Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
squistion

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

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Sand said:

Tactical error by RBG - she should have given up her seat 6 years ago instead of dying in it.  Hard truth, but there it is.  I'm sure we'll see the same at some point with a GOP appointed justice.

:Cough cough: SCALIA!!!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amy Coney Barrett, when asked in 2016 whether a Obama should be able to appoint a Supreme Court justice in a presidential year, said it's inappropriate to replace a conservative justice with one who would "dramatically flip the balance of power."

 

🤔

 

 

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


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

Amy Coney Barrett, when asked in 2016 whether a Obama should be able to appoint a Supreme Court justice in a presidential year, said it's inappropriate to replace a conservative justice with one who would "dramatically flip the balance of power."

 

🤔

 

 

Yea, but that is only because it was a year that ended in 6 coupled with a democrat in the white house. Totally different circumastances this year

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jackstraw said:

:Cough cough: SCALIA!!!!!

And if the Dems had control of the Senate or not played games with the filibuster they would have been able to protect the seat.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Funny thing of all the battles to pick, what has the SCOTUS even done since Trump swung it back to his side that's so bad for the left?   There's all this fear that zOMG abortion will become illegal.  It's never going to happen.  Is anyone even trying to make it illegal other than a few fringe guys?

Illegal at the State or Federal level? At the State level, absolutely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

And if the Dems had control of the Senate or not played games with the filibuster they would have been able to protect the seat.  

Why do you make me hit you baby? I didn't really want to do it!

 

Share this post


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

Illegal at the State or Federal level? At the State level, absolutely.

So state elections are way more important than SCOTUS nomination?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Amy Coney Barrett, when asked in 2016 whether a Obama should be able to appoint a Supreme Court justice in a presidential year, said it's inappropriate to replace a conservative justice with one who would "dramatically flip the balance of power."

I disagree with @IvanKaramazov about whether there should be hearings, and this is why. I'd like to hear her answer questions about this. I doubt she'll be taking questions from the press.

I do agree that hearings are always really dumb in practice. But in theory, maybe in another timeline, they could be worthwhile.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I disagree with @IvanKaramazov about whether there should be hearings, and this is why. I'd like to hear her answer questions about this. I doubt she'll be taking questions from the press.

I do agree that hearings are always really dumb in practice. But in theory, maybe in another timeline, they could be worthwhile.

I don't know what she would say that would be disqualifying. :shrug:

She presumably still believes that it is inappropriate for a Dem president to replace a conservative Justice.  I expect 51 senators agree with her.

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ramblin Wreck said:

So state elections are way more important than SCOTUS nomination?

They are both important.  I’m uncertain about your reasoning in asking the question.

Share this post


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

And if the Dems had control of the Senate or not played games with the filibuster they would have been able to protect the seat.  

It takes like 12,000 votes to hold 14 western state senate seats so its really pretty hard to keep the senate. Mitch figured the cheat code to whore out the constitution.  Hold one half of congress you have incredible built in advantages with and you get the entire judiciary as a neat bonus! Approve no candidates during democratic administrations and bum rush during Republican ones. Neat. 

But Americans really won't get stuck like that for long. 

If you fight asymmetric warfare and cause a constitutional crisis you're going to have to expect to get some back sooner or later. Especially when you can't produce the votes. 

    

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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

I disagree with @IvanKaramazov about whether there should be hearings, and this is why. I'd like to hear her answer questions about this. I doubt she'll be taking questions from the press.

I do agree that hearings are always really dumb in practice. But in theory, maybe in another timeline, they could be worthwhile.

I'd like to hear her answer questions on if she's a real life Handmaid's Tale.

Share this post


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

And if the Dems had control of the Senate or not played games with the filibuster they would have been able to protect the seat.  

👍

And if Republicans control either the White House, Senate, or Congress after this election, then the Dems won't be able to increase the size of the Supreme Court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Chaz McNulty said:

👍

And if Republicans control either the White House, Senate, or Congress after this election, then the Dems won't be able to increase the size of the Supreme Court.

That is a really dumb game to play.  

Share this post


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

That is a really dumb game to play.  

It's an excellent way of restoring balance.  And it's not unprecedented.  I think they will go to 11 justices.  Roberts will still be the swing vote.

Share this post


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

It's an excellent way of restoring balance.  And it's not unprecedented.  I think they will go to 11 justices.  Roberts will still be the swing vote.

Lol.  Restoring balance.  How ignorant.  As soon as the GOP wins back the White House there will be 15 seats.   So much short-sideness.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Lol.  Restoring balance.  How ignorant.  As soon as the GOP wins back the White House there will be 15 seats.   So much short-sideness.   

And then 25 with the next Dem POTUS. They better build a bigger building.

Share this post


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

Well, so far, there has not been a real swing - at least not to the right.

Scalia and Kennedy were both appointed by Republican presidents.

Kennedy, over time, was more of a swing vote, but not a liberal vote.

I think what I have observed of the court is that Roberts has taken on that role in many cases.  I think Roberts is legitimately worried about the independence of the SC, both in actuality and appearance.  And, he has tried to balance fairness against conservative/liberal battles.

 

But, now, by replacing a liberal candidate with a Trump candidate - we will see the first swing right in many years.  (I think the opposite dynamic is what really led McConnell to block Obama - not wanting to see Scalia replaced by a liberal justice.)

I don't necessarily disagree with the logic of what you rolled out here in that we may be at a tipping point.  That being said, a decent chunk on the left has been declaring a similar sentiment for every seat that comes up during a Republican administration, so there are definitely people that are jaded by the overwrought language of the past.

Also, speaking of overwrought, was informed that one of our neighbor's college kids wants to get an IUD now since birth control will be illegal when RBG gets replaced.  I mean, how do you respond to such insanity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Trey said:

And then 25 with the next Dem POTUS. They better build a bigger building.

Did that happen last time they increased it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Lol.  Restoring balance.  How ignorant.  As soon as the GOP wins back the White House there will be 15 seats.   So much short-sideness.   

And you think possibly going multiple years with 7 or 8 justices is a better proposition.  If one of them dies and the president and the senate are not from the same party, then there will not be a confirmation until they align.  Didn't Obama go 6 years without a Democratic Senate?  

Share this post


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

If one of them dies and the president and the senate are not from the same party, then there will not be a confirmation until they align.  

Maybe a centrist type person gets through.  Maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sand said:

Maybe a centrist type person gets through.  Maybe.

Not after what McConnell did.  He flat out said that an Obama appointee would not make it to a vote.  Now that this bottle is open, it's all out warfare regarding the SC.  The Dems will have no issues in increasing the SC to 11.  And the Repubs will return the favor if they control everything and they find that the balance isn't in their favor.

Share this post


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

Tactical error by RBG - she should have given up her seat 6 years ago instead of dying in it.  Hard truth, but there it is.  I'm sure we'll see the same at some point with a GOP appointed justice.

McConnell was still majority leader in the Senate then..how would it have mattered if she gave up her seat 6 years ago?  We aren't naive enough to think McConnell would have brought Obama's appointment to a vote are we?

Share this post


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

I don't necessarily disagree with the logic of what you rolled out here in that we may be at a tipping point.  That being said, a decent chunk on the left has been declaring a similar sentiment for every seat that comes up during a Republican administration, so there are definitely people that are jaded by the overwrought language of the past.

Also, speaking of overwrought, was informed that one of our neighbor's college kids wants to get an IUD now since birth control will be illegal when RBG gets replaced.  I mean, how do you respond to such insanity?

No way in hell do I ever respond to any discussion about my neighbor’s kids’ birth control choices.  
 

But that’s just me...

Share this post


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

Maybe a centrist type person gets through.  Maybe.

A centrist like a highly respected jurist who had passed other confirmation for the DC Circuit 76-23...who Republicans in 2010 seemed to state he would be confirmed with bipartisan support when he was being considered?  But 6 years later wasn't even worth getting a vote?

Share this post


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

Not after what McConnell did.  He flat out said that an Obama appointee would not make it to a vote.  Now that this bottle is open, it's all out warfare regarding the SC.  The Dems will have no issues in increasing the SC to 11.  And the Repubs will return the favor if they control everything and they find that the balance isn't in their favor.

I just read that in an attempt to recognize RBG with a statement from the Senate, the Dems tried to add in her dying "fervent" wish, which the R's rejected.  The R's, in turn, tried to add in a statement of hers that the SC should remain at 9 judges.  That was rejected, too, so no unanimous consent.  :loco:  Man, I really don't like politicians.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

A centrist like a highly respected jurist who had passed other confirmation for the DC Circuit 76-23...who Republicans in 2010 seemed to state he would be confirmed with bipartisan support when he was being considered?  But 6 years later wasn't even worth getting a vote?

Yeah that type of centrist...oh wait

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Well, so far, there has not been a real swing - at least not to the right.

Scalia and Kennedy were both appointed by Republican presidents.

Kennedy, over time, was more of a swing vote, but not a liberal vote.

I think what I have observed of the court is that Roberts has taken on that role in many cases.  I think Roberts is legitimately worried about the independence of the SC, both in actuality and appearance.  And, he has tried to balance fairness against conservative/liberal battles.

 

But, now, by replacing a liberal candidate with a Trump candidate - we will see the first swing right in many years.  (I think the opposite dynamic is what really led McConnell to block Obama - not wanting to see Scalia replaced by a liberal justice.)

I think an increase in SC Justices will make it so it doesn't hurt so much when a justice is replaced by one from the opposing party.  There's also more chance of a dissenting view from the party line when you have more justices.

If the Dems gain control of all 3 branches, I think an increase to 13 would be a good thing.  To be fair, the Dems should only replace 3 with their picks (in retaliation for what McConnell did), and allow the Republicans to replace 1.

I know this won't happen, but in a better world their would be compromise.

Share this post


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

Not after what McConnell did.  He flat out said that an Obama appointee would not make it to a vote.  Now that this bottle is open, it's all out warfare regarding the SC.  The Dems will have no issues in increasing the SC to 11.  And the Repubs will return the favor if they control everything and they find that the balance isn't in their favor.

:lol:

Share this post


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

McConnell was still majority leader in the Senate then..how would it have mattered if she gave up her seat 6 years ago?  We aren't naive enough to think McConnell would have brought Obama's appointment to a vote are we?

Yeah - I do think it would have mattered if there was a vacancy at 2 years left or inside a year to the election.  With 2 years left I think they find some common ground on an appointee.

Share this post


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

Yeah - I do think it would have mattered if there was a vacancy at 2 years left or inside a year to the election.  With 2 years left I think they find some common ground on an appointee.

Much more optimistic than me given the clear absence of evidence to support this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jackstraw said:

:Cough cough: SCALIA!!!!!

Its cool scalia was protected cuz the Republicans  won the senate.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

Amy Coney Barrett, when asked in 2016 whether a Obama should be able to appoint a Supreme Court justice in a presidential year, said it's inappropriate to replace a conservative justice with one who would "dramatically flip the balance of power."

 

🤔

 

 

Rbg. Disagreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jackstraw said:

It takes like 12,000 votes to hold 14 western state senate seats so its really pretty hard to keep the senate. Mitch figured the cheat code to whore out the constitution.  Hold one half of congress you have incredible built in advantages with and you get the entire judiciary as a neat bonus! Approve no candidates during democratic administrations and bum rush during Republican ones. Neat. 

But Americans really won't get stuck like that for long. 

If you fight asymmetric warfare and cause a constitutional crisis you're going to have to expect to get some back sooner or later. Especially when you can't produce the votes. 

    

Rbg. Should have known this.   

Share this post


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

McConnell was still majority leader in the Senate then..how would it have mattered if she gave up her seat 6 years ago?  We aren't naive enough to think McConnell would have brought Obama's appointment to a vote are we?

At the time, you had a democrat president and control of the senate was still with the democrats. They could have pushed through anyone they wanted and RBG actually could have literally hand-picked her replacement.  

It is an issue to really look at now as perhaps a big mis-step because when you look at it realistically, here was a woman who, at 82-83 (certainly a respectable retirement age), and who had also been having serious health issues for several years, and perhaps she should have retired and transitioned the seat for her party. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven’t posted in here for a long time and apologize if this has already been brought up, but I was thinking about this tonight.  If Trump thinks the election is close, couldn’t he just say he won’t appoint a SC candidate if he loses the election?  Everyone in the GOP who doesn’t like him would be forced to vote for him, since they want that seat.   If he doesn’t get re-elected, he can just do it anyway.  

if he does it now, the people that only care about the SC have less reason to vote for him.

Share this post


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

Haven’t posted in here for a long time and apologize if this has already been brought up, but I was thinking about this tonight.  If Trump thinks the election is close, couldn’t he just say he won’t appoint a SC candidate if he loses the election?  Everyone in the GOP who doesn’t like him would be forced to vote for him, since they want that seat.   If he doesn’t get re-elected, he can just do it anyway.  

if he does it now, the people that only care about the SC have less reason to vote for him.

Yes, but that move isn’t in his game book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Chaz McNulty said:

Did that happen last time they increased it?

You mean over 150 years ago?  The increasing the court size is a far-left tantrum that has no support from the more mature and rationale side of the party.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

And yet, here we are.

 

Where are we?  The nomination/confirmation process is political.  I don't believe the decisions are.  Reasonable minds disagree.  Liberal Justices think one way, Conservative Justices think another.  Once they're on the Court, they aren't making decision based on politics, they make them based on their personal interpretation of the law.  The law isn't always black and white, it's usually gray.  RBG didn't make liberal decision because she though it would gain her favor with Democrats, she made them because it was her personal interpretation of the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, -fish- said:

Haven’t posted in here for a long time and apologize if this has already been brought up, but I was thinking about this tonight.  If Trump thinks the election is close, couldn’t he just say he won’t appoint a SC candidate if he loses the election?  Everyone in the GOP who doesn’t like him would be forced to vote for him, since they want that seat.   If he doesn’t get re-elected, he can just do it anyway.  

if he does it now, the people that only care about the SC have less reason to vote for him.

Taking hostages against your own party would be....something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Chaz McNulty said:

Not after what McConnell did.  He flat out said that an Obama appointee would not make it to a vote.  Now that this bottle is open, it's all out warfare regarding the SC.  The Dems will have no issues in increasing the SC to 11.  And the Repubs will return the favor if they control everything and they find that the balance isn't in their favor.

In an ELECTION YEAR.  Not never, in an ELECTION year (for those of you in the back).

Share this post


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

You mean over 150 years ago?  The increasing the court size is a far-left tantrum that has no support from the more mature and rationale side of the party.  

If McConnell pushes this nominee through and The Dems win back the White House and Senate, if you were a betting man what would you put the odds of the Supreme Court increasing in size over their first 2 years?

Share this post


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

In an ELECTION YEAR.  Not never, in an ELECTION year (for those of you in the back).

I think most understood what he said then.  He was either full of #### then or is full of #### now....take your pick :shrug: 

Share this post


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

In an ELECTION YEAR.  Not never, in an ELECTION year (for those of you in the back).

Let’s say Biden is President and the Republicans hold the Senate. Another Supreme Court vacancy opens up. How confident should Democrats be that Republicans would give the nominee a fair shot?

Share this post


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

I think most understood what he said then.  He was either full of #### then or is full of #### now....take your pick :shrug: 

I think most mis-understood him.  He was pretty clear, that in he wouldn't confirm a SC nominee in an election year with a lame duck President with an opposing party Senate. 

His quote: "Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. It is today the American people, rather than a lame-duck president whose priorities and policies they just rejected in the most-recent national election, who should be afforded the opportunity to replace Justice Scalia."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

Let’s say Biden is President and the Republicans hold the Senate. Another Supreme Court vacancy opens up. How confident should Democrats be that Republicans would give the nominee a fair shot?

I would be extremely confident that Biden's nominee would be approved by a Republican Senate.  

EDIT: I feel more confident that a Republican Senate would confirm a Biden nominee than I would a Democratic Senate confirming Trumps.

Edited by Snotbubbles
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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

I would be extremely confident that Biden's nominee would be approved by a Republican Senate.  

So you're fairly certain that If Garland's nomination was in December (3 months earlier) and outside of the election year, then McConnell would have approved?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:

I think most mis-understood him.  He was pretty clear, that in he wouldn't confirm a SC nominee in an election year with a lame duck President with an opposing party Senate. 

His quote: "Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. It is today the American people, rather than a lame-duck president whose priorities and policies they just rejected in the most-recent national election, who should be afforded the opportunity to replace Justice Scalia."

 

Even by this standard the argument fails.  The latest election was a rejection of priorities and policies as evidence in the flipping of the House.  I'm assuming his evidence of "rejected priorities and policies" was the flipping of the Senate.  There's really no way to spin out of the hypocrisy on this ESPECIALLY when McConnell comes out of the gate at the very beginning telling the world he has no interest in working with Obama.  So it goes back to either being full of it then or full of it now.

ETA:  And none of this addresses the fact that a myriad of GOP senators had to have also "mis-understood" him.

Edited by The Commish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Chaz McNulty said:

If McConnell pushes this nominee through and The Dems win back the White House and Senate, if you were a betting man what would you put the odds of the Supreme Court increasing in size over their first 2 years?

Probably like 10%, but that may be too high.  I have a very hard time imagining a newly-elected Joe Biden sitting in the oval office and deciding to torch all of his political capital on something like this.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

If McConnell pushes this nominee through and The Dems win back the White House and Senate, if you were a betting man what would you put the odds of the Supreme Court increasing in size over their first 2 years?

My guess is that if the democrats were to put forward any kind of legislation to expand the court it would along the lines of what @Sinn Feinhas been promoting except it would do something like add a tenth justice in 2025 and an eleventh in 2029 and twelfth in 2033 and thirteenth in 2037 and split a circuit for a fourteenth in 2041 and get back to odd numbers splitting another in 2045.  They would then beg for bipartisan support and add a bunch of very GOP friendly provisions elsewhere and then when it came up for a vote their would be no such GOP support.  (Even though this entire idea means there is Supreme Court justice on the line for next 6 elections which I think benefits the GOP more than democrats - at least in the beginning.)

But I would need big odds to even contemplate such a watered down version.  Maybe this time is different and the recent Trump and GOP activities were the last straw, but democrats just don't fall in line like republicans to pull something like this off and thus their leadership doesn't try.  If they did Trump would have been impeached at least two additional times by now.   (When the Mueller report came out and practically begged for the House to continue and for emoluments.)    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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