IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
It's really kind of cute how people think that History began in 2016 with the Merrick Garland nomination.
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 (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter Sinn Fein
- Start date
Disagree.. its not a retaliation its about doing what's right. And there is nothing that say the Supreme Court is best at 9. Personally for me having the Court at 15 or so would be better and would reduce the influence that this process has..
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
You want normalcy or do you want to act like what you've complained about for 4 years?
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Packing it with 6 will reduce the influence?
Sure, let's go with that. So you're good with Trump naming 6 more before January?
Sammy3469
Footballguy
Elections have consequences or so I've been told. And yes I want a return to the normal non-radical ring wing court where Supreme Court justices don't parrot right wing talking points and know how state's decide elections in their opinions.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
You want the SCOTUS to favor your politics and since you lost the last election you want to change the SCOTUS rules so it's balanced in your favor? Yeah, nothing dangerous about that kind of behavior
Sammy3469
Footballguy
Yeah nothing dangerous with what McConnell pull the past 5 years to get a SC to favor his politics. Nothing at all.
Thunderlips
Footballguy
If there's concern about the court being packed......Congress has the ability to remedy that. I don't really hear much in regards to legislation being brought up to solidify 9. All I hear is about "tradition".
I'd have a lot more respect for the concerns about "packing the court" if politicians in Congress would push to settle it.
ETA: And I'm not one who really thinks there's a need to "pack a court".
Last edited by a moderator:
parrot
Footballguy
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Stoneworker
Footballguy
You don't? The entire progressive wing is shouting about it. It only takes one to sponsor a bill.
“Expand the court," tweeted Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.
Ocasio-Cortez was also joined by her fellow first-term congresswomen Reps. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.
"We must expand the Court if we’re serious about the transformational change the people are crying out for," Tlaib said.
https://nypost.com/2020/10/26/aoc-ilhan-omar-tweet-expand-the-court-after-barrett-confirmation/
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
The Wisconsin statute is clear-cut, its meaning is not in dispute. There's no question it requires absentee ballots to be received on election day ("The ballot shall be returned so it is delivered to the polling place no later than 8 p.m. on election day. ... Any ballot not mailed or delivered as provided in this subsection may not be counted.") The SCOTUS didn't rule on the meaning of the statue. The (short version) background is that, about a month ago, a federal judge in Wisconsin declared that additional emergency election accommodations were appropriate due to COVID - including extending the deadline by which ballots must be received by 6 days (provided they are postmarked by Nov. 3). That order was appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals, which stayed the implementation of the order pending appeal. By "staying" the order, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals essentially guts the decision, as they won't decide the appeal until well after the Nov. 3 election. That ruling was in turn appealed - meaning the SCOTUS was asked to rule on the propriety of the stay order. In its ruling yesterday, the SCOTUS declined to overturn the 7th Circuit's stay order, leaving the election status quo intact, with no special accommodations as ordered by the district court judge in Madison. The longer version of the background on all this goes back to our Spring primary and implicates several other legislative actions and court rulings.
I don't really have a problem with Kavanaugh's concurrence, other than its just too damn long. Roberts covered it in half a page, and Gorsuch did a more than adequate job in about 3 pages.
TLEF316
Footballguy
As the court has basically now evolved into a political weapon,(sadly) I have no issue with making changes to reflect the times and limit the ability of one party/administration to take action that will affect our country for 30 years (which basically what happened here between no Garland and ACB replacing Ginsberg)
But if the Democrats steamroll this election (winning the Presidency and Senate) and pack the SC to swing things the other way, they're just going to contribute more to the overall problem (division in the country)
I think something needs to be done to limit the potential impact of one election. Whether that's SC term limits or increasing the # of judges or some sort of combination of the 2, I'm not sure. But clearly, leaving something so important up to basically pure luck (when someone dies and who happens to be president and Senate Majority leader when they do) is just not ideal.
But if the Democrats steamroll this election (winning the Presidency and Senate) and pack the SC to swing things the other way, they're just going to contribute more to the overall problem (division in the country)
I think something needs to be done to limit the potential impact of one election. Whether that's SC term limits or increasing the # of judges or some sort of combination of the 2, I'm not sure. But clearly, leaving something so important up to basically pure luck (when someone dies and who happens to be president and Senate Majority leader when they do) is just not ideal.
Last edited by a moderator:
Can you elaborate on that please and why you think it? Specifically how it's used as a weapon and how it's changed? Thanks.
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Increasing the number of judges is just another partisan land-grab unless we phase things in under future administrations. For example, the winner of the 2028 election gets to add two justices, and the winner of the 2036 election gets to add two more. That's far enough out that we don't know which party will be making those appointments, so there's a semblance of fairness there. People who are asking for four new justices appointed specifically by the Biden administration are just being tools.
I really like the idea of justices being term-limited. That would need to be grandfathered in, but it would hugely help out with the luck and ghoulishness involved in the current system. Unlike court-packing, term limits make the process predictable and turns down the volume on the whining.
Thunderlips
Footballguy
Where's the push from The Right in Congress to sponsor a bill limiting the SCJs to 9? Do they not want to do that in case they need/want to exploit the vagueness of it in the future?
I'm not particularly for it....I mainly like to point out the lack of clarification in regards to the number in the Constitution to those who use the idea of "if its not in the Constitution"....... in other arguments.
ACB, Kavanaugh/Gorsuch; it's not like Trump nominated Jr./Kayne and The Mooch. The sanctity of the court hasn't been tarnished* by these three. Those three are qualified. Do they have ideological opinions on how/why something should be ruled on? Sure. That's how it's always been. If you want to have SCJs on the court that are more prone to listen particular ideology....win elections.
I guess a case could be made for the "will of the people" in regards to trying to manipulate the court to gain a more favorable slate of judges, but it would have to be on par with a Reagan/FDR level shift AND; I think that would even have to be combined with the idea that sitting SCJs are unabashedly legislating from the bench in an almost corrupt way.
* That being said, I think if this election breaks bad it could put the court in a position in which they will be viewed as "tarnished" by many. I think it's a mistake ACB doesn't look like she wants to recuse herself from this.
Last edited by a moderator:
TLEF316
Footballguy
So despite being a history major, I must admit that I'm not very well versed on the history of the court.
But when the party in charge refuses to even allow an outgoing president's nominee a hearing (when the outgoing justice passed away in Feb. of an election year) and then pushes "their" nominee through in less than a month 4+ years later (when an election has already started and "their man" seems likely, but certainly not guaranteed to lose) .....its pretty obvious that they see the court (and their decisions) as a weapon that they "won" the right to wield.
And to be fair, many democrats are NOW foaming at the mouth to try and find a way to "retaliate" by packing the courts. (assuming they win the 2020 election)
I'm sure that the idea of the "court split" has been around since the beginning. The issues have obviously changed, but justices have always had beliefs and opinions on important issues and I'm sure the presidents picking them have always taken those views (rather than just their pure "qualifications" as judges) into account when selecting them. But in 2020, with our country so divided (and so many people being basically one issue voters) it just seems more obvious and dangerous than ever.
edit- NOW, not "not"
Last edited by a moderator:
Apologies as I haven't read this much and I'm guessing it's been talked about. But what are the arguments for and against recusing?
Are there rules?
Is there precedent?
Are there rules?
Is there precedent?
Thanks. I think you're exactly right in that it feels to me like Presidents have always leaned toward appointing justices they felt were most in line with their "side". That feels like it's always bene the case and doesn't feel new at all. I have noticed though that the Trump voters I talk to have long seemed to put a much higher value on Supreme Court appointees than the Democrats do. At least in the last few years. For the people I'd talk to in 2016 that were voting Trump, almost all of them put appointing supreme court justices as a top 3 reason they were voting for him. Not sure if that means more but that was something I heard a lot from them.
Interestingly, individual states occasionally change the size of their highest courts (I don't say Supreme Court because NY is weird and the "Supreme Court" is actually the lowest court). For example, in 2016, Republicans in AZ and GA changed their state laws to add seats on their Supreme Courts, which allowed each of their Republican governors to appoint two more people. Link
hagmania
Footballguy
I suspect it is something you heard a lot from them because it is one of the prevalent reasons they could find to support the President while excusing his personality.
Probably so. But I see a lot of value in that reasoning for legit purposes. I know lots of Trump voters who even if he loses will feel like they got a significant and long lasting boost for their conservative side with the Justices Trump appointed in his first term.
They have to weigh out for themselves of course if the negatives were worth the positives. But I absolutely see and understand the postiives for them on this. They see it very much as a "long game" thing.
Last edited by a moderator:
whoknew
Footballguy
Thank you for the procedural history. I appreciate it.
Yea - I saw everyone up in arms on twitter about the decision. But if the statute says that, I think its dumb but that's the statute. I don't see why a federal district court judge should be unilaterally granting an amendment to the statute.
Mookie
Footballguy
I also don't support increasing the number of judges as it has no end. Term limits (10 years? 15?) make sense as does a mandatory retirement age. More generally, we need to better define and decrease the Senate's role in the confirmation process as it has become overly politicized and, in my view, abused by the Republicans in control - There is simply no way to reconcile the Garland and Barret confirmation processes. I have no faith in Congress getting any meaningful judicial reforms done.
TLEF316
Footballguy
I mean....not to put words in anyone's mouth or oversimplify....but it SEEMS like there are a ton of people out there who are cool with A LOT of nonsense as long as Roe is one day overturned.
Trump putting 3 judges under 60 years old on the bench COULD go a long way to MAYBE making that happen one day.
Again, this is just me talking about personal friends so that's a ridiculously small (and useless) sample size, but I don't think I've ever heard one of those people so interested in the Supreme Count appointees ever mention Roe v Wade.
They are much more interested in just generally how they rule. I think all of them see it just like you here: "Trump putting 3 judges under 60 years old on the bench COULD go a long way to MAYBE making that happen one day."
Shula-holic
Footballguy
My gut feel is this wouldn't work out too well politically for the Dems but we may get to find out.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I'm firmly in the "we should follow the rules as they were written" camp when it comes to this sort of stuff. But if I was going to steel-man an argument for the other side, I would argue that election rules are kind of like contracts -- they're always incomplete. Weird contingencies that nobody ever anticipated arise, or rules start working perversely in ways that nobody expected, and you need someone to step in and make sure that the overall intent of the system isn't going off the rails. So under normal circumstances, it would be fine to set election day as a hard deadline (it is, by its nature, a hard deadline after all), but covid has thrown everything for a loop and maybe we need to reevaluate whether that particular rule still "works" in our current situation.
Like I said, I don't agree with that view because I think it opens the door to motivated, results-based reasoning, but it's not a dumb or crazy position to take.
Stompin' Tom Connors
Footballguy
Expanding the SCOTUS to 13 justices is wholly uncontroversial. The SCOTUS was originally created with 6 justices, which was limited to 5 by Adams during his lame duck session to prevent Jefferson's appointments. Jefferson repealed that back to 6, then added a 7th to match the number of seven federal court cicuits.
SCOTUS was again expanded to 9 to again match the number of federal circuit court districts in 1837 by Jackson.
During the Civil War, when a 10th federal circuit court was established, they also expanded the number of SCOTUS justices to 10, which was reduced back to 9 in 1869.
Since that time, the number of federal circuit courts have expanded while the number of justices sitting on SCOTUS has remained the same.
Putting aside political bias and motivation, I am not sure there are any reasonable arguments to not expand the number of justices to 13 to match the number of current appellate federal circuit courts that make up the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Long history of precedence, it's sensible, and long overdue, IMO.
SCOTUS was again expanded to 9 to again match the number of federal circuit court districts in 1837 by Jackson.
During the Civil War, when a 10th federal circuit court was established, they also expanded the number of SCOTUS justices to 10, which was reduced back to 9 in 1869.
Since that time, the number of federal circuit courts have expanded while the number of justices sitting on SCOTUS has remained the same.
Putting aside political bias and motivation, I am not sure there are any reasonable arguments to not expand the number of justices to 13 to match the number of current appellate federal circuit courts that make up the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Long history of precedence, it's sensible, and long overdue, IMO.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
So you would be okay with Trump naming 4 more judges and getting them confirmed before January 20th?
hagmania
Footballguy
If he wanted to risk there being 21 by the end of 2024 then go for the gusto.
I see it as a game of political chicken. I would be somewhat surprised if the SC expanded during a Biden presidency.
Stoneworker
Footballguy
Thanks. I'm sure the American people appreciate "sensible" ideas like yours that go against their will.
In the POLITICO/Morning Consult poll (10/18/20), just 24 percent of voters say Congress should pass a law increasing the number of justices.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/21/amy-coney-barrett-poll-430632
Redwes25
Footballguy
Constitution says nothing about size of the court and probably the best reading is it is the power of the Congress to decide. I don't support packing the court but if Dems sweep President and both House and Senate I don't see anyway for Republicans to stop them. Is it a bad precedent? Yup, but the Garland crap was made up BS and after pushing through ACB showing it was made up BS will likely hurt them in this election. Of course we shall all see and it will be laughable if Republican cry like babies if the court is packed on them.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
Stompin' Tom Connors
Footballguy
Two very orthogonal questions.
I don't have a problem with any party looking to match the number of justices to the number of federal circuit courts.
I do have a problem with the way the credibility of SCOTUS has been subverted as a political tool.
I have a problem with any party using the courts to enforce their political will that moves it further from representing the will and viewpoints of the citizen majority.
sho nuff
Footballguy
And if we are talking a Trump loss and Dem gains in congress...trying to rush through confirmations between now and January would be quite ridiculous.
jm192
Footballguy
There seem to be a lot of attempts to lock it in at 9.
Rubio had a bill.
Doug Collins had a bill.
Cruz and other GOP Senators offered up a constitutional amendment.
People are bringing things forth.
whoknew
Footballguy
Good point. I still agree with you - they should be interpreting what the legislature actually passed.
Also - I think people are probably overreacting for the sake of being angry. How many ballots is this actually going to apply to? And will it really be that close in WI?
jm192
Footballguy
I mean...how many times have people posted polls saying the people don't support ACB being confirmed?
I
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
That was my point. People that are okay with expanding the court are only okay with it if their side gets to choose the judges. I'm against it. I'm for term limits. Just because Trump/McConnell did something doesn't mean Biden needs to retaliate.
whoknew
Footballguy
jm192
Footballguy
And, radical idea, just...send in your votes. Even today gives your snail mail ample time to get there.
You know the rules, if you wait until the 2nd, sorry?
jm192
Footballguy
I'm not going down the tangent rabbit hole. Someone said Congress has the ability to remedy it but implied they aren't trying. I pointed out it's incorrect.
whoknew
Footballguy
Well - I would not suggest anyone put their ballot in the mail now. The USPS has not been reliable lately.
ETA: That's the reason I think the legislature should amend the statute. But obviously they won't do it.
Last edited by a moderator:
yak651
Footballguy
Sad that supreme court is politicized. Aren't judges supposed to be "impartial"?? What is this country coming to when so much is made of the supreme court?? They should just be administrating the law, not changing it to reflect a liberal or conservative view. If any change to the supreme court is made it shouldn't be the number of judges but the number of years they serve or max age (same with POTUS, need max age)
