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 SCOTUS Thread****** (1 Viewer)

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.

 
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.

 
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.

 
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. 

 
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.

 
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.

 
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.   

 
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.

 
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?

 
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?  

 
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.

 
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?

 
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...

 
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?

 
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.

 
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

 
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.

 
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:

 
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.

 
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.

 
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.

 
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.   

 
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. 

 
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.

 
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.

 
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.

 
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. 

 
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).

 
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?

 
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?

 
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."

 
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.  

 
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.)    

 
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.
Oh, there is no way a Democratic Senate would confirm another Trump nominee.  No doubt about that.

I don't think the Democrats have any reason to trust the Republicans in the future after what is happening now.

 
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?
That wasn't the question.  The question was do I think Biden's nomination would be approved.  I do.

To your question, I believe as long as the nomination occurred prior to the start of the Presidential primaries, Garland would have had hearings.  Though I don't feel as strongly about his confirmation because the 2014 mid-term elections flipped control of the process to the Republicans which was a clear indication that the American people wanted Obama checked.  You see McConnell's statement was a two prong test.  Lame-duck President AND opposing party in the Senate. 

 
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.
The House is irrelevant.  The House votes are too locale specific.  The Senate votes are statewide.  Also, since the Senate controls the confirmation process, when it comes to this topic is the election that is relevant.  

Also, which GOP Senators misunderstood?  

 
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.)    
I generally agree with this.  The Dems are not as cut-throat as the Republicans.  But if the Dems know that things like Obama Care are in jeopardy, or even abortion, I believe they would increase it.  And I think they would add 2 justices immediately.

I believe the last 4 years, coupled with them feeling cheated out of Obama's nominee will motivate them to get down in the dirt.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top