RIP RBG

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
LeftieBiker said:
Schumer has already, IIRC, mentioned expanding the court as an option, and then packing it. Fine with me - if it can be done, which would require winning the Senate with a few seats to spare, which is, alas, unlikely.

Yes, and the democrats are always at a disadvantage in winning the senate, a system intentionally designed to give more power to rural voters. Rural does not have to mean republican, but that seems to be the way things are at the moment. The system essentially awards power to land instead of voters. I understand why, the founders were worried that otherwise, a few urban areas would have the power to control the whole country. Which is essentially what would happen. But it also means your vote, in say NY or CA, is worth less. It is not one person, one vote. Same with the EC and House, to a lesser extent though.
 
Alexandra Petri said:
On one thing, at least, we can count: Senate Republicans know that filling a Supreme Court vacancy is far too important a responsibility to rush through a nominee in the year before an election. Let alone in the last six weeks! They were very, very clear on that point four years ago, and their word means everything to them. I have no doubt they will do the right thing! (I’m sorry, after typing that, my voice shriveled up and I caught on fire.)

Mitch McConnell is a man of principle — oh, no, my hand melted and the bones became snakes and slithered away under my writing table. Lindsey Graham will do what is right — oh my goodness, I’m sinking into the earth! Help! My mouth is filling up with sand!

The Senate Republicans need simply be told that to push another nominee through now, before the election, would be hypocritical, after what they said in 2016 about Merrick Garland, and they are sure to stop. After all, their word means everything to them. Hmm, every Constitution in a six-mile radius just caught fire for no discernible reason.

They were in absolute earnest that the people must have their say. I cannot imagine them going back on their word — oh no, I’m imagining it. Oh, no, it’s happening. Who could have foreseen this?

“In the last 80 years, the Senate has not confirmed any nominee nominated during an election year, and we should not do so this time either,” Ted Cruz said last time. Would Ted Cruz go back on his word? If Ted Cruz does not abide by that precept now, I will eat my hat. Wow, this hat is delicious!

“The people deserve to be heard, and they should be allowed to decide through their vote for the next president, the type of person that should be on the Supreme Court,” weren’t just words that Charles Grassley was saying at that time, but a vow that will assuredly bind — oh God, locusts!
There is more at https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/21/least-we-can-count-senate-republicans-do-right-thing/
 
danrjones said:
There is actually a solution, which I'm sure a few here must have read already.

Assuming a justice is put in, the democrats could expand the size of the court next term.

The supreme court size is NOT constitutionally set. The senate sets it.

IF the democrats won the white house, and if they won the senate, and if they all decided to do so - they could expand the court to 11 and then seat 2 justices. Or 13. Or 50 as far as I know.

Now one could argue that's a slippery slope bucking tradition and inviting others to do it again later, but as far as I understand, it is perfectly legal.

RBG herself said this was a bad idea and 9 is the right number. Where does it end? Expand to 11 and then the next GOP majority expands it to 21? And besides which it would destroy any goodwill for a newly-established democrat majority in the Senate.

Dems just need to suck it up and accept the consequences of the last election. The GOP behavior regarding SCOTUS in 2016 was scandalous but they got away with it. Too late now. Anyone expecting them to play by the same imaginary rule this time around is delusional. A lot of key elements of government integrity seem to boil down to nothing more than gentlemen's agreements. These fail when we do not have gentlemen in office. Some things need to be codified I think. Put some hard requirements around the Senate's "advise and consent" obligation.

As far as the next Justice, the mere act of Trump appointing them does not necessarily guarantee years of abysmal opinions. And if it does then public opinion will have to work in its slow but inexorable way to swing the pendulum back. Sometimes you just have to accept your losses and keep your eyes on what matters. In this case it's defeating Trumpism in November. Because if we don't I fear this country may not recover.
 
Nubo said:
danrjones said:
There is actually a solution, which I'm sure a few here must have read already.

Assuming a justice is put in, the democrats could expand the size of the court next term.

The supreme court size is NOT constitutionally set. The senate sets it.

IF the democrats won the white house, and if they won the senate, and if they all decided to do so - they could expand the court to 11 and then seat 2 justices. Or 13. Or 50 as far as I know.

Now one could argue that's a slippery slope bucking tradition and inviting others to do it again later, but as far as I understand, it is perfectly legal.

RBG herself said this was a bad idea and 9 is the right number. Where does it end? Expand to 11 and then the next GOP majority expands it to 21? And besides which it would destroy any goodwill for a newly-established democrat majority in the Senate.

Dems just need to suck it up and accept the consequences of the last election. The GOP behavior regarding SCOTUS in 2016 was scandalous but they got away with it. Too late now. Anyone expecting them to play by the same imaginary rule this time around is delusional. A lot of key elements of government integrity seem to boil down to nothing more than gentlemen's agreements. These fail when we do not have gentlemen in office. Some things need to be codified I think. Put some hard requirements around the Senate's "advise and consent" obligation.

As far as the next Justice, the mere act of Trump appointing them does not necessarily guarantee years of abysmal opinions. And if it does then public opinion will have to work in its slow but inexorable way to swing the pendulum back. Sometimes you just have to accept your losses and keep your eyes on what matters. In this case it's defeating Trumpism in November. Because if we don't I fear this country may not recover.

Well said. I agree entirely.

In my better moments... :)
 
If this were the first time this happened, I might possibly agree with the above. But it's been going on for decades, and if the Supreme Court is allowed to be packed with 6 of 9 Right wing judges then the country will start to look more like Iran than Europe, with abortion banned in most states, government-funded private schools churning out fundamentalists, and corporate America running (even more) roughshod over what's left of the North American ecosystem. Just as with the environment, there is a political Tipping Point at which the Right can consolidate power to the point where only a violent revolution can unseat it - and that won't happen because our military is too powerful to overthrow. This as we enter runaway global warming decades before it was inevitable. The end of the world? No. The end of American civilization? Probably, within 20 years.

This particular fight can't be avoided, and it can't be abandoned after a token effort. I just personally don't see any way this appointment can be stopped, because the Republican Party has already abandoned its morals, and Pelosi's quiver is most likely full of bluffs. That leaves packing the Supreme Court next year (in the unlikely even that becomes possible) and hoping that the Democrats manage to stay in power for at least 8-12 years...
 
Nubo said:
danrjones said:
There is actually a solution, which I'm sure a few here must have read already.

Assuming a justice is put in, the democrats could expand the size of the court next term.

The supreme court size is NOT constitutionally set. The senate sets it.

IF the democrats won the white house, and if they won the senate, and if they all decided to do so - they could expand the court to 11 and then seat 2 justices. Or 13. Or 50 as far as I know.

Now one could argue that's a slippery slope bucking tradition and inviting others to do it again later, but as far as I understand, it is perfectly legal.

RBG herself said this was a bad idea and 9 is the right number. Where does it end? Expand to 11 and then the next GOP majority expands it to 21? And besides which it would destroy any goodwill for a newly-established democrat majority in the Senate.

Dems just need to suck it up and accept the consequences of the last election. The GOP behavior regarding SCOTUS in 2016 was scandalous but they got away with it. Too late now. Anyone expecting them to play by the same imaginary rule this time around is delusional. A lot of key elements of government integrity seem to boil down to nothing more than gentlemen's agreements. These fail when we do not have gentlemen in office. Some things need to be codified I think. Put some hard requirements around the Senate's "advise and consent" obligation.

As far as the next Justice, the mere act of Trump appointing them does not necessarily guarantee years of abysmal opinions. And if it does then public opinion will have to work in its slow but inexorable way to swing the pendulum back. Sometimes you just have to accept your losses and keep your eyes on what matters. In this case it's defeating Trumpism in November. Because if we don't I fear this country may not recover.

Not so sure about that. The democrats are fully within their legal right to expand the supreme court, just like the Republicans are within their right to ram one through despite blocking Obama's. the way you word it makes it sound like they should not exercise their legal power to do what they were elected to do. That's exactly what the GOP is doing, and did, to Obama.

I hear what you are saying, that just because one party does something "naughty" doesn't mean another should.
But legally there is nothing that says they cannot, and so why shouldn't they expand it? Who decided expanding it was playing dirty anyway? Maybe its time for a change.
Will the GOP do it in return? Maybe so.
And then maybe, just maybe, citizens will reject both parties and find something more sane. Or maybe not.
 
But the dems would have to expand to 13 jurists. That would be a lot. But why not? At this point the worse president in the history of this country will get to pick 3. That means if we win the White House and the Senate Joe will have 4 seats to fill. It is time to take the gloves off and start playing hardball.
 
Nubo said:
In this case it's defeating Trumpism in November. Because if we don't I fear this country may not recover.

I see no hope of defeating Trumpism in November. Corruption is deep and getting deeper. Too many are in the alternate realities promoted by Fox News and spread widely on Facebook by Putin's agents. Disinformation is spreading fast. Even if Trumpism is defeated at the polls this November and again and again, we are in for dark times, even if Trump loses and loses bad. If it is close, Trump will dispute it and refuse to leave. Bad or worse. Maybe 100 Novembers... History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.

The Slave Power had 7 seats on the Court in 1856, and attempted to maintain slavery forever by the Court. Remember that the Dred Scott decision was never overturned by the Court. Or by the Civil War. Or by the 13th and 14 Amendments, in practice, in much of the USA. Maybe in the 1960's, partially. But the Court overturned the Voting Rights Act in 2013, so maybe not even today...

Black people "are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them."

https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep060/usrep060393a/usrep060393a.pdf

There is zero good will for the new (likely Democratic) Senate majority. At best. I expect all out political war. At best. Remember just how much good will President Lincoln had? Remember Moscow Mitch's most important thing? But that doesn't mean that endless quorum calls and all the other procedural games that can be played now to slow this confirmation are a good idea...

Worst thing is I don't see any realistic way out. If I was younger I'd move to Australia and buy lots of popcorn.
 
downeykp said:
But the dems would have to expand to 13 jurists. That would be a lot. But why not?
Why not 11?

Sure, it leaves a narrow R majority on the Court, but that makes it closer to "tit for tat" rather than "we win".
 
WetEV said:
downeykp said:
But the dems would have to expand to 13 jurists. That would be a lot. But why not?
Why not 11?

Sure, it leaves a narrow R majority on the Court, but that makes it closer to "tit for tat" rather than "we win".


Would you go out and recruit a 50 million dollar baseball team with the intention of losing the Series by a somewhat smaller number of runs than would happen with your five million dollar team? Or would you perhaps actually try to win? Just curious...
 
LeftieBiker said:
WetEV said:
downeykp said:
But the dems would have to expand to 13 jurists. That would be a lot. But why not?
Why not 11?

Sure, it leaves a narrow R majority on the Court, but that makes it closer to "tit for tat" rather than "we win".


Would you go out and recruit a 50 million dollar baseball team with the intention of losing the Series by a somewhat smaller number of runs than would happen with your five million dollar team? Or would you perhaps actually try to win? Just curious...
Politics isn't baseball.

Longer answer is that democracy needs both the losers and the winners to keep talking and to de-escalate conflicts.

Somehow we need to filter out the noise and trolls, and have serious discussions.
 
WetEV said:
Politics isn't baseball.

Longer answer is that democracy needs both the losers and the winners to keep talking and to de-escalate conflicts.

Somehow we need to filter out the noise and trolls, and have serious discussions.

Exactly! Eight years ago, I wouldn't allow my son to join the Young Democrats at his Arlington, VA HS unless he insisted that the faculty advisor have monthly meetings with the Young Republicans. Faculty advisor refused. My son didn't join.

We have substituted the "Art of Negotiation" with "How to win at any cost." Belligerence reigns at the moment.
 
gncndad said:
WetEV said:
Politics isn't baseball.

Longer answer is that democracy needs both the losers and the winners to keep talking and to de-escalate conflicts.

Somehow we need to filter out the noise and trolls, and have serious discussions.

Exactly! Eight years ago, I wouldn't allow my son to join the Young Democrats at his Arlington, VA HS unless he insisted that the faculty advisor have monthly meetings with the Young Republicans. Faculty advisor refused. My son didn't join.

We have substituted the "Art of Negotiation" with "How to win at any cost." Belligerence reigns at the moment.

True

But if democrats play the compromise game, don't expand the court, and keep their word and the republicans play their current game of win at any cost, and don't keep their word - and voters do not care, then what? Where do we end up?
 
danrjones said:
Nubo said:
RBG herself said this was a bad idea and 9 is the right number. Where does it end? Expand to 11 and then the next GOP majority expands it to 21? And besides which it would destroy any goodwill for a newly-established democrat majority in the Senate.

Dems just need to suck it up and accept the consequences of the last election. The GOP behavior regarding SCOTUS in 2016 was scandalous but they got away with it. Too late now. Anyone expecting them to play by the same imaginary rule this time around is delusional. A lot of key elements of government integrity seem to boil down to nothing more than gentlemen's agreements. These fail when we do not have gentlemen in office. Some things need to be codified I think. Put some hard requirements around the Senate's "advise and consent" obligation.

As far as the next Justice, the mere act of Trump appointing them does not necessarily guarantee years of abysmal opinions. And if it does then public opinion will have to work in its slow but inexorable way to swing the pendulum back. Sometimes you just have to accept your losses and keep your eyes on what matters. In this case it's defeating Trumpism in November. Because if we don't I fear this country may not recover.

Not so sure about that. The democrats are fully within their legal right to expand the supreme court, just like the Republicans are within their right to ram one through despite blocking Obama's. the way you word it makes it sound like they should not exercise their legal power to do what they were elected to do. That's exactly what the GOP is doing, and did, to Obama.

I hear what you are saying, that just because one party does something "naughty" doesn't mean another should.
But legally there is nothing that says they cannot, and so why shouldn't they expand it? Who decided expanding it was playing dirty anyway? Maybe its time for a change.
Will the GOP do it in return? Maybe so.
And then maybe, just maybe, citizens will reject both parties and find something more sane. Or maybe not.

If we get into one-upmanship with the court's size, it would lose all legitimacy as an independent branch of government. We can't afford that.
 
But isn't that the problem? They are not really interpreting the Constitution anymore. They are interpreting what the politicians want them to interpret. They are deciding via politics who should and should not become president, 2000 and unfortunately 2020.
What are the odds that this election ends up in the Supreme Court?
 
Nubo said:
If we get into one-upmanship with the court's size, it would lose all legitimacy as an independent branch of government. We can't afford that.

For Trump, that is a feature, not a problem. Trump wants the last and only word.
 
Somehow we need to filter out the noise and trolls, and have serious discussions.

This thread has been, IMO, a serious discussion. What do you consider "noise" and 'trolling'...?

Trying to keep the Supreme Court functioning as something other than a way to cancel progressive legislation - much of it long-established law - is not "one-upmanship." It is an effort to keep the Third Branch of government working as intended: as a check on bad legislation and illegal Executive branch behavior. The conservative Catholic judge, whose name escapes my sleep-fogged brain at the moment, thinks that precedent, which is pretty much the basis for the court system, is much less important than it has been considered, and shouldn't stop Roe v Wade from being overturned. That principle, if applied, would also be used to gut environmental regulations, which need to be strengthened, not weakened.
 
LeftieBiker said:
Somehow we need to filter out the noise and trolls, and have serious discussions.

This thread has been, IMO, a serious discussion. What do you consider "noise" and 'trolling'...?

I don't believe WetEV was referring to this thread, but our current culture. I agree, this thread has remained quite civil, which is refreshing.
 
gncndad said:
LeftieBiker said:
Somehow we need to filter out the noise and trolls, and have serious discussions.

This thread has been, IMO, a serious discussion. What do you consider "noise" and 'trolling'...?

I don't believe WetEV was referring to this thread, but our current culture. I agree, this thread has remained quite civil, which is refreshing.

Exactly.
 
I propose the Democrats set the number of Supreme Court justices to 9 + number of serving justices with over 18 years tenure. That would be 11 next year, barring the departure of Thomas or Breyer. The law could also suggest a tradition of retiring after 18 years; if everyone did that, it would be typical for each 4 year presidency to result in two nominations.

I'd happily go for a mandatory 18 year term limit, but that would require a Constitutional amendment, since "during good Behavior" is interpreted to mean lifetime.

Cheers Wayne
 
Back
Top