just want to point out a couple things:

- You’ve blown by my point about the duty and power weighing on and belonging to the Senate, not one man. The Senate has other onuses upon them - impeachment, when it happens, appointments of federal judges, funding the government, etc., as provided for in Sec. I. It’s a violation of duty to ignore those. Having violated one such duty once it has caused a rippling inequity which has caused disturbance in our system, which is precisely what the Founders sought to avoid.

- The way you describe essentially republican/democratic (lower cap) duties as a ‘sham’ is disturbing. Yes I think Senators doing their job per their oath is a sacrosanct responsibility and shrugging it off like this is itself shameful. McConnell’s corruption of a system that for a long time was built on fairness, honor and tradition is sadly despicable.

I wouldn't bother.  In this thread they seem to be equating Obama voting against a couple SC justices that were going to be slam dunk entries, the same as what McConnel did.  The fact that they cannot differentiate between these two acts makes it futile to argue this point.

[sho nuff 16,136]

1 hour ago, Shutout said:

She was asked about the possibility towards the president and the Attorney General and her response was that they "have weapons/options" in their arsenal and she was not going to discuss those with the interviewer.  I think people kind of put words in her mouth there.  

 That is what Im getting at...its not even as if she has said or hinted at anything about impeachment and I see people online bashing her for even discussing it (when she seems to be avoiding actually discussing it).

 

[Sand 5,452]

16 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I hate the practice of voting against eminently qualified nominees just because they're in the opposite party.

I do, as well.  Going back through recent history Sotomayor and Kagan were both confirmed by 65-35 type votes.  As we know, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were just about straight party line votes.  If we go by that it's much more likely that the blue team would be much more inclined to disconfirm than the red team.  I think we all remember Bork.

The striking example of all this is Gorsuch.  There is no way he deserved a 55-45 vote. 

[Shutout 2,013]

5 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

 That is what Im getting at...its not even as if she has said or hinted at anything about impeachment and I see people online bashing her for even discussing it (when she seems to be avoiding actually discussing it).

 

I agree. It is a fair point.  It happens on both sides. 

[Juxtatarot 11,079]

1 minute ago, Sand said:

The striking example of all this is Gorsuch.  There is no way he deserved a 55-45 vote. 

No doubt the Merrick Garland wound hadn't healed.  Probably not fair to compare votes pre and post Garland.  In fact, I think it's highly unlikely we'll have a nominee voted on when the President and Senate Majority Leader are of different parties for many, many years.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports 1,971]

1 hour ago, Snotbubbles said:

There were mid-term elections in 2018.    

Where democrats easily received the majority of the "national" vote!  Receiving 58% of the Senate vote (which is somewhat deceiving based on the seats up for grabs) and  53% of the votes for the "House" seats.  Sure we can all pick and chose how to spin 2018 and McConnell certainly will if he needs to do it, but calling 2018 a referendum in support of Trump's judgment is world class gymnast stuff.

[dawgtrails 582]

37 minutes ago, Sand said:

I do, as well.  Going back through recent history Sotomayor and Kagan were both confirmed by 65-35 type votes.  As we know, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were just about straight party line votes.  If we go by that it's much more likely that the blue team would be much more inclined to disconfirm than the red team.  I think we all remember Bork.

The striking example of all this is Gorsuch.  There is no way he deserved a 55-45 vote. 

Scalia was 98-0. Kennedy 97-0. Roberts 78-22.

Don't think either side has an argument here

[Henry Ford 60,520]

1 hour ago, Chaz McNulty said:

Now that it's going to be 6-3 Conservative, I can't see how abortion and Obamacare will not be challenged.  The Dems only chance would be to increase to atleast 11 and add two liberal leaning judges.

Challenged?  It's a little late on that.  The week after the election the Supreme Court will hear a challenge to the Affordable Care Act in which the district court in Texas struck down the entire Act.  Even if it ends in a 4-4 tie it could be the end of the entire Affordable Care Act by the end of the year.

[The Commish 12,943]

2 hours ago, Shula-holic said:

I was considering the context of where we were in 2016 at that time.  The vast majority of people thought Clinton was going to win.  I think the justice he was replacing had lots to do with it.  Sure, Hillary could have gone further left with a nominee, but to replace Scalia, McConnell had very little to lose.  Had it been Ginsberg's seat and what was at the time a likely Clinton win, I think the calculus could have been different.  Just my opinion though and something nobody can know for sure.

Not sure I really understand what you're saying.  Is it that you believe McConnell would have said "hey, Scalia's gone and needs to be replaced and I think Clinton's going to win so let's take Obama's pick through the process"?  To what end?  The fear that Clinton would pick someone MORE liberal?

[Shula-holic 2,087]

10 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Not sure I really understand what you're saying.  Is it that you believe McConnell would have said "hey, Scalia's gone and needs to be replaced and I think Clinton's going to win so let's take Obama's pick through the process"?  To what end?  The fear that Clinton would pick someone MORE liberal?

No, I am saying if the dates of their death were reversed his thinking would have been different.  In that case Ginsberg's seat would have been the 2016 opening, not Scalia's.  I don't think McConnell would have been nearly as likely to not confirm Garland if it were the Ginsberg seat open in 2016 under an Obama presidency.  I am not sure Garland would have been Obama's pick then, but if he were I think McConnell is much more likely to confirm for two main reasons.  First, it's Ginsberg being replaced.  Whereas Garland in Scalia's seat would swing the court to the left, Garland taking over for Ginsberg simply wouldn't.  Second, if he rejected Garland in that case, the possibility Clinton could have gone further left following an election victory.  I think the first reason is the main one though and would have been the likely deciding factor.  Again, just my opinion but I think the fact that it was Scalia, the conservative lion, being replaced in 2016 weighed on his decision.

Edited September 21 by Shula-holic

[Henry Ford 60,520]

3 minutes ago, Shula-holic said:

No, I am saying if the dates of their death were reversed.  In that case Ginsberg would have been the 2016 opening.  I don't think McConnell would have been nearly as likely to not confirm Garland if it were the Ginsberg seat open in 2016 under an Obama presidency.

As I recall you were also surprised when the GOP started campaigning for Roy Moore. 

[Shula-holic 2,087]

Just now, Henry Ford said:

As I recall you were also surprised when the GOP started campaigning for Roy Moore. 

That's not correct.

[Henry Ford 60,520]

2 minutes ago, Shula-holic said:

That's not correct.

I have been wrong before.

[spodog 217]

5 hours ago, The Commish said:

Not sure why it's "amazing".  After all, there are no rules against it and even if there were, do they really matter anymore?  I don't think it happens, but if it does, it does.  Afterall, that's part of their function  

Just amazing in the sense that our elected leaders now interact with each other in ways that we wouldn't tolerate for third graders on recess.      I use the term leaders very loosely here. 

[spodog 217]

On 9/20/2020 at 10:49 AM, SaintsInDome2006 said:

The Founding Fathers didn’t envision parties or even moderates/wingers. It’s our fault that we have done this to ourselves and we should fix it.

The Founding Fathers did indeed not only envision parties, but they themselves (most of them) were aligning along various party lines as part of the scrum to determine the wording of what went into the Constitution in 1787.    The Federalist vs Jeffersonian-Republican fighting amongst the first batch of elected officials to take office in the newly formed congress was so bad between 1789 and 1796 that George Washington, warning us about these dangers, included this in his farewell address as he prepared to depart the office of President in Sep of 1796:

Quote

“Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.”

 

[squistion 12,409]

Chuck Schumer:

"If a Senate majority over the course of six years steals two Supreme Court seats using completely contradictory rationales, how could we expect to trust the other side again? How can we trust each other if ... the other side will double-cross their own standards?"

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1308164104889208832

 

 

[cap'n grunge 7,630]

All I know is given the repeated blatant disregard for facts and the rule of law shown by Congressional Republicans since Trump took office, the Democrats are well within their rights to stack the courts with as many liberal justices as they desire. Which sucks because the politicization of the judiciary will be even worse. I didn't necessarily like the idea Buttigieg to increase the size of SCOTUS but I did like how a certain number had to be unanimously approved by the sitting court to help bring impartial moderation.

[Rich Conway 3,159]

4 minutes ago, squistion said:

Chuck Schumer:

"If a Senate majority over the course of six years steals two Supreme Court seats using completely contradictory rationales, how could we expect to trust the other side again? How can we trust each other if ... the other side will double-cross their own standards?"

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1308164104889208832

This is a terrible quote.  It is impossible to consider this two stolen seats.  I understand the argument for one "stolen" seat, but the only way to get to two stolen seats is to use the GOP logic that the rules should have been one way then and another way now.

[The Commish 12,943]

1 hour ago, Shula-holic said:

No, I am saying if the dates of their death were reversed his thinking would have been different.  In that case Ginsberg's seat would have been the 2016 opening, not Scalia's.  I don't think McConnell would have been nearly as likely to not confirm Garland if it were the Ginsberg seat open in 2016 under an Obama presidency.  I am not sure Garland would have been Obama's pick then, but if he were I think McConnell is much more likely to confirm for two main reasons.  First, it's Ginsberg being replaced.  Whereas Garland in Scalia's seat would swing the court to the left, Garland taking over for Ginsberg simply wouldn't.  Second, if he rejected Garland in that case, the possibility Clinton could have gone further left following an election victory.  I think the first reason is the main one though and would have been the likely deciding factor.  Again, just my opinion but I think the fact that it was Scalia, the conservative lion, being replaced in 2016 weighed on his decision.

hmmm...as I was typing out my response, the bold was the only thing that came to mind that I thought MIGHT change his mind.  I don't think for a second the former was in play.  There is zero evidence available to us that shows him being able to think, "hmmm....this was RBG, so I'll replace her with another 'liberal' "  It's pretty clear he's on a mission to actively swing things right and not just maintain status quo.....but, as you said, we'll never know.

[The Commish 12,943]

53 minutes ago, spodog said:

Just amazing in the sense that our elected leaders now interact with each other in ways that we wouldn't tolerate for third graders on recess.      I use the term leaders very loosely here. 

That's the bar we've set...it's like a belligerent parent not being able to comprehend why their kid is so belligerent.  

[Sand 5,452]

4 hours ago, Rich Conway said:

This is a terrible quote.  It is impossible to consider this two stolen seats.  I understand the argument for one "stolen" seat, but the only way to get to two stolen seats is to use the GOP logic that the rules should have been one way then and another way now.

Forget it.  He's rolling.

[rockaction 21,443]

I think what this comes down to is that I finally get to say that the theory behind the influential book The Least Dangerous Branch is and was poppycock without getting graded down for doing so for not having read it. If it was a hopeful book or a normative assessment by Bickel, then that is all it is. Hope and longing.

I never did read it, I confess, because if the main premise is that the judiciary is indeed the least dangerous branch then it totally contradicts my mode of thought about it, which is: the import of the lifetime appointment for justices, and our country's acquiescing to the assertion, under Madison v. Marbury, that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is constitutional are arguably two of the most important and actually potent things in American law. The combination is enough to start a Civil War, and I'd argue that the culture wars that may result in one is a direct result of these powers granted.

I am not sure what the alternative is, but this is what has been wrought from the combination of the two. Certainly not least dangerous. If anything, probably the most.

Edited September 22 by rockaction

[T J 629]

8 hours ago, squistion said:

Chuck Schumer:

"If a Senate majority over the course of six years steals two Supreme Court seats using completely contradictory rationales, how could we expect to trust the other side again? How can we trust each other if ... the other side will double-cross their own standards?"

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1308164104889208832

 

 

Chuck Schumer? 😂😂😂

[Snotbubbles 882]

17 hours ago, dawgtrails said:

Just confused by you r word choice. Aren't our only national elections the presidential kind?

The House seats are up every two years.  The Senate seats are staggered where one-third are voted on every two years.  The general election is every four years.  So every two years the nation votes on their House seats and potentially a Senate seat depending on your States stagger.     

[Snotbubbles 882]

17 hours ago, gianmarco said:

To counter this, if they had voted and denied Garland a seat, Obama could still have nominated another candidate that may have been more suited to pass through.  But he was never given that opportunity.  So you could still argue the "stolen seat" rhetoric from that standpoint, no?

Garland could have withdrawn.  

[Snotbubbles 882]

16 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I just want to point out a couple things:

- You’ve blown by my point about the duty and power weighing on and belonging to the Senate, not one man. The Senate has other onuses upon them - impeachment, when it happens, appointments of federal judges, funding the government, etc., as provided for in Sec. I. It’s a violation of duty to ignore those. Having violated one such duty once it has caused a rippling inequity which has caused disturbance in our system, which is precisely what the Founders sought to avoid.

- The way you describe essentially republican/democratic (lower cap) duties as a ‘sham’ is disturbing. Yes I think Senators doing their job per their oath is a sacrosanct responsibility and shrugging it off like this is itself shameful. McConnell’s corruption of a system that for a long time was built on fairness, honor and tradition is sadly despicable.

It's the political climate of today.  Supreme Courts votes are now done on party line.  It takes a day or two for each party to determine whether or not they'll have enough votes to confirm or not to confirm.  If McConnell took a temp check on Garland (which I'm sure he did) and the Republicans were unified that they wouldn't confirm a Democratic Presidential SC nominee then meeting and conferring with Garland is a waste of time and a sham.  You can be fake outraged that Republicans didn't "consider" Garland but the end result would have been the same.  As has been shown in this thread, historical precedent was that when a President makes a nomination and the Senate is an opposing party, the nominee (1 out of 10) isn't getting confirmed.  As you can see from the impeachment trial in January (another sham), taking up the time of the House and Senate for matters for political posturing in matters where the outcome is already known is wasteful when their time and effort could be used for more important matters (COVID).  

[Snotbubbles 882]

16 hours ago, Chaz McNulty said:

 

I wouldn't bother.  In this thread they seem to be equating Obama voting against a couple SC justices that were going to be slam dunk entries, the same as what McConnel did.  The fact that they cannot differentiate between these two acts makes it futile to argue this point.

I never said anything about Obama's Senate voting.  

[Ramblin Wreck 13,657]

13 hours ago, squistion said:

Chuck Schumer:

"If a Senate majority over the course of six years steals two Supreme Court seats using completely contradictory rationales, how could we expect to trust the other side again? How can we trust each other if ... the other side will double-cross their own standards?"

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1308164104889208832

 

 

Griffin should be suspended from twitter for posting a blatant falsehood quote from someone else.  Just trying to rile up the trolls and create division. 

[Snotbubbles 882]

15 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

Challenged?  It's a little late on that.  The week after the election the Supreme Court will hear a challenge to the Affordable Care Act in which the district court in Texas struck down the entire Act.  Even if it ends in a 4-4 tie it could be the end of the entire Affordable Care Act by the end of the year.

This is why you need another Justice on the Court regardless of liberal or conservative.  

[Snotbubbles 882]

15 hours ago, The Commish said:

Not sure I really understand what you're saying.  Is it that you believe McConnell would have said "hey, Scalia's gone and needs to be replaced and I think Clinton's going to win so let's take Obama's pick through the process"?  To what end?  The fear that Clinton would pick someone MORE liberal?

I think what he's saying is (assuming that he thought Clinton was going to win) that if the seat was RGB and they were replacing her with Garland, McConnell probably confirms with a less liberal Justice.  But because it was Scalia who was a strict constructionist, he really didn't have much to lose by not confirming Garland.  If Clinton nominates a more liberal Justice it's still replacing Scalia with a liberal.  His gamble paid off.    

EDIT: I see he responded and that wasn't what he was saying.  

Edited September 22 by Snotbubbles

[spodog 217]

13 hours ago, The Commish said:

That's the bar we've set...it's like a belligerent parent not being able to comprehend why their kid is so belligerent.  

The primary author of our Constitution wrote about the need for Citizen-Servants, those who were living a productive life pursuing private sector endeavors taking time out to serve in Government, and then returning to private life.    He wrote often that the phrase "OF the people" did not mean career representatives in the legislative branch. 

"The citizen-turned-legislator would return to his field in a few short years and live again among the neighbors he had just served"

Ben Carson spoke of this often during his run in the primaries in '16, but his voice was drowned out or ignored.   

Mandatory Term Limits is absolutely the right first step.    Those that care about putting and end to this belligerence will vote for a platform that embraces legislative term limits.   

[The Commish 12,943]

5 minutes ago, spodog said:

The primary author of our Constitution wrote about the need for Citizen-Servants, those who were living a productive life pursuing private sector endeavors taking time out to serve in Government, and then returning to private life.    He wrote often that the phrase "OF the people" did not mean career representatives in the legislative branch. 

"The citizen-turned-legislator would return to his field in a few short years and live again among the neighbors he had just served"

Ben Carson spoke of this often during his run in the primaries in '16, but his voice was drowned out or ignored.   

Mandatory Term Limits is absolutely the right first step.    Those that care about putting and end to this belligerence will vote for a platform that embraces legislative term limits.   

Not sure what this has to do with my comment, but I'm fully on board with term limits and a SIGNIFICANT cut in "pay"...like to a small stipend.  I don't think "politician" should be a career.

[Bottomfeeder Sports 1,971]

5 hours ago, T J said:

Chuck Schumer? 😂😂😂

Yep pretty laughable that the other side here was trust worthy to begin with.

[shadrap 1,751]

31 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Not sure what this has to do with my comment, but I'm fully on board with term limits and a SIGNIFICANT cut in "pay"...like to a small stipend.  I don't think "politician" should be a career.

I've thought this for many years.  IMO if the PEOPLE had their say this would be law, but when the lawmakers are the ones who decide the previous we are screwed.  Somehow along the line our elected officials have lost the true function of their jobs.  Their thirst for power & wealth has drown out "We the People" & I see this getting worse.

[Chaz McNulty 700]

1 hour ago, Snotbubbles said:

I never said anything about Obama's Senate voting.  

MT was claiming that Dems can't complain about McConnell because Obama voted against a couple confirmations while he was a senator.  When someone is trying to make the argument that these two things are equal, then I find it's probably useless to engage further on the topic.

[Snotbubbles 882]

Mitt Romney just said he would vote on Trump's nominee.  He's hoping for a strict constructionist.  Amy Coney Barrett clerked for Scalia who was a strict constructionist.  

[Chaz McNulty 700]

I think the makeup of the Supreme Court is luck of the draw and isn't necessarily representative of the population.  Dems have been in the Whitehouse for 16 of the last 28 years.  Assuming Trump gets another justice on the bench, does anyone know the total number of appointees by party over this time period?

[Snotbubbles 882]

 

1 minute ago, Chaz McNulty said:

I think the makeup of the Supreme Court is luck of the draw and isn't necessarily representative of the population.  Dems have been in the Whitehouse for 16 of the last 28 years.  Assuming Trump gets another justice on the bench, does anyone know the total number of appointees by party over this time period?

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm

 

[IvanKaramazov 20,327]

This is more "anecdote" than "data," but I am seeing more and more pieces from folks on the left taking a fairly hostile view of the supreme court as an institution and judicial review in particular.  I'm old enough to remember when this hobbyhorse was exclusively part of the cranky right.  Granted that was 30 years ago, but it's weird to hear literally the exact same arguments all over again coming from the other side.

Edit: Here's an example of what I'm talking about.  I'm fairly sure I first encountered all of these arguments for the first time in National Review circa 1990.  With the obvious exceptions of a few shots at Republicans and some faint praise for Earl Warren, this article could have appeared in that magazine and nobody would have raised an eyebrow.

Edited September 22 by IvanKaramazov

[jm192 1,541]

Romney announced he'll back the vote/confirmation.  Pretty sure it's gonna happen.

[spodog 217]

10 hours ago, rockaction said:

I think what this comes down to is that I finally get to say that the theory behind the influential book The Least Dangerous Branch is and was poppycock without getting graded down for doing so for not having read it. If it was a hopeful book or a normative assessment by Bickel, then that is all it is. Hope and longing.

I never did read it, I confess, because if the main premise is that the judiciary is indeed the least dangerous branch then it totally contradicts my mode of thought about it, which is: the import of the lifetime appointment for justices, and our country's acquiescing to the assertion, under Madison v. Marbury, that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is constitutional are arguably two of the most important and actually potent things in American law. The combination is enough to start a Civil War, and I'd argue that the culture wars that may result in one is a direct result of these powers granted.

I am not sure what the alternative is, but this is what has been wrought from the combination of the two. Certainly not least dangerous. If anything, probably the most.

so basically you're point here is that you reject out of hand a potential thesis put forward in a book that you choose not to read because of what you thought it might contain.    Then you suggest that the SC might be the most dangerous branch of Gov't.  

The SC was created to intentionally distance a branch from the others that listen and react to the noise of the day.    This branch is given independence and just as importantly time.   Time to think, to read, to reflect, to analyze and then ultimately, to document their decisions.   

The House of Representatives is similar to your post.   It is similar to Twitter.    Short burst of thought.  Reactionary.   How many times have we had to watch a member of the House be corrected by a witness called to testify before a House committee because the congressman/woman hadn't even bothered to read the materials prepared for the hearing?

The senate is closer to a documentary,  possibly biased, possibly not, but at least closer to long form.   But still on a production schedule.

The SC is the ultimate long form narrative.  

Any of these branches without the other could be dangerous.    The danger is in not having the checks and balances. 

[spodog 217]

45 minutes ago, Chaz McNulty said:

I think the makeup of the Supreme Court is luck of the draw and isn't necessarily representative of the population.  Dems have been in the Whitehouse for 16 of the last 28 years.  Assuming Trump gets another justice on the bench, does anyone know the total number of appointees by party over this time period?

SC was never designed to be "representative of the population".   Somewhat the opposite in many ways. 

[SaintsInDome2006 47,463]

2 hours ago, Snotbubbles said:

It's the political climate of today.  Supreme Courts votes are now done on party line.  It takes a day or two for each party to determine whether or not they'll have enough votes to confirm or not to confirm.  If McConnell took a temp check on Garland (which I'm sure he did) and the Republicans were unified that they wouldn't confirm a Democratic Presidential SC nominee then meeting and conferring with Garland is a waste of time and a sham.  You can be fake outraged that Republicans didn't "consider" Garland but the end result would have been the same.  As has been shown in this thread, historical precedent was that when a President makes a nomination and the Senate is an opposing party, the nominee (1 out of 10) isn't getting confirmed.  As you can see from the impeachment trial in January (another sham), taking up the time of the House and Senate for matters for political posturing in matters where the outcome is already known is wasteful when their time and effort could be used for more important matters (COVID).  

But we're talking about the Constitution, as you point out the impeachment was also a known likely outcome, the point is the people's representatives deliberating and acting in public and being held accountable for that. And there the Senate did its duty.

I'm also not so sure about what you say about Garland not passing. The Dems would have just needed 7 or so votes.

Absconding and ignoring duty is a big part of the problem here, you just seem to be echoing or supporting the further breakdown of it. It just causes continuing, even dangerous breakdowns. Things fall apart and at some point people in leadership need to start showing responsibility and providing stability.

 

Edited September 22 by SaintsInDome2006

[Henry Ford 60,520]

2 hours ago, Snotbubbles said:

This is why you need another Justice on the Court regardless of liberal or conservative.  

Tell McConnell. He left a seat vacant for over a year.  

[rockaction 21,443]

2 minutes ago, spodog said:

so basically you're point here is that you reject out of hand a potential thesis put forward in a book that you choose not to read because of what you thought it might contain.    Then you suggest that the SC might be the most dangerous branch of Gov't.  

The SC was created to intentionally distance a branch from the others that listen and react to the noise of the day.    This branch is given independence and just as importantly time.   Time to think, to read, to reflect, to analyze and then ultimately, to document their decisions.   

The House of Representatives is similar to your post.   It is similar to Twitter.    Short burst of thought.  Reactionary.   How many times have we had to watch a member of the House be corrected by a witness called to testify before a House committee because the congressman/woman hadn't even bothered to read the materials prepared for the hearing?

The senate is closer to a documentary,  possibly biased, possibly not, but at least closer to long form.   But still on a production schedule.

The SC is the ultimate long form narrative.  

Any of these branches without the other could be dangerous.    The danger is in not having the checks and balances. 

My point was a bit more light-hearted. Bickel's book is known as an explication of why the Supreme Court is the least dangerous branch in our government and why it should remain passive as a branch when deciding cases (for the most part).

Regarding your civics lesson, I fully understand what the Supreme Court is supposed to be. I took civics seriously as a young man (I smile typing that) and got good grades in the civics side of classes, minored in Poli Sci, worked in D.C. for a political think tank, and then went and graduated from law school, passing the bar. I know exactly what merits the branch is supposed to bring to our governance. What I do not cavil to is your description or characterization of my post as not recognizing the checks and balances, nor do I need a reminder of what the professor in Election keeps saying throughout the movie to that year's bored students. It is precisely that the judiciary has no effective check on it, and is restrained only by itself -- that is my problem with it. Like I said, I'm not sure I have a solution to it. But it is certainly the most aristocratic in dress, in form, in function, and Article III of our Constitution managed to set aside a removal of democracy from democracy's bed to a degree. I think of the arguments made by Brutus in the Anti-Federalist papers about the inevitability of judicial review and its anti-democratic origins and how it would take form and shape in practice to its defense by Hamilton in Federalist 78.

It reminds me of reading Storing's What The Antifederalists Were For, his book about the papers that prompted a brand new rush of scholarship in the seventies into the study of these papers, leading him to produce six-seven volumes of analysis (or so I think) before his untimely death (I did not know until just recently he shares my alma mater.) I dunno. I've read the aforementioned book, unlike Bickel's, because it seemed to me that his theories were at least plausible. I've also read Freedom and The First Amendment by Walter Berns, Storing's friend at AEI, both of whom wrote numerous books on the Constitution. That's actually a pretty conservative cast of who's who in the legal world. Berns and Robert J. Bork used to "hang out" there, too.

So, it's not that I don't understand the American project. It's more likely you were going to read my post and bloviate on a message board to someone who knows uniquely all-too-well that the workings of our government today differ slightly than a cursory read of civics jingoism. Good day.

[SaintsInDome2006 47,463]

17 hours ago, spodog said:

The Founding Fathers did indeed not only envision parties, but they themselves (most of them) were aligning along various party lines as part of the scrum to determine the wording of what went into the Constitution in 1787.    The Federalist vs Jeffersonian-Republican fighting amongst the first batch of elected officials to take office in the newly formed congress was so bad between 1789 and 1796 that George Washington, warning us about these dangers, included this in his farewell address as he prepared to depart the office of President in Sep of 1796:

Quote

“Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.”

Well exactly, that was my point - understand parties were envisionable and in fact they had existed at least as factions since the days of Marlborough and the Cromwells in the UK - but this factionalism was exactly what the FF had sought to prevent and also somehow exclude or minimize effectively from the new republic. Our engaging in this (and I do mean we as in all of us) requires rending the Constitution to do so.

[Maurile Tremblay 21,688]

1 hour ago, Snotbubbles said:

Mitt Romney just said he would vote on Trump's nominee.  He's hoping for a strict constructionist.  Amy Coney Barrett clerked for Scalia who was a strict constructionist.  

"I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be." -- Justice Antonin Scalia