Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Replaced by Amy Coney Barrett)(Now Abortion Discussion) (1 Viewer)

[GrandAdmiral]

Ugh... breaking news I DID NOT want to see.

ETA: Reported on CNN.

 

[DaveXA]

It may have been covered here and I missed it, but how exactly would the court be expanded if this is something that could potentially happen after the election and seating of the new Congress? Is this something that would have to pass both houses as well as signed by the President? Does is require a simple or supermajority?

 

[Booker]

It may have been covered here and I missed it, but how exactly would the court be expanded if this is something that could potentially happen after the election and seating of the new Congress? Is this something that would have to pass both houses as well as signed by the President? Does is require a simple or supermajority?

They would just have to pass a bill through the House and Senate and have the President sign it into law (though they might have to do away with the filibuster to get it through the Senate).

 

[DaveXA]

They would just have to pass a bill through the House and Senate and have the President sign it into law (though they might have to do away with the filibuster to get it through the Senate).

Didn't they already do away with the filibuster, or is that only in limited situations?

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Didn't they already do away with the filibuster, or is that only in limited situations?

They only did away with it for confirming Judicial Nominations. It is still in place for legislation.

 

[samiam5211]

I think we need an amendment to the constitution that sets the number of Justices.

Whether the number is nine or something else, we need to prevent this from being abused by politics and becoming a tool for the parties,

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I think we need an amendment to the constitution that sets the number of Justices.

Whether the number is nine or something else, we need to prevent this from being abused by politics and becoming a tool for the parties,

Yes, and honestly we need to reform the entire Federal Judiciary. It is bloated and overly complex with too many Districts and layers. A lot of the fighting in Washington is around these lifetime appointments because they know how much power comes with having courts ideologically aligned with you.

 

[DaveXA]

They only did away with it for confirming Judicial Nominations. It is still in place for legislation.

Yeah, I wasn't sure which way it was. Thanks.

 

[superchuck500]

I think we need an amendment to the constitution that sets the number of Justices.

Whether the number is nine or something else, we need to prevent this from being abused by politics and becoming a tool for the parties,

We can’t even agree on how to let people vote during a pandemic, the idea that anything (literally anything) could have the kind of support right now that it takes to amend the Constitution seems like fantasy of the highest order.

Constitutional Amendment Process

The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for...

www.archives.gov

 

[FullMonte]

I think we need an amendment to the constitution that sets the number of Justices.

Whether the number is nine or something else, we need to prevent this from being abused by politics and becoming a tool for the parties,

I also think that amendment should include changing their appointment from a lifetime appointment to a specific number of years. Way back when, the lifetime appointment made some sense. When you are appointing someone to the court who had 10-15 years experience as a lawyer, 10-15 years experience as a local judge, 10-15 years experience as a federal judge to a lifetime appointment...you are appointing someone who is probably around 60 years old to a lifetime appointment when the life expectancy was in the 70's...so it was really a 10-20 year appointment.

Only 7 of the first 20 SCOTUS justices served more than 20 years. For comparison, not counting the justices who were appointed less than 20 years ago...13 of the last 20 justices served longer than 20 years. The rest of the justices currently serving could easily make it that long or longer.

On a separate note, I've said for a while that I'd love to see the process completely changed. Instead of presidential appointments, I think that Supreme Court justices should be selected to a term of, say 10 years, by a process similar to that of jury selection. When a vacancy occurs, a federal court judge with a certain number of years of experience (say 5 years on the federal bench) should be randomly selected. The process could be set up so that each additional 2 or 3 years experience would put that judges name in the pool an additional time. This concept of "I'm a conservative, so I'm going to select a young uber conservative person so that they will be on the Supreme Court for decades" is not how it should be done.

 

[V Chip]

What makes it surprising?

The ABA has typically not rated those without much experience on the bench very highly.

 

[DaveXA]

The ABA has typically not rated those without much experience on the bench very highly.

I suppose so, but she has a much larger body of work than just her time on the bench and I'm sure they took that into consideration. And I think some significant witnesses vouched for that body of work. Witnesses who have worked at length with other SC justices. I don't know enough as to how much weight her experience carries, but it's certainly not anything to sneeze at.

Whether that's a robust enough body of work to qualify as a SC justice seems debatable.

 

[FullMonte]

I suppose so, but she has a much larger body of work than just her time on the bench and I'm sure they took that into consideration. And I think some significant witnesses vouched for that body of work. Witnesses who have worked at length with other SC justices. I don't know enough as to how much weight her experience carries, but it's certainly not anything to sneeze at.

Whether that's a robust enough body of work to qualify as a SC justice seems debatable.

Does she, though? I seem to recall reading that she has never argued a case in court.

 

[coldseat]

Will people be watching her nomination hearing today? I get the feeling that most people are tuning out, including Republicans, as we all know that the result is a forgone conclusion and that Republican Senators are going to push though the nomination no matter what. Certainly won't get the interest that the Kavanaugh and Gorsuch hearings got.

I'll doubt that I will be paying close attention to it, probably just an evening recap.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I can't watch it. I tried yesterday but the smug Republicans are just nauseating.

 

[bdb13]

Yeah I got no appetite to watch any of it.. what's the point?

 

[Optimus Prime]

What gets me is if Biden wins and Dems take back the Senate and if for whatever reason 2 conservative justices need to be replaced in Summer 2024 I have ZERO doubt that the GOP will say how they must let the voters decide

And if they move forward with the nomination and confirmation the Republicans will scream bloody murder that this the grossest injustice they've ever seen

I also wouldn't be surprised if in the interest of "fairness" the Dems do exactly that, and wait until the election

 

[DaveXA]

Will people be watching her nomination hearing today? I get the feeling that most people are tuning out, including Republicans, as we all know that the result is a forgone conclusion and that Republican Senators are going to push though the nomination no matter what. Certainly won't get the interest that the Kavanaugh and Gorsuch hearings got.

I'll doubt that I will be paying close attention to it, probably just an evening recap.

I've watched almost all of it so far. Nothing too surprising. I'll say ACB is really holding her own. She seems far, far more competent than Kavanaugh was in his hearings.

It's too bad the politics of all of this is such a mess.

The questioning hasn't been all that bad on either side. There of course is the obvious petty comments about the other side before the questions, but I generally just ignore that stuff. I'm more interested in what her responses are. She's pretty smart, I'll say that much.

 

[zztop]

I've watched almost all of it so far. Nothing too surprising. I'll say ACB is really holding her own. She seems far, far more competent than Kavanaugh was in his hearings.

It's too bad the politics of all of this is such a mess.

The questioning hasn't been all that bad on either side. There of course is the obvious petty comments about the other side before the questions, but I generally just ignore that stuff. I'm more interested in what her responses are. She's pretty smart, I'll say that much.

Kav had no business being there, but hey that never stopped republicans before. Nobody is saying she isn't smart, but I don't get why you give a pass to her being in essentially a religious cult, thinks women should be subservient to men, and that she is on record saying essentially that women should not have a right to choose what they want with their bodies. I feel like she gets a pass from some just because she is a supposed christian. If you replaced that word with scientology, which is as loony as her religion in my opinion, I am sure people would see the red flags there. Which it shouldn't even have to be that blatant. She is on record of thinking a certain way and has strong opposition, so I don't get how some can be "well we just don't know how she will be until she gets on the bench". Republicans chose her for a reason, there are many other more qualified people they could have chosen. Why do you think they chose HER out of everyone else?