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 Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett (5 Viewers)

TobiasFunke said:
I think there's some truth to that. But any article that discusses Robert Bork and doesn't even mention "Richard Nixon" or "Saturday Night Massacre" is giving a pretty weak account of how problematic he was.  The guy rose to prominence in part because he was willing to do something so obviously egregious that his two superiors resigned rather than doing it themselves.  IMO someone like that shouldn't be an ALJ, let alone a Supreme Court Justice.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Republicans and Fairness Fetishists never want to talk about that.  It's beyond amazing that anyone would consider Bork to have had sufficient judgment and respect for the law to be a Supreme.

 
What role did Garland have in anything controversial? To use Bork as some kind of martyr because the norms were broken, doesn't bode well for the people advocating for Bork to have been confirmed, imo. Bork, arguably had a hand in, up to that point, something our government had not seen, ever. Then, Nixon resigned. Anyone that had any hands in that cookie jar should not have been anywhere near government from that point on. To even nominate Bork was not a good thing to do.

People arguing that Bork should have been on the court knowing what he did... nope.

 
Mario Kart said:
What role did Garland have in anything controversial?
Click to expand...
He was Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court in 2016, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to schedule any hearings or a confirmation vote for him under the provocative theory that a President should not get to nominate a Supreme Court Justice during the year leading up to a Presidential election.

The bold is what started the controversy.

 
Clarence Thomas got confirmed.  

Hard to accept the argument that Bork is paitent zero of this pandemic if Thomas got through just a few years later.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
He was Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court in 2016, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to schedule any hearings or a confirmation vote for him under the provocative theory that a President should not get to nominate a Supreme Court Justice during the year leading up to a Presidential election.

The bold is what started the controversy.
Click to expand...
Yes, noted when he nominated him. I wonder if McConnell will write that in his free eBook before he passes.

 
ETA: I was in college then and it was certainly discussed in real time that the fight was really about the Saturday Night Massacre (which was less than 15 years prior at that point).  Having said... there was no 24/7 news coverage like today and you didn't have a lot of people on TV every minute trying to interpret what was really going on.  The cover story is mostly what got covered.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
"But my side had a good reason for breaking that norm."
Click to expand...
I’m a believer in Eric Holder’s argument that there are tons to actions we all would agree shouldn’t be done in government that we never bothered to write down because we didn’t anticipate our President and legislators to be so absent of morals to have to take the time to do so.  

That’s why I asked about actions on the ethical/unethical plane rather than about what rules were followed and what weren’t: I don’t think the rules as written were intended to be exhaustive.

I feel like right now is the middle of a game of chess.  One player has rather unconventionally decided to set the room on fire, citing there’s nothing in the rules of chess against setting the room on fire so it’s totally OK and why are you complaining about the room being on fire just shut up and move and how dare you use that tone of language or ask for a fire extinguisher why won’t you make your move and if you don’t you forefit and lose and why are you blaming losing the game because the room was on fire why can’t you just admit you suck at chess and.... well, I think you get the idea.

 
The current norm, that Presidents get to appoint Supreme Court Justices only when the Senate is controlled by the same party, does asymmetrically favor Republicans over Democrats. Because Republicans have more support in states with small populations, it is significantly more likely that we'll have a Democratic President with a Republican Senate than the other way around. (As compared with the popular vote, the electoral college does give Republicans an edge for the Presidency. But their edge in the Senate is significantly greater than their edge in presidential contests.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
Reid amended existing rules, he didn't fabricate new ones like McConnell did with Garland. And he was also responding to an unprecedented blockade of judicial appointments during the Obama era spearheaded by McConnell, one that legitimately hampered the judiciary's ability to do its job.
Click to expand...
What rule did McConnell fabricate?  He didn't hold hearings.  Reid's move was seen as a nuclear bomb option back then.  It was in response to non-movement by the GOP.  We now have senators saying they won't even consider Trump's nominee.  Before even knowing who the nominee is.  Like MT has said, its a series of bigger and more egregious steps.  Of course each one is unprecedented.  

 
Bruce Dickinson said:
I’m a believer in Eric Holder’s argument that there are tons to actions we all would agree shouldn’t be done in government that we never bothered to write down because we didn’t anticipate our President and legislators to be so absent of morals to have to take the time to do so.  

That’s why I asked about actions on the ethical/unethical plane rather than about what rules were followed and what weren’t: I don’t think the rules as written were intended to be exhaustive.

I feel like right now is the middle of a game of chess.  One player has rather unconventionally decided to set the room on fire, citing there’s nothing in the rules of chess against setting the room on fire so it’s totally OK and why are you complaining about the room being on fire just shut up and move and how dare you use that tone of language or ask for a fire extinguisher why won’t you make your move and if you don’t you forefit and lose and why are you blaming losing the game because the room was on fire why can’t you just admit you suck at chess and.... well, I think you get the idea.
Click to expand...
Are we still talking about the Kavanaugh nomination?  Because that selection doesn't seem very unconventional.  Certainly not the lighting-the-room-on-fire kind of unconventional.  

 
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
ETA: I was in college then and it was certainly discussed in real time that the fight was really about the Saturday Night Massacre (which was less than 15 years prior at that point).  Having said... there was no 24/7 news coverage like today and you didn't have a lot of people on TV every minute trying to interpret what was really going on.  The cover story is mostly what got covered.
Click to expand...
The seat Bork was up for was eventually filled by Anthony Kennedy, right?  

IIRC, there was a nominee between Bork and Kennedy who was insta-disqualified because he had smoked marijuana.  Not on the car ride on the way to his confirmation hearing; just at some point in his life.  

Hard to believe 30 years later we had a major party Presidential nominee who thanked his drug dealer in his high school yearbook.  And won twice.

 
Bruce Dickinson said:
The seat Bork was up for was eventually filled by Anthony Kennedy, right?  

IIRC, there was a nominee between Bork and Kennedy who was insta-disqualified because he had smoked marijuana.  Not on the car ride on the way to his confirmation hearing; just at some point in his life.  

Hard to believe 30 years later we had a major party Presidential nominee who thanked his drug dealer in his high school yearbook.  And won twice.
Click to expand...
I still remember the SNL skit from the Ginsburg stuff at that time! I still use “Captain Toke”

 
Bruce Dickinson said:
The seat Bork was up for was eventually filled by Anthony Kennedy, right?  

IIRC, there was a nominee between Bork and Kennedy who was insta-disqualified because he had smoked marijuana.  Not on the car ride on the way to his confirmation hearing; just at some point in his life.  

Hard to believe 30 years later we had a major party Presidential nominee who thanked his drug dealer in his high school yearbook.  And won twice.
Click to expand...
Douglas Ginsburg. I think he was before Bork.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
This is easy. The rule McConnell was following was: “No President shall have a Supreme Court nominee confirmed unless the White House and the Senate are controlled by the same party, at least so long as I am Senate Majority Leader.”

It was unethical as hell.
Click to expand...
Doesn't seem like many conservatives feel that way at all. If anything, they celebrate the successful strategy. The voters didn't  care. There was no rule against doing this.  How is it unethical? It is foolish because it invites their enemies to strike back when they have the upper hand.

IMO this did a great deal of harm to the country but there was no price to pay for this, at least not yet.  I'd assume if at some point in the future the Democrats elect a President and get control of Congress they'll add enough Justices to tilt the court their way. There's no rule against that either. So in 100 years maybe there will be more Supreme Court Justices than Senators as the government goes back and forth between the parties. That doesn't sound great  but it sounds better than having a court dominated by far right wing theocratic extremists who can be counted on to put the Republican party interests over the country's interests for the next 30-40 years.

Politicizing the federal courts is a bad idea but that horse has been out of the barn for a while.  McConnell and the GOP burned the barn down in 2016. The Democrats will take their revenge at their first opportunity.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Until Bork, I'm unaware of any nominee who was voted down by the Senate mainly for ideological reasons rather than, e.g., ethics scandals.
Click to expand...
It started almost 200 years ago.  John Crittenden.  Which, incidentally, was pretty much the same situation as Garland.

I guess they refused to vote.

But John Canfield was voted down twice for party reasons.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hugh Jass said:
Of course, and it was unethical as hell.  And it should always be a stain that he and his party should have to wear going forward and in all analysis in the history books of the future.  They will get their's in the future, no doubt. 

I have this argument with my brother all the time and it really is what so many issues (and threads in the PSF) come down to.  I think the Dems should continue to do the "right" thing governing wise (the grown-ups argument) and he thinks like you and a lot of folks here...that the Dems need to match things, underhandedly as much as possible.  whatever it takes.  I'm sympathetic to the suggestion and the frustrating feeling, but I want to think long term.  The Repubs won the battle, but the Dems can win the war going forward.  I argue if the Dems stoop to Trumpian levels they become a poor choice in elections going forward.  And, not to mention, we all lose as a functioning democracy going forward.  I prefer this period to be a zit...a temporary thing.  Not the beginning of a downward spiral.  Whatevs.
Click to expand...
This is without doubt a rational and reasonable argument. My problem with it is that, when one side successfully executes a power grab it gives them...well, power. They become more and more likely able to change the course of the country even against the will of most people, in service to particular interests. It becomes more and more entrenched. I don't know that a liberal/progressive course can be set for decades now. Decades long cycles are not acceptable to me personally (though it's what we're stuck with now).

I prefer to frame this very simply: it's a power struggle and I'd prefer the good guys win more immediately. Use every tool available, discard previously inviolate (mostly) norms, do whatever is possible within the constraints of legality and ethics. 

I haven't read much recently about what has occurred in Poland and Hungary, but they are having right wing power grab issues. Similar outcomes here are more than plausible. 

Personally not interested in "winning" the war 50 years from now. It's rational to worry that may be too late.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Until Bork, I'm unaware of any nominee who was voted down by the Senate mainly for ideological reasons rather than, e.g., ethics scandals.
Click to expand...
Weren't Nixon nominees Carswell and Haynsworth rejected mostly due to pro segregation and white supremacist views. Or maybe it was just because they were mediocre.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
So it seems that McConnell didn't break any norms, either. ;)
Click to expand...
Sure.  Wouldn't have been breaking norms to pass a new Judicial Circuits Act and reduce the number of judges by that metric.  

Congress has always been full of jerks and borderline criminals.  Which is why it's important to have a President who isn't a criminal.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
I didn't pay a lot of attention to such things at the time, but I don't remember the Saturday Night Massacre playing a big role in the opposition to Bork's confirmation. I remember people focusing on his judicial philosophy and ideology.

I've also seen a decent defense of Bork's role in the Saturday Night Massacre, though I don't remember where, arguing that firing Cox and appointing Jaworski as the new special prosecutor was actually a good move, or at least a less bad one than his other options.* But I was an infant at the time, so I have no personal recollection of those events.

___
*In fact, it may not seem that different, in a way, from Rosenstein's recommendation to fire Comey, followed by his appointment of Mueller.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if you are referring to the same thing, but was it in the recent Nixon podcast? They also said that Bork thought about resigning but both Richardson and ... the Deputy told him he should do what Nixon is asking.

 
whoknew said:
I'm not sure if you are referring to the same thing, but was it in the recent Nixon podcast? They also said that Bork thought about resigning but both Richardson and ... the Deputy told him he should do what Nixon is asking.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think it was the Slow Burn podcast by Slate. Thank you!

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Well if you’re a USSC Justice trying to cement in your apprentice as the heir to your seat, giving the boot to the president’s signature policy would probably not be a smart way to do that.
Click to expand...
It would have the benefit of throwing everyone off your scent, though  :)

 
proninja said:
Running for state house in my area is about a 100k-300k proposition. On top of that, you need a team that can handle a campaign. You need a message that resonates. You need to spend every free second doorbelling, fund raising, or other election related stuff. 

If you want to start lower, say city council, it'll cost a lot less, but take just about as much of your time. On top of whatever it is you do for a living. And as a city council member, you get precisely zero say in national level issues. You deal with parks spending, development, budget issues, etc. Which is great stuff, but not what is upsetting the general public right now. 

A local mayor told me "just don't plan on seeing your family for six months" 

If you want to run for any sort of office, you have to have a lot of money (or access to the kind of people who can give you money), the kind of job that doesn't demand a ton of you and is flexible in terms of scheduling, and the personal freedom to do nothing but work and run for office for a long time.

Those are some reasons. 
Click to expand...
I just learned that county coroner is an elected position.  In the neighboring county, one guy is running unopposed.  He’s not qualified and isn’t a doctor.  He just wants a government job.  Pretty smart.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Yes.  Feel free to substitute "side" for "party" if you like.
Click to expand...
Yeah I don't really have a side.  Let me know to whom I should surrender my free thought. 

Pro Guns
Abortion neutral
Social Liberal
I'm not afraid a gay or brown person is going to hurt me
I'm ok with screening immigrants and getting that organized
I'm anti- corporate welfare
I'm pro Union
I'm Lutheran....sort of.  I'm confirmed but more just try to be a decent person
I think woman's lib hurts a lot of women more than it helps
I'm Pro Whiskey but Anti Vodka
I'm think pot should be legal.
I think Pharma should be prosecuted the same as any other cartel for their part in the Opiate epidemic.
I think we should get out of wars, and put that money into education
 

Which side am I on? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sabertooth said:
Yeah I don't really have a side.  Let me know to whom I should surrender my free thought. 

Pro Guns
Abortion neutral
Social Liberal
I'm not afraid a gay or brown person is going to hurt me
I'm ok with screening immigrants and getting that organized
I'm anti- corporate welfare
I'm pro Union
I'm Lutheran....sort of.  I'm confirmed but more just try to be a decent person
I think woman's lib hurts a lot of women more than it helps
I'm Pro Whiskey but Anti Vodka
I'm think pot should be legal.
I think Pharma should be prosecuted the same as any other cartel for their part in the Opiate epidemic.
I think we should get out of wars, and put that money into education
 

Which side am I on? 
Click to expand...
Look, I think it's wonderful that you're such a free thinker.  That is fantastic, and I think I speak for all of us on this forum when I say that I salute you.

Back to the point, now is not the time to normalize court-packing unless you want Trump appointing a bunch more justices.  I gather that's not the outcome you seek.

 
Sabertooth said:
Yeah I don't really have a side.  Let me know to whom I should surrender my free thought. 

Pro Guns
Abortion neutral
Social Liberal
I'm not afraid a gay or brown person is going to hurt me
I'm ok with screening immigrants and getting that organized
I'm anti- corporate welfare
I'm pro Union
I'm Lutheran....sort of.  I'm confirmed but more just try to be a decent person
I think woman's lib hurts a lot of women more than it helps
I'm Pro Whiskey but Anti Vodka
I'm think pot should be legal.
I think Pharma should be prosecuted the same as any other cartel for their part in the Opiate epidemic.
I think we should get out of wars, and put that money into education
 

Which side am I on? 
Click to expand...
Sounds like we are on the same side.  How do you feel about dentists?

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Look, I think it's wonderful that you're such a free thinker.  That is fantastic, and I think I speak for all of us on this forum when I say that I salute you.

Back to the point, now is not the time to normalize court-packing unless you want Trump appointing a bunch more justices.  I gather that's not the outcome you seek.
Click to expand...
We've normalized stealing a seat.  Turnabout is certainly fair play.  I'm not buying billboards and running commercials.  I posted a link and read an article.  I'm pretty sure smarter guys than me have already thought about this.  In terms of timing, the way I see it right now the Republicans aren't going to touch it.  Why would they?  They've won!  It's over! 

The Dems need to be exploring all options.  They are still fighting way too nice.  Obviously showing those cards now isn't very smart.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Democrats Planning to Add 4 New Justices to the Supreme Court
3 4 5
Replies
242
Views
7K
John123
J
GordonGekko
Should Ruth Bader Ginsburg Have Retired Before Her Passing To Protect Roe v Wade? (6/27/22 17:59 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
Top