Thunderlips
Footballguy
That's a fair point.
To that, Harry Reid broke tradition as well.
ETA: There was a reason filibustering existed. IT helps protect the minority.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
🏛️ Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter Sinn Fein
- Start date
To that, Harry Reid broke tradition as well.
ETA: There was a reason filibustering existed. IT helps protect the minority.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I really hate the whole idea of elected judges. I understand that judges are not actually totally objective arbiters of The Law, but having them elected removes even the pretense of neutrality.
Edit: Also, we already have too much mental energy invested in the court. I don't think turning SCOTUS into the Wisconsin supreme court would be a healthy thing to do.
Last edited by a moderator:
NightStalkers
Footballguy
This is very true. If you look at President Obama and President Trump they are pretty much the same as it applies the Presidential Order pen. And honestly Congress reacts the same way from both sides to the action, running to the nearest friendly judge that will rule for your side.
Gr00vus
Footballguy
They'd still serve for life/until they decide to retire. I'd think that would alleviate some of your concern here. Acknowledging and understanding your concern, would we prefer to have them "beholden" to the majority of the population who elects them to office, rather than a single person who places them in the position? I think the bigger concern would be the effect of campaigning for the job, which would put us in danger of ending up with the most popular judges, or best pandering judges, rather than the most qualified. But, again, would that be any worse than what we have now? Do we really think Trump is a qualified arbiter of who is fit to be a Supreme Court Justice?
I suppose this is an overreaction to the current occupant of the Presidency. Still even in the hands of competent Presidents, it still seems like the composition of the Supreme Court does not represent the composition of this country. I mean, over 50% of the country is gender female, and we've never had more than 2 gender female Justices for instance. Tthat definitely has an impact of interpretation of laws.
NightStalkers
Footballguy
Agreed. The whole idea behind the Federal judges was to have them not affected by current politics to serve their role of keeping politicians from over stepping their power. The original idea was to have a reactionary body the House of Rep. a non reactionary body the Senate and a chief executive whose term falls directly in the middle. And the Judicial Branch with no term to keep the train on the tracks.
Gr00vus
Footballguy
In my scenario, we only vote on a Justice when there's a vacancy - they'd still have no term limit.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Yes, I do. Well, maybe not Trump personally, but more like his advisors. Nobody seriously disputed whether Gorsuch or Kavanaugh were highly qualified for the supreme court. And the Kavanaugh nomination only went sideways because an episode from his high school years that a leading Democrat deliberately tried to cover up -- you can't really pin that one on Trump.
I get what you're saying though. I should add in here that I'm just generally not a fan of majoritarianism and I'm sure that colors my view on this particular issue.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
On a completely unrelated note, I see that "Walter White" is trending and I know exactly why without even needing to click on it.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
I get what you mean, and maybe you are using the word "fight" in a context differently than I am thinking but I see a defeat with all of the emotional outburst that accompanies it, with all of the stages of grief, but I don't expect any fight.
Gr00vus
Footballguy
One of the founding principles of this country is protecting the minority from the majority. That's still an important principle to retain. I think we may be a bit off balance in that regard currently, leaning a little too far in the direction of catering to the minority at the expense of the majority, particularly in the realm of justice.
Jackstraw
Footballguy
First of all wut? Should one citizens vote count more than another citizens? Your argument seems to be yes it should. I’m cool with that position but JUST SAY IT!!!
NightStalkers
Footballguy
Trump (who i didn't vote for) is for sure qualified to appoint SC judges for one reason. He was elected by the rules that govern the country at the time. RBG who i respect but didn't agree with could have stepped down in the first Obama Administration and been replaced with a liberal judge. But she didn't and it was her call and it should always be her call. Politics are supposed to be secondary to the SC judges.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Gr00vus
Footballguy
Both Trump SCOTUS picks so far have been standard mainstream types that a President Romney, Kasich, Rubio or Jeb would have nominated.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Yes.
Nobody ever accused me of being a Harry Reid fan, but I agreed strongly with his decision to get rid of the filibuster for judicial appointments. I've since also come around to getting rid of the legislative filibuster too, or at least making it way more difficult to utilize. It's hard to defend a de facto 60-vote supermajority requirement for every routine piece of legislation.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gr00vus
Footballguy
I think we could have done better than Kavanaugh. His conduct during the interview / hearing alone (whether how he was treated was justified or not) was enough to punt him and find someone else. It's not like we have a shortage of high quality conservative legal talent in this country.
Gr00vus
Footballguy
Maybe what's needed is some constraints on the timing of nominating, interviewing, voting on candidates? Like, in the event of a vacancy, the President shall provide a nominee within one month or less, hearings / inteviews /vote will be completed one month after that - rinse repeat until someone is given the seat. That would take the ambiguity out of it. Reduce the number of exploitable loopholes anyway.
This should be a relatively straightforward process. I can't understand how it's been allowed to remain so poorly engineered for so long.
This should be a relatively straightforward process. I can't understand how it's been allowed to remain so poorly engineered for so long.
whoknew
Footballguy
I am not the biggest fan of Kavanaugh's judicial record--particularly illiberal/LaW AnD OrDeR positions on the 4th Amendment, but I have a hard time blaming him for being upset at being slandered as the leader of a rape ring and serial assaulter with zero evidence and the death threats/protesters camped on his front lawn that came with that.
Made a politicized mockery of a very serious serious societal issue in sexual assault
I guess after Garland Democrats acting out is understandable but it drained me of any sympathy I had for Dems after Garland (not for Garland--still feel bad for him)
On the court Kavanaugh doesn't seem to have been hyper partisan either which is encouraging--hope his 4th amendment record doesn't manifest in a case
Gorsuch on the other hand is a grade A pick and I have been quite pleased with him
That was my thinking too. I'm probably the least politically knowledgeable person in here but this seems kind of wild they don't have a set system / rule in place. Seems like it shouldn't be that difficult.
Or maybe it already is set and the rule is "if you have the votes you get to decide". I'm not opposed to that really either. I just would like to know the rule.
Yes, I can't imagine them holding the seat open for four years or the Republican caucus staying united for that.
If Biden wins that's how you turn the expected midterm 2022 red wave into a ripple (if not the other way)
And don't forget that Mitch's job is to hold the Senate majority over all else--anything else is a means to that end
Gr00vus
Footballguy
Seems like a bad rule, if that's really it. The country deserves a fully staffed Supreme Court for the maximum amount of time possible. Any rule that leaves timely filling of seats to the whims of 52 or so people in this country (regardless of their partisan alignment) seems like a very bad approach.
Arsenal of Doom
Footballguy
In theory I like the idea of having the court comprised of a mix of political and institutional appointments. Say, 15 judges 10 of which are nominated by the President and 5 nominated by unanimous consent of a panel from within the court, who would presumably be more apolitical by nature of their nomination. In practice though I think it suffers from the same problems I articulated above about just adding judges. It seems perfectly reasonable, but could just be used as an excuse to start adding more political appointments.
Last edited by a moderator:
NightStalkers
Footballguy
No i am not saying that . Look at 2004 Kerry almost beat Bush in the Electoral college with Bush having a 3 million vote advantage in the popular vote. Would you have complained about Kerry winning? What i am saying is there is no huge majority by either party. The rules for the electoral college have been on the books since 1787. The current stream of popular vote losses has happened before, over 100 years ago. The reason this has happened twice in the last 20 years is the Democratic Party wins NY and California with huge margins which only delivers their electoral votes hence the votes in those states are sort of wasted. Look at trump winning in 2016 he won 60 percent of the states. Each state chooses how it votes, and how it delivers it's electoral college votes. The current system is really an election by the states not a popular vote system. Like i said this happened in the 1800's.
spodog
Footballguy
Yes, it is a good thing that the first priority listed under Trumps second term agenda - drain the swamp category is congressional term limits.NightStalkers said:
https://ballotpedia.org/The_Republican_Party_Platform,_2020
NightStalkers
Footballguy
The guy was being accused of a crime that carries life imprisonment in some states. And contrary to believe MD has no statue of limitations on Sexual assault. If being accused of raping or sexually assaulting someone doesn't get you mad nothing will. Especially when the witness's she named didn't back her up including one that was her friend. Kavanaugh got mad and i don't blame him one bit.
Yeah you’re right.
Democrats are so decent. Nothing says decent like calling every Republican post Eisenhower a Nazi Klansman or saying John McCain is a modern George Wallace who wants to reinstate segregation and firebomb black churches.
That is decency to a T
Only topped by against the incredible decency of 2012 in saying Mitt Romney wants to enslave black people, making up out of thin air that he is a tax felon, calling his wife Hitler and making fun of his grandson for being black and a “token.”
But still the party of decency wasn’t finished: they followed up on their pristine moral record by weaponizing fake sexual assault allegations against a judge to derail his nomination because they didn’t like the guy who appointed him.
With decency like this I can only imagine what indecency would look like
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
No.... his main job is to write legislation and work with the house to take care ofc the country.
I know your attitude is a popular one. That's why we have the crap we do. Accountability to do the job they take an oath to do is merely a formality
spodog
Footballguy
You’re right that’s his responsibility as a Senators. I am saying his responsibility as party leader is that from an electoral perspective
Last edited by a moderator:
NightStalkers
Footballguy
All this hand wringing is going to be for nothing. Collins, Romney and Murkowski have all said no to voting until after the election. Grassley said in the past he wouldn't do it either before. There isn't going to be a vote.
johnnycakes
Footballguy
With Pence having the tie-breaking vote, there's going to be a tremendous amount of pressure to get just one of those guys to flip.
NightStalkers
Footballguy
Collins and Murkowski are in competitive elections so they likely won't back off. Romney doesn't care one iota for Trump so he won't....
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Yes, you made the point that democrats would do the same thing. But you argued that it was it duty of the GOP Senate to block such a shift. I might have been wrong about the election having anything to do with it. Or at least I'm not going to try to prove it with more searches.
Fair enough?
But it was an unprecedented action. I mean I guess 135 years earlier a lame duck president nominated someone that the Senate choose not to consider until the new president renominated him so there was some precedent. And there were other nominees where the congressional session ended, but none were ignored for such a period of time as Garland's.
NightStalkers
Footballguy
“Bad idea when [FDR] tried to pack the court… If anything would make the court appear partisan it'd be...one side saying, ‘When we’re in power we’re going to enlarge the number of judges so we'll have more ppl who will vote the way we want them to.’"
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Sand
Footballguy
And Gorsuch is way above average in that regard, so overall DJT has made some decent picks.
Squeaky clean, massive judicial record, and still only got confirmed by 11-9 in committee and 54-45 in the full Senate. Kagan and Sotomayor were confirmed with ~65-35 type votes. Shows how bad the blue team has gotten with confirming qualified candidates. If the red team keeps the Senate and Biden wins they should consider and reject anybody more left of center than Garland.
renesauz
IBL Representative
Similarly, current Presidents generally didn't continue to hammer at retired Presidents and other formerly prominent politicians who had retired from public service/life.
NightStalkers
Footballguy
Slightly off topic but it does feedback into the congress and president's elections and hence the Supreme Court.
Has anyone on this board ever participated in a Poll? I have never been in one and don't know anyone i worked with or friends with ever has...
Has anyone on this board ever participated in a Poll? I have never been in one and don't know anyone i worked with or friends with ever has...
Rich Conway
Footballguy
NightStalkers
Footballguy
Trump isn't the only one. I remember Obama blaming the slow economy growth on how Bush left him economically wise. And that was 6 years into his term.
NightStalkers
Footballguy
How did it happen if you don't mind me asking? I am asking how they contacted you..
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Always via phone. I changed cell numbers twice, though, about 4-5 years ago, and gave up my landline a couple years ago. Don't think I've been contacted since.
renesauz
IBL Representative
I thought it was ridiculous then...clear obstruction. We were more then 6 months out from the election at the time.
But this is six weeks, from the exact same senators with the same leader. Their arguments then are a matter of public record, and they still apply. THEY set this precedent, and to fail to follow the precedent THEY INSISTED ON AND ARGUED FOR just four years ago is beyond hypocritical. The argument actually makes far more sense now, particularly considering just how divisive and controversial this particular president has been.
Ideally, Garland would have been voted on, and Trump would get this one, but this Senate under McConnell changed that dynamic, and set the precedent they now wish to ignore.
FWIW, in our recent landscape of left/right leanings, it's not hard to see a constitutional crisis or two coming from the fact that as the country leans further and further left, the 2 per state setup of the Senate gives conservatives a massive advantage there....and the Senate has a huge role to play particularly in this exact circumstance. The construction of our government was brilliant, but it's been 250 years. Does any reasonable person think those same men would have done things the same way TODAY? With our current economics and distribution of population?
Lastly....some of the moderation here lately has gone too far
renesauz
IBL Representative
I argued similarly in 2016. The precedent was very vocally set...by the SAME SENATORS in there now
Last edited by a moderator:
NightStalkers
Footballguy
i agree Garland should have gotten a vote.I thought it was ridiculous then...clear obstruction. We were more then 6 months out from the election at the time.
But this is six weeks, from the exact same senators with the same leader. Their arguments then are a matter of public record, and they still apply. THEY set this precedent, and to fail to follow the precedent THEY INSISTED ON AND ARGUED FOR just four years ago is beyond hypocritical. The argument actually makes far more sense now, particularly considering just how divisive and controversial this particular president has been.
Ideally, Garland would have been voted on, and Trump would get this one, but this Senate under McConnell changed that dynamic, and set the precedent they now wish to ignore.
FWIW, in our recent landscape of left/right leanings, it's not hard to see a constitutional crisis or two coming from the fact that as the country leans further and further left, the 2 per state setup of the Senate gives conservatives a massive advantage there....and the Senate has a huge role to play particularly in this exact circumstance. The construction of our government was brilliant, but it's been 250 years. Does any reasonable person think those same men would have done things the same way TODAY? With our current economics and distribution of population?
Lastly....some of the moderation here lately has gone too far
However how is the country leaning left? No Dem president has won 53 percent of the popular vote in over 50 years..
NightStalkers
Footballguy
i agree. Just said Garland deserved a vote. And it is very unlikely in my eyes to see Trump getting a vote for RBG's replacement before election day. If he wins he will get the pick. If he loses Biden will.
renesauz
IBL Representative
It makes sense in the case of the Presidency. Electoral votes are still allocated based on population. Except in one or two recently established cases, the state votes for ONE person based on the results in that state. So NY, California, etc. DO still carry far more weight...it just doesn't matter if a politician wins by 1 vote or 10 million votes within the specific state, they get the same electoral vote boost.
While I think it's fair to question the Senates role/power re. the Supreme court, I'm less convinced this is a bad thing re. the Presidency itself because it is NOT the same. Californis/NY DO CARRY (significantly) MORE WEIGHT then North Dakota in that election.
