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.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I really hope Democrats win the presidency, and senate. They would be insane not to go nuclear, add DC/PR as states - adding 4 liberal senators, and then adding 2 more SC justices. McConnel would likely never be the majority leader again, and his gridlock strategy would fall apart while not having power.

Agreed.

Democrats need to wake up and realize their 25 years of responding to the increasingly illiberal tactics set off by Newt Gingrich with appeals to civility, compromise, and normative adherence, which the electorate has made clear will not reward them, and their opponents will not honor or reciprocate, is not achieving shirt.

Biden seems to have largely signaled he will essentielly play right into that same trap, but at least Schumer seems to be signaling nothing is off the table if the Republicans pull this shirt. And I’m all for it. I think the Supreme Court was a half baked concept(literally) and has never been anywhere close to living up to its idealists lofty praises(and has often reasserted the worst injustices in society). I’d be fine with a different dysfunction where the winning majorities just stack their courts and we have a more transparent lawmaking process(or moving to Buttigieg’s idea of a 15 panel bench, with 10 justices equally distributed amongst the two major parties, thats final 5 is split and altered based on who is in the majority). It’s not my ideal but the current alternative is worse.

Plus, at this point we are already in phase 3 of 5 of becoming a full blown failed state, and reversing those trends are not going to be achieved through the Republican Party. Which is an increasingly contemptuous and illiberal group that is only interested in maintaining power and favor with their small group of powerful economic and ultra wealthy capitalist stakeholders.

 

[coldseat]

Illogical, no. If the goal of this country is a representative democracy and the outcome is instead a system where a majority of lifetime appointees, that studies show basically just adhere to ideological boundaries, nominated without majority support, can overrule any and all representative legislation, what would you call that country? It wouldn’t be a democracy or a representative government(I would probably only call it a limited one under ideal circumstances). So I’ll leave that new definition to you.

Beyond that, remind me what the split was on gay marriage, the recent abortion law, civil rights challenges, race conscious rulings, the ACA, the conservative positions relative to regulatory bodies that protect people from financial and environmental hazards(non delegation doctrine for one), corporate malfeasance, and what happened to the voting rights act, predatory partisan gerrymandering?

Like I said, it must be really nice to be in a place or have no one in your immediate life that will be negatively affected by a super majority conservative court that can overrule any elected representative legislation for the next 10-25 years.

To hand wave away the existential questions and arrogantly treat this like more of the same politics-as-sports is a hell of a privilege.

We all know Trump and McConnell will get their pick confirmed for the SC. The Dems will win the Senate and presidency and I'm 100% down with eliminating the fillabuster and adding SC justices. They'll have no choice and there's no real downside. They need to pass a lot of legislation to try and fix our democracy. It's beyond broken at this point. When 5 of the soon to be 6 conservative justice have been appointed by president who lost the popular vote, it's obvious the SC and the decisions coming out of it aren't representative of the will of the people.

 

[BobE]

So how bad would heads explode if Trump says "Screw it if that's what you want then lets do it" and expands the USSC before the election and fills all the seats?

 

[Eeyore]

This is surreal. Trump is showing some grace while “Tiny Dancer” plays (I think that’s actually on the PA there).

It's a good soundbite.

A bit two-faced though.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

(Oh hi, first post.)

People are understandably concerned about Trump getting another Supreme Court nominee but I would estimate there is a 90% or higher chance the pick is confirmed. For some GOP Senators there's definitely gamesmanship involved as to whether it might help or hurt their election chances on abstaining prior to November 3. But ultimately, these are conservatives who -- despite their disdain for Trump -- want conservative judges. And assuming Collins, Gardner, and maybe others lose, there is nothing stopping them from confirming a conservative justice as they, themselves, have nothing to lose as lame duck Senators. One thing for certain is that this situation only serves to pour gasoline on the dumpster fire that is the 2020 election. I doubt Trump particularly cares about the courts or judicial philosophy other than to play up to his base. Amy Coney Barrett is almost a lock. A woman to replace a woman, under 50, and extremely religious. Maybe Joan Larsen if there is resistance to Barrett but I doubt there will be.

Should the Democrats win the White House and Senate, packing the Supreme Court is not the way to go. It only contributes to the downward spiral of our political system. The purpose of electing Biden is to pull back from the brink -- not plunge over it.

 

[Booker]

.

So how bad would heads explode if Trump says "Screw it if that's what you want then lets do it" and expands the USSC before the election and fills all the seats?

He can’t without the House.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Should the Democrats win the White House and Senate, packing the Supreme Court is not the way to go. It only contributes to the downward spiral of our political system. The purpose of electing Biden is to pull back from the brink -- not plunge over it.

Part of any course correction involves over compensating in the opposite direction. Since Newt Gingrich, Republicans in Congress have continually hard steered our government in one direction. One of the most dominate ways they have done that is with all federal appointed judges, not just Supreme Court justices.

Since those appointments have both a profound impact on governing our society and are lifetime appointments, the impact of those appointments last long past any changes to power in Congress. This is exactly why the Republicans have made it their top priority for decades to stack the Judicial Branch of our government with people that will mostly continue to steer is the direction that Republicans want.

This is not something that just happened since Obama and Trump. It has been going on for decades.

So how can we truly pull back from the brink, if we allow the Judicial Branch continue to be influenced for decades by those who pushed us to the brink? How do we restore balance to a Judicial Branch that has been pushed out of balance by one group?

So let's say Biden and the Democrats doing nothing and just let by gones be by gones. What's to keep people like McConnell form doing the same thing again when they next have power? Maybe expanding the number of justices isn't the proper correction, but there has to be a correction of some form in regards to the Judicial Branch.

Most importantly, judges being appointed for a lifetime has been exposed as a weakness that can be exploited for long term and nearly irreversible political and ideological advantage. That undermines one of the fundamental purposes of the federal judicial branch. How do we amend the judicial branch to eliminate that weakness for farther political and ideological exploitation?

 

[SaintForLife]

Illogical, no. If the goal of this country is a representative democracy and the outcome is instead a system where a majority of lifetime appointees, that studies show basically just adhere to ideological boundaries, nominated without majority support, can overrule any and all representative legislation, what would you call that country? It wouldn’t be a democracy or a representative government(I would probably only call it a limited one under ideal circumstances). So I’ll leave that new definition to you.

Beyond that, remind me what the split was on gay marriage, the recent abortion law, civil rights challenges, race conscious rulings, the ACA, the conservative positions relative to regulatory bodies that protect people from financial and environmental hazards(non delegation doctrine for one), corporate malfeasance, and what happened to the voting rights act, predatory partisan gerrymandering?

Like I said, it must be really nice to be in a place or have no one in your immediate life that will be negatively affected by a super majority conservative court that can overrule any elected representative legislation for the next 10-25 years.

To hand wave away the existential questions and arrogantly treat this like more of the same politics-as-sports is a hell of a privilege.

SCOTUS was never meant to be appointed by a majority of the population. The system has worked fine except when Democrats try their character assassinations.

You are upset that the balance of the court will shift. That's fine, but as Obama said elections have consequences. It appears that you would be fine with a court that upholds all your favorite policies. Why do your favorite policies deserve priority over others?

 

[SaintForLife]

I really hope Democrats win the presidency, and senate. They would be insane not to go nuclear, add DC/PR as states - adding 4 liberal senators, and then adding 2 more SC justices. McConnel would likely never be the majority leader again, and his gridlock strategy would fall apart while not having power.

How does Trump using a power vested to him by the Constitution warrant your extreme proposals?

 

[coldseat]

So how bad would heads explode if Trump says "Screw it if that's what you want then lets do it" and expands the USSC before the election and fills all the seats?

He doesn't have time to write and move legislation like that, especially considering he has to get a SC justice nominated. But in a hypothetical, if he did, the dems would just undo it with legislation after they come to power.

No real downside here with going nuclear.

 

[BobE]

He doesn't have time to write and move legislation like that, especially considering he has to get a SC justice nominated. But in a hypothetical, if he did, the dems would just undo it with legislation after they come to power.

No real downside here with going nuclear.

So kind of like I've said the R's will do one they regain power.

 

[LA - L.A.]

SCOTUS was never meant to be appointed by a majority of the population. The system has worked fine ...

I don't think it's working fine. The fact that both Democrats and Republicans have legitimate complaints about the other party politicizing the courts tells me it has not been working fine.

The fact that we have been fighting for so long over the makeup and the rulings of the Supreme Court tells me that it has not been working fine.

It was also never meant that all adult citizens would have the right to vote. We realized that was a problem and we changed that.

When we see something is not yielding the results that were intended, let's not obligate ourselves to keep doing it the same way, just because that's how we've always done it. That ends up becoming tyranny by tradition in which we defer our power to fix a problem to the obligation to keep doing things the way we've always done them.

Not adapting or changing inevitably leads to extinction. That is true in the political world as much as it is the biological world.

 

[SaintForLife]

I don't think it's working fine. The fact that both Democrats and Republicans have legitimate complaints about the other party politicizing the courts tells me it has not been working fine.

The fact that we have been fighting for so long over the makeup and the rulings of the Supreme Court tells me that it has not been working fine.

It was also never meant that all adult citizens would have the right to vote. We realized that was a problem and we changed that.

When we see something is not yielding the results that were intended, let's not obligate ourselves to keep doing it the same way, because that's how we've always done it. That ends up becoming tyranny by tradition in which we defer our power to fix a problem to the obligation to keep doing things the way we've always done them.

Not adapting or changing inevitably leads to extinction. That is true in the political world as much as it is the biological world.

Congress has abdicated it's power to the SCOTUS due to their inability pass legislation to address the countries problems. The Supreme Court works just fine. Your ire should be directed to the incompetent and corrupt House and Senate.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

We all know Trump and McConnell will get their pick confirmed for the SC. The Dems will win the Senate and presidency and I'm 100% down with eliminating the fillabuster and adding SC justices. They'll have no choice and there's no real downside. They need to pass a lot of legislation to try and fix our democracy. It's beyond broken at this point. When 5 of the soon to be 6 conservative justice have been appointed by president who lost the popular vote, it's obvious the SC and the decisions coming out of it aren't representative of the will of the people.

I agree, though tbh I’m not completely confident on the victory thing.

Part of why I am tired of trying to defeat illiberalism with civility politics and milquetoast liberal/moderate prescriptive fantasies. Which is because it has led to the exact situation we are running into now.

Which is a National, state, and local party that at every level has continued to play dirty and is essentially trying to corrupt or illiberalize institutions and processes to ensure and maintain their holds on power. And in doing so has a very good chance of siphoning off enough votes to close or overcome the current polling gaps.

If Biden pulls it out he will in all historical likelihood have two years to achieve anything(as almost every incumbent president sees his party lose significant seats in their mid term). And you can be damn sure that a conservative Supreme Court and those illiberal party representatives at the state level will challenge every piece of legislation that gets signed. Catsatrophize through their propaganda networks that the end of America is upon us for every piece of legislation, no matter how benign. And if this country has any hope of getting off the failed state path Republicans have put us on, Democrats are going to need to be looking at aggressive systemic reforms(that will require ignoring the inevitable Pearl clutching moderates all too happy to score both sides points equivocating), not just ignoring the pot they are sitting in as it continues to reach a boil. Not simply checking off poll tested agenda items and spending 6 months compromising down those already compromised pieces of legislation, only to be further whittled away at by state governments and a hostile court.

But in the back of my mind I do have a major concern that the chance to close the window on illiberalism ended in 2016, maybe 2008. Even if Biden wins and gives a false sense of security to many. As I really struggle to see how we break free of what seems like a very constrained path Republicans have put the country on. Especially with a public so eager to forget or get complacent, buy into dishonest conservative framings of conversations, and pretend everything is a both sides problem.

(Oh hi, first post.)

People are understandably concerned about Trump getting another Supreme Court nominee but I would estimate there is a 90% or higher chance the pick is confirmed. For some GOP Senators there's definitely gamesmanship involved as to whether it might help or hurt their election chances on abstaining prior to November 3. But ultimately, these are conservatives who -- despite their disdain for Trump -- want conservative judges. And assuming Collins, Gardner, and maybe others lose, there is nothing stopping them from confirming a conservative justice as they, themselves, have nothing to lose as lame duck Senators. One thing for certain is that this situation only serves to pour gasoline on the dumpster fire that is the 2020 election. I doubt Trump particularly cares about the courts or judicial philosophy other than to play up to his base. Amy Coney Barrett is almost a lock. A woman to replace a woman, under 50, and extremely religious. Maybe Joan Larsen if there is resistance to Barrett but I doubt there will be.

Should the Democrats win the White House and Senate, packing the Supreme Court is not the way to go. It only contributes to the downward spiral of our political system. The purpose of electing Biden is to pull back from the brink -- not plunge over it.

So the solution to bringing us back from the brink of illiberalism is to declare the results of illiberal strategies as legitimate and doing what....??

 

[superchuck500]

He doesn't have time to write and move legislation like that, especially considering he has to get a SC justice nominated. But in a hypothetical, if he did, the dems would just undo it with legislation after they come to power.

No real downside here with going nuclear.

Minor point of order - legislation requires the House.

 

[FullMonte]

You are upset that the balance of the court will shift. That's fine, but as Obama said elections have consequences.

Nope. I’m upset that McConnell said that an election 8 months away was going to have consequences, but now is saying that we shouldnt care about the election.

Im upset that Graham said that if Trump faced a vacancy in the last year of his first term, the Senate would not vote on that nomination, adding “Use my words against me.”

The Republicans were very clear in saying that a vacancy shouldn’t be filled in an election year, and now are going to try and ram one through in record time.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Congress has abdicated it's power to the SCOTUS due to their inability pass legislation to address the countries problems. The Supreme Court works just fine. Your ire should be directed to the incompetent and corrupt House and Senate.

My guess is that the founding fathers weren’t envisioning a defacto kritocracy when they wrote their half-assed clause about the Supreme Court. And I’m guessing most citizens would disagree with it as well.

In fact im sure of it.

If owning the libs means defending illiberal rule, have at it. But at least own it.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Couple of replies, and I fail at multi-quoting so I'll try to address stuff together.

The system of government we have is fundamentally broken. Washington's warnings of the dangers of factionalism have manifested themselves over the last decade or so. But considering we aren't going to change to a parliamentary system, any change has to be made in the system that exists. There is no way reasonable way to alter the mechanics of the federal judiciary short of Constitutional Amendment. The greatest injury to federal courts was the dispensing of the 60-vote requirement which at least somewhat insured some degree of moderation to judicial appointments.

You will get no argument from me that Mitch McConnell isn't a snake. He practically revels in it, himself. But he played the system and achieved his goal of stacking the judiciary. That cannot be undone. Democrats have to play the long (yes, even longer than a 50 year-old justice's remaining lifespan) game in convincing voters that their party offers solutions to their problems. This is something Hillary Clinton failed to do in 2016 and the resulting election of Trump significantly altered the course of the nation and the world. When you consider Trump barely won Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, it isn't too much of a stretch to posit that Bernie Sanders would have beaten him in those states.

The most 'radical' action the Democrats could take is to pursue statehood for Puerto Rico and D.C. There aren't many effective arguments against it other than Republican pragmatic concerns of never controlling the Senate again. It's laughable when you hear Tom Cotton try to distinguish why people in Arkansas or Montana should have Senate representation whereas people in D.C. or Puerto Rico should not. Anyway, you couple that with demographic trends of younger voters being more liberal, a rise in the Latino population, etc. and you have a path forward for a moderate to liberal country in the not-so-distant future.

Give moderate and independent voters good policy reasons to back the Democrats and the Senate and Presidential election victories will follow. That's not a great answer in that it doesn't result in a quick fix, but there really are no quick fixes here. At least none that wouldn't serve to further radicalize more people towards the right.