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

[spodog]

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.

The only relationship it had to your observation about the belligerent kid and belligerent parent is this:   You are correct, a parent has a lifelong obligation to their child and a guidance/oversight obligation for the first two decades at least.     Your analogy is valid at present, since the children that we send to Congress today tend to be there for decades.   A preferable situation would be strict term limits that would invalidate your analogy, as we'd instead be sending our peers to DC for a finite period of time.

Not as passionate about the pay aspect as you may be, as I think the term limits issue will minimize the importance of the rate of pay for representatives and Senators. 

 

[Snotbubbles]

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

Yeah, and Bernie Sanders isn't a socialist.  

 

[Henry Ford]

Yeah, and Bernie Sanders isn't a socialist.  

Good point.  No, he isn't.

 

[jm192]

Good point.  No, he isn't.

Democratic* socialist.

 

[squistion]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1308458538608594945

Some Senate Republicans have voiced total support for Trump's SCOTUS nominee before Trump has announced an actual nominee.

:(  

Indeed, why bother interviewing the candidate or concerning yourself with details like their judicial record, background and qualifications?

 

[skol asylum]

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

Yep. Look for a 15 seat court soon with 9 liberals and 6 conservatives.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Yeah, and Bernie Sanders isn't a socialist.  

Why would Antonin Scalia say that if he didn't believe it?

 

[Henry Ford]

Democratic* socialist.

Yeah, kind of like calling a "Planned Parenthood Escort" an "escort."

 

[jm192]

Yep. Look for a 15 seat court soon with 9 liberals and 6 conservatives.

And then we can all talk about how crooked the Republicans are!

 

[JohnnyU]

Yep. Look for a 15 seat court soon with 9 liberals and 6 conservatives.

Yep, if you can't win then move the goal posts.  Not going to happen however.......ever.  Just like the electoral college isn't going to change either.  The founders were brilliant on that one.

 

[dawgtrails]

Yep, if you can't win then move the goal posts.  Not going to happen however.......ever.  Just like the electoral college isn't going to change either.  The founders were brilliant on that one.

If there is a 15 seat court I am pretty sure the only way it got that way was if the dems won

 

[CletiusMaximus]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1308458538608594945

Some Senate Republicans have voiced total support for Trump's SCOTUS nominee before Trump has announced an actual nominee.

:(  

Indeed, why bother interviewing the candidate or concerning yourself with details like their judicial record, background and qualifications?

There is no need for confirmation hearings anymore.  Hopefully, we've seen our last.  One of the great silver linings to come out of this circus.

I can see this being page 8 news - "the President appointed 8 new Supreme Court Justices today, having received the advice and consent of the senate, bringing the total to a new record 57 active justices on the Court."

 

[Zow]

The tradition of voting against qualified candidates for ideological reasons would not have started with Garland if he'd been put to a vote. Senator Obama voted against Alito and Roberts, for example, which deprives him of standing to complain about it happening to his own nominee. The most famous example is still Bork.

Yep exactly. I remember the angry feeling I felt when I read Obama's reasoning for not approving Roberts way back in 2007 or whatever it was. 

 

[squistion]

Yep, if you can't win then move the goal posts.  Not going to happen however.......ever.  Just like the electoral college isn't going to change either.  The founders were brilliant on that one.

It would take a Constitutional Amendment to change the electoral college (which would have to be ratified by 2/3rds of the states). However the Constitution does not set a specific number of SCOTUS justices, so to expand it to 11, 13 or 15 all that would be needed for the Democrats would be to win the White House and majorities in both houses of Congress.

 

[jerseydevil20]

There is no need for confirmation hearings anymore.  Hopefully, we've seen our last.  One of the great silver linings to come out of this circus.

I can see this being page 8 news - "the President appointed 8 new Supreme Court Justices today, having received the advice and consent of the senate, bringing the total to a new record 57 active justices on the Court."

Maybe there could be circuit supreme courts around the country when the number gets high enough. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

It would take a Constitutional Amendment to change the electoral college (which would have to be ratified by 2/3rds of the states).

Three-fourths.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Maybe there could be circuit supreme courts around the country when the number gets high enough. 

And then an Ultimate Supreme Court that hears appeals from decisions by the circuit supreme courts.

 

[Chaz McNulty]

If there is a 15 seat court I am pretty sure the only way it got that way was if the dems won

With all the talk of increasing the size of the SC, wouldn't the public voting for the Dems to the Whitehouse, Congress, and the Senate almost be a mandate for them to increase?  Totally legal, totally within the constitution.  I don't see an issue.  The Public has spoken.  Especially when it's on the table before the election.

 

[Henry Ford]

Yep exactly. I remember the angry feeling I felt when I read Obama's written reasoning for not approving Roberts way back in 2007 or whatever it was. 

This is very confusing.

Edit: He stated his reasoning on the floor of the Senate.  

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

No matter how this confirmation turns out it will be interesting to see how Roberts responds to protect the legacy of the court (or as some argue his own legacy) in the terms ahead.  I doubt he becomes the fourth in the liberal wing, but I also assume he is no longer the swing vote on many 5-4 decisions either.  (Wonder who will be?)   

As someone on the left I'm torn between this is going to be a nightmare for the country as progress will be stalled at least a generation and maybe this is a grand opportunity to start being bolder in how democrats need to paint their visions, to sell what a more perfect union would look like.  Guess we shall see. 

 

[jerseydevil20]

With all the talk of increasing the size of the SC, wouldn't the public voting for the Dems to the Whitehouse, Congress, and the Senate almost be a mandate for them to increase?  Totally legal, totally within the constitution.  I don't see an issue.  The Public has spoken.  Especially when it's on the table before the election.

The Court will be viewed as a partisan tool of whoever is in control. Precedent will be out the window. Wild swings in what is Constitutional. Political activism on the Court at its best/worst. No credibility or confidence. 

 

[Chaz McNulty]

The Court will be viewed as a partisan tool of whoever is in control. Precedent will be out the window. Wild swings in what is Constitutional. Political activism on the Court at its best/worst. No credibility or confidence. 

I don't think the current system is effective.  It's luck of the draw for when a confirmation happens (SC Justice dying).  It has probably only worked out because it has been balanced, but now that it's unbalanced, the Democrats will be forced into increasing it to 11 (if they win White House and Senate).  Roberts will still be the swing vote.

 

[Zow]

This is very confusing.

Edit: He stated his reasoning on the floor of the Senate.  

I must have read a written transcript of his reason. I distinctly recall being in a particular classroom of my law school reading this. I apologize for any confusion. 

 

[Juxtatarot]

So Obama's reasoning seems to have boiled down to this:

In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General's Office, he [Roberts] seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process. In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man.

 

[Henry Ford]

The tradition of voting against qualified candidates for ideological reasons would not have started with Garland if he'd been put to a vote. Senator Obama voted against Alito and Roberts, for example, which deprives him of standing to complain about it happening to his own nominee. The most famous example is still Bork.

I'll die on the hill that Bork was so ethically compromised by his actions in the Nixon administration he had no business being a Supreme Court Justice.  Ever.

 

[jerseydevil20]

I don't think the current system is effective.  It's luck of the draw for when a confirmation happens (SC Justice dying).  It has probably only worked out because it has been balanced, but now that it's unbalanced, the Democrats will be forced into increasing it to 11 (if they win White House and Senate).  Roberts will still be the swing vote.

I agree, the current system is broken. Unfortunately it assumes restraint and decorum which has been in short supply. There’s not much reason for optimism looking forward. It’s sad. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Yep exactly. I remember the angry feeling I felt when I read Obama's reasoning for not approving Roberts way back in 2007 or whatever it was. 

Obama also voted against raising the debt ceiling, which I think is similarly indefensible.  Rather than get mad at Obama about these votes, though, it's probably more helpful to think about this a situation that is forced on senators -- particularly those that have ambitions.  Obama was running for president (officially or unofficially) when he cast those votes, and the fact of the matter is that if he had voted otherwise he might very well have not won the nomination.  I see both of these as being a "good guy cast into a bad situation" as opposed to something to be particularly mad at Obama about.

Edit: In case that's somehow unclear, I liked Obama the president better than Obama the senator.

 

[Biff84]

This seems to be a done deal. Democrats need to be thinking about their next moves immediately and in the near future. They need to make sure the loss on the Supreme Court result in wins in the presidency and Senate. Hammer the hypocrisy, the damage the new court could do to healthcare and skewed priorities of the GOP (not working on stimulus, etc).

Then they could go one of two ways:

1. Play their game, down and dirty. Get rid of the filibuster, increase the number of justices, etc.

2. Work on reforms to try and prevent these problems in the future. Establish time frames and processes for the confirmation of Justices. It may not have gotten Garland confirmed but at least force them to put an official vote against him. I think you also need to look at restricting the powers of majority leaders as the current system allows for progress only on a purely partisan basis.

Either way they need to be ready for the Supreme Court losses. Get something ready for healthcare. Get something ready for abortion protections. Use the majority wisely while you have it.

Option 1 seems to be a recipe for disaster. Sure it will give short term wins but the GOP will come back and do it better when they get a chance. An expansion to 11 is reasonable. It won’t put them into the majority but will bring back the idea of there being swing votes. Making DC and PR states is also reasonable but opens a can of worms.

I fully view Biden as a necessary stop gap to get us out the Trump era and back on the track to normalize. Use his 4 years to fix what was broken and try to put in reforms to make sure they don’t happen again. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

This seems to be a done deal. Democrats need to be thinking about their next moves immediately and in the near future. They need to make sure the loss on the Supreme Court result in wins in the presidency and Senate. Hammer the hypocrisy, the damage the new court could do to healthcare and skewed priorities of the GOP (not working on stimulus, etc).

Then they could go one of two ways:

1. Play their game, down and dirty. Get rid of the filibuster, increase the number of justices, etc.

2. Work on reforms to try and prevent these problems in the future. Establish time frames and processes for the confirmation of Justices. It may not have gotten Garland confirmed but at least force them to put an official vote against him. I think you also need to look at restricting the powers of majority leaders as the current system allows for progress only on a purely partisan basis.

Either way they need to be ready for the Supreme Court losses. Get something ready for healthcare. Get something ready for abortion protections. Use the majority wisely while you have it.

Option 1 seems to be a recipe for disaster. Sure it will give short term wins but the GOP will come back and do it better when they get a chance. An expansion to 11 is reasonable. It won’t put them into the majority but will bring back the idea of there being swing votes. Making DC and PR states is also reasonable but opens a can of worms.

I fully view Biden as a necessary stop gap to get us out the Trump era and back on the track to normalize. Use his 4 years to fix what was broken and try to put in reforms to make sure they don’t happen again. 

This would be fantastic and would represent a tremendous accomplishment of the Biden administration IMO.  Everyone (who is not a tool) seems to recognize that SCOTUS nominations and judicial appointments in general have gotten out of control.  It is time for structural reform that isn't just another round of partisan payback for whatever the other guys did last.  Term limits for justices would be a fantastic first step, as would legislation that standardizes the confirmation process.

 

[toshiba]

9 hours 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 think little pay just makes it less likely middle class and poor can serve.

 

[Trey]

We probably ought to be a smidge concerned that an official GOP talking point is we need a 9th justice to help with election related lawsuits in November. 

 

[Biff84]

This would be fantastic and would represent a tremendous accomplishment of the Biden administration IMO.  Everyone (who is not a tool) seems to recognize that SCOTUS nominations and judicial appointments in general have gotten out of control.  It is time for structural reform that isn't just another round of partisan payback for whatever the other guys did last.  Term limits for justices would be a fantastic first step, as would legislation that standardizes the confirmation process.

I’ve seen 18 year terms mentioned, staggered to allow a nomination every 2 years. Two Justices per term seems reasonable.

 

[quick-hands]

Should trump add 4 justices if he wins?

 

[quick-hands]

and make the upper peninsula  a state.   2 more republican senators.

Superior state.    

 

[Biff84]

Should trump add 4 justices if he wins?

Will the keep the Senate and win back the House?

 

[quick-hands]

Will the keep the Senate and win back the House?

If they do.   Should the republicans pack the court.   Since dems think it should be done.

 

[skol asylum]

Yep, if you can't win then move the goal posts.  Not going to happen however.......ever.  Just like the electoral college isn't going to change either.  The founders were brilliant on that one.

It's much easier to increase the court size than change the electoral college. One requires a change to the Constitution and the other does not.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

It's much easier to increase the court size than change the electoral college. One requires a change to the Constitution and the other does not.

Yes, it's also much easier to increase the court size than to impose term limits on Article III judges. Constitutional amendments are really hard.

 

[The Commish]

It's much easier to increase the court size than change the electoral college. One requires a change to the Constitution and the other does not.

Yes, it's also much easier to increase the court size than to impose term limits on Article III judges. Constitutional amendments are really hard.

Can states mandate that their electoral votes be proportionally distributed?  

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Can states mandate that their electoral votes be proportionally distributed?  

Sure, if they want to be more like Maine. Or Nebraska.

 

[The Commish]

Sure, if they want to be more like Maine. Or Nebraska.

Isn't this all that's really needed to make a meaningful difference in terms of EC impact?  We don't have to get rid of the EC....it's just the "winner take all" part that's a problem right?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Isn't this all that's really needed to make a meaningful difference in terms of EC impact?  We don't have to get rid of the EC....it's just the "winner take all" part that's a problem right?

No, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact needs the states in the compact to use winner-take-all for it to work. (Winner of the nationwide popular vote, that is.) Otherwise the states in the compact will dilute their own influence while the other states will not.

 

[The Commish]

No, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact needs the states in the compact to use winner-take-all for it to work. Otherwise the states in the compact will dilute their own influence while the other states will not.

Well, I kinda meant ALL states to go that route.  I know that's never going to happen, but that seems easier than a Constitutional Amendment addressing the EC.

 

[Chaz McNulty]

I always thought that the popular vote should be counted as a state.  Maybe the average of the 50 states for electoral votes.  This would encourage voting in states like Texas and California where the results are pretty much known.  It would also make it a little more difficult to lose the election but win the popular vote.

 

[The Future Champs]

Should trump add 4 justices if he wins?

Sure.  Any party that packs the Court is going to get roasted in the next election, so go ahead.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Any party that packs the Court is going to get roasted in the next election, so go ahead.

I don't think that is necessarily true.

More Americans have voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in six of the last seven cycles.  This is almost certain to be true again in 2020.

More Americans voted for Democrats in the House in 2018.

Democratic Senators represent far more people than Republican Senators.

The reality is that the majority of the country is Center-Left to Left.

The GOP will be blamed for politicizing the Supreme Court - rightly or wrongly.  Refusing to allow Obama to fill Scalia's seat, and pushing Trump's nominee for Ginsburg's seat will easily win the politicizing argument.

So, if the Dems come into power, and talk about judicial reform, and adding judges to ease workloads, and that includes 4 new justices on the Supreme Court - sure the Trump Party will be angry - but I don't think that necessarily translates into nation-wide backlash.

Trump Party is acting brazen now, because they think there will be no consequences to their naked power grab.  Time will tell if they are correct.

 

[Sand]

Some interesting dichotomies arising out of all this.

Amy Coney Barrett - her Catholic religion is the basis for The Handmaid's Tale

Joe Biden - How his Catholic religion shapes his politics.

We can see the differences in stark detail - one is pure evil leading to a dystopia of female slaves, one is saintly with references to faith, justice, love with references to Matthew; all based on the same religion.  One a pure hit piece based on a comparison to an imagined dystopian world (Note to Newsweek - Atwood imagined that world, not some Catholic group) and the other a fawning love piece.  Love the images - Biden looks like a devout saint in the front of the church.

If you wanted case A on how the press is wildly left, here it is. 

Not surprising that we start to see ridiculous hit pieces emerge.  Really, this is the best they can come up with?  Responsibility for an imagined world based on her religion?  She must be a super solid pick from a personal point of view.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

Some interesting dichotomies arising out of all this.

Amy Coney Barrett - her Catholic religion is the basis for The Handmaid's Tale

Joe Biden - How his Catholic religion shapes his politics.

We can see the differences in stark detail - one is pure evil leading to a dystopia of female slaves, one is saintly with references to faith, justice, love with references to Matthew; all based on the same religion.  One a pure hit piece based on a comparison to an imagined dystopian world (Note to Newsweek - Atwood imagined that world, not some Catholic group) and the other a fawning love piece.  Love the images - Biden looks like a devout saint in the front of the church.

If you wanted case A on how the press is wildly left, here it is.  I stand in disbelief when there are arguments in here that the mainstream press isn't biased.  It's massively, wholly biased in one direction.

She is not a mainstream Catholic. She belongs to an organization that specifically asserts that men control their wives. 

 

[jon_mx]

She is not a mainstream Catholic. She belongs to an organization that specifically asserts that men control their wives. 

Every article contains inuendo and is uncertain whether she is actually a member.  It is also unclear how radical the group is today.  Much of the negative information seems to be from information obtained about the group in the 80's.   The information the group puts out in more recent times seems more mainstream and has evolved much like the general public.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Some interesting dichotomies arising out of all this.

Amy Coney Barrett - her Catholic religion is the basis for The Handmaid's Tale

Joe Biden - How his Catholic religion shapes his politics.

We can see the differences in stark detail - one is pure evil leading to a dystopia of female slaves, one is saintly with references to faith, justice, love with references to Matthew; all based on the same religion.  One a pure hit piece based on a comparison to an imagined dystopian world (Note to Newsweek - Atwood imagined that world, not some Catholic group) and the other a fawning love piece.  Love the images - Biden looks like a devout saint in the front of the church.

If you wanted case A on how the press is wildly left, here it is. 

Not surprising that we start to see ridiculous hit pieces emerge.  Really, this is the best they can come up with?  Responsibility for an imagined world based on her religion?  She must be a super solid pick from a personal point of view.

I’m a Catholic and I guess you won’t be surprised I’m pretty familiar with the milieu - I mean the actual schools and neighborhoods and social mix here in NO & Old Metry - that Barrett came out of.

But this cuts both ways. Biden wears his Catholicism and his background on his sleeve. He goes to Mass on Sundays when Trump is golfing (and diverting public funds into his private coffers, ie stealing) and rage tweeting, regularly breaking 3 commandments every Sunday. I’d charge it’s Trump supporters who are false on this point, the issue of faithfulness, morality and decency is not in fact a serious value for them.