OT SCOTUS Thread

[Hoopguru]

Give me a break..

Yes, it’s on the back end of it.

near the zephyr zone!
And there is s farting post too!

 

[Lanny]

Yes, it’s on the back end of it.

The rear end?

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Hearing this Lagoa chick may be a smarter play. Easier confirmation versus ACB who is more pro-life, which may get some blowback politically.

Lagoa is apparantly cuban I guess.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

Hearing this Lagoa chick may be a smarter play. Easier confirmation versus ACB who is more pro-life, which may get some blowback politically.

Lagoa is apparantly cuban I guess.

If he wants to lock up Florida, he’d do well to nominate her. But then, that’s the conventional wisdom and we know how Trump reacts to that.....

 

[barfo]

From the pictures I've seen, Coney Barrett is more physically attractive than Lagoa, which is probably the key qualification in Trump's mind.

barfo

 

[Road Ratt]

 

[ABM]

This discussion deserves its own thread.

 

[ABM]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/graham-says-we-got-the-votes-to-confirm-scotus-nominee-before-election/

Lindsey Graham says Republicans "got the votes to confirm" SCOTUS nominee before election

 

[ABM]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-supreme-court-pick-to-be-announced-saturday-at-white-house

Trump: Supreme Court pick to be announced Saturday at White House

 

[illmatic99]

Even Romney now? Does any one in the republican party have even an ounce of integrity?

This is just a shameful display. They care about nothing but their own re-elections. Such a mockery of the forefathers of this country having this two party system. And I know the Dems next step to counter this will be to add more seats to the judiciary. Never ending political bullshit is driving this country backwards. I'm reaching a critical mass with all this stuff.

Seriously want to consider immigrating to Canada if I can find a job. Had some interviews earlier this summer for a job in UK but unfortunately did not land.

 

[ABM]

Even Romney now? Does any one in the republican party have even an ounce of integrity?

This is just a shameful display. They care about nothing but their own re-elections. Such a mockery of the forefathers of this country having this two party system. And I know the Dems next step to counter this will be to add more seats to the judiciary. Never ending political bullshit is driving this country backwards. I'm reaching a critical mass with all this stuff.

Seriously want to consider immigrating to Canada if I can find a job. Had some interviews earlier this summer for a job in UK but unfortunately did not land.

Political differences aside, when we move to the Azores, might you consider managing our estate?




j/k...I love keeping with the Azores theme. Who know, we actually might end up there someday.

 

[julius]

Even Romney now? Does any one in the republican party have even an ounce of integrity?

This is just a shameful display. They care about nothing but their own re-elections. Such a mockery of the forefathers of this country having this two party system. And I know the Dems next step to counter this will be to add more seats to the judiciary. Never ending political bullshit is driving this country backwards. I'm reaching a critical mass with all this stuff.

Seriously want to consider immigrating to Canada if I can find a job. Had some interviews earlier this summer for a job in UK but unfortunately did not land.

You're really surprised that Milquetoast Mitt is in favor of this?

Have you not been paying attention to that waste of flesh?

 

[illmatic99]

You're really surprised that Milquetoast Mitt is in favor of this?

Have you not been paying attention to that waste of flesh?

yes, thought he was of the McCain ilk.

fuckin George W is the symbol of honesty in the GOP now?

 

[julius]

yes, thought he was of the McCain ilk.

fuckin George W is the symbol of honesty in the GOP now?

For the time being. He'll fold too. They're all spineless sycophants.

 

[illmatic99]

For the time being. He'll fold too. They're all spineless sycophants.

He's not fighting for reelection anywhere. Same with Kasich. People who have no reason to give a damn are the only ones who express some semblance of having a conscience.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Do you guys really think the if everything was reversed, meaning a Democrat president was up for reelection and the Democrats controlled the senate, that they wouldn't try to appoint a new justice?

 

[donkiez]

yes, thought he was of the McCain ilk.

fuckin George W is the symbol of honesty in the GOP now?

This is the whole point for the Republicans and the reason they have been willing to sell their souls to Trump. The Republicans don't care if you call them names like hypocrites or jerks. They will do it because they can.

 

[RR7]

Do you guys really think the if everything was reversed, meaning a Democrat president was up for reelection and the Democrats controlled the senate, that they wouldn't try to appoint a new justice?

Of course they would try, I think the bigger issue is the precedent set 4 years ago. Had that not been done, nobody would bat an eye at this, IMO.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

YOU CAN THANK HARRY REID FOR MAKING IT ONLY 51 SENATORS INSTEAD OF 60 TO CONFIRM.

 

[illmatic99]

Of course they would try, I think the bigger issue is the precedent set 4 years ago. Had that not been done, nobody would bat an eye at this, IMO.

Well, Dems didnt have the senate then. But still, reeks of hypocrisy

 

[e_blazer]

Do you guys really think the if everything was reversed, meaning a Democrat president was up for reelection and the Democrats controlled the senate, that they wouldn't try to appoint a new justice?

Of course they would. Biden has had 3 times in his lengthy career when there were similar late term appointments that could be made and he’s issued flip-flopping views, each time favoring his party. These people are all political creatures and they live for power.

 

[julius]

Do you guys really think the if everything was reversed, meaning a Democrat president was up for reelection and the Democrats controlled the senate, that they wouldn't try to appoint a new justice?

And do you guys really think that if everything was reverse, Republicans would be losing their shit and making it so the president couldn't nominate a supreme court justice and oh wait, they already did that.

 

[julius]

He's not fighting for reelection anywhere. Same with Kasich. People who have no reason to give a damn are the only ones who express some semblance of having a conscience.

He's still a spineless coward.

I think one major difference is, Democrats eat their own. Republicans praise them and defend them blindly.

 

[e_blazer]

He's still a spineless coward.

I think one major difference is, Democrats eat their own. Republicans praise them and defend them blindly.

He's a spineless coward because why? He has conservative views and is elected by constituents of a predominantly conservative state, so voting in accordance with that situation is somehow spineless?

Personally, I think that this is a short-sighted play by the Republicans that will likely bite them in the ass at the polls. I also think that it's bad for the country at this particular time given the divisive atmosphere currently in play, but I'm not at all surprised that they are taking the opportunity to try to move the Court in the direction that they want. Obama famously said, "elections have consequences" and he was right. We have another one coming up and Democrats had better do what they can to turn the political landscape more to their liking.

 

[Stevenson]

The Merrick Garland thing was horribly wrong, legally and ethically, but sorry, this is legit.

RBG died, they have control, and they have the votes. Trump has the right to nominate and they have the numbers to confirm. Nothing illegal about it. Immoral maybe, given the precedent they set, but this is the big leagues, and one thing we know is that Trump, McConnell, and most Republicans today care more about power than morals.

 

[tester551]

Of course they would try, I think the bigger issue is the precedent set 4 years ago. Had that not been done, nobody would bat an eye at this, IMO.

4 years ago did not set a precedent. When one party controls the president and senate, they have always historically proceeded with the SCOTUS nomination.

This has happened several times within the last century. There is no precedent to leave the seat open.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/

In two instances in the twentieth century, presidents were not able to nominate and confirm a successor during an election year. But neither reflects a practice of leaving a seat open on the Supreme Court until after the election.

Here is another link with this graphic indicating that it's happened several times
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IN10455.pdf


https://www.nationalreview.com/corn...-in-the-fall-of-a-presidential-election-year/
Short version is that the Senate has historically been on recess... Basically there is no historical precedent.

 

[wizenheimer]

of course this entire thing reeks of hypocrisy. It's Wash DC

and yes, the R's have explicitly showed their real nature: it's party over country...they have sold out to Russia and are fine with Russia warring against our democracy if it helps them hold or gain power. They are fine with destroying the postal service if it helps them hold or gain power. It's money over principle meaning they are fine with the Saudi's murdering and dismembering a reporter. There is no principle they believe in but their on power and they will lie over and over about having principles. They are corrupt

but they at least exercise power when they have it and that's the fucking lesson the D's need to have hammered into their thick, cowardly skulls. They have to stop bringing knives to gunfights; and they have to quit looking for bi=partisan compromises because there will never be one. It was Obama's weak search for middle ground in his first two years in office that led to the R's sweeping into power in 2010. Obama wasn't elected to then move to the right over and over trying to find compromises. He was elected to fight for Democratic values and his failure to do so in 2009 and 2010 demoralized D's and saw way too many sit out the 2010 election

so the D's really need to go fucking biblical if they win the presidency and the Senate. It's eye for an eye time; fight fire with fire. Fuck compromise. Give up the illusion that there are R's of good faith, because there are none. And it wouldn't fucking matter it there were because Hillary Clinton was right: a large part of the R base is deplorable and they elect deplorable members to congress

that means ending the filibuster; and ending unanimous consent. Ending both in the first week of the new congress. The pass legislation significantly expanding not only the SCOTUS, but federal courts everywhere. And fuck any thought of incremental increase: if you go for it....go for it. Expand the SC to 19 or 23 or 29 judges. And before you say wow, that's too many, think about the benefits of a large number:

* " In fact, as he argued on AM Joy this past Saturday, here in The Nation six months ago, and other places for years before that, court expansion is not only a legitimate proportionate response to Mitch McConnell's ratf*cking of President Obama and the nation in 2016 and beyond. It's actually good for jurisprudence at the Supreme Court level. Tonight, he made his case on The Beat With Ari Melber.

Let's get the vengeance part out of the way. Mystal noted,

MYSTAL: As you laid out so brilliantly in your opening, Mitch McConnell has already changed the number of justices on the Supreme Court. He changed it from nine to eight. If Mitch McConnell can do it, then the Democrats can do it. If the Republicans want to say that the number of justices on the Supreme Court is a function of raw political power, then when the Democrats have raw political power, they are allowed to use it. And use it effectively.
[...]
I do not think that this country can long survive a world where only Republicans get to appoint justices to the Supreme Court. That is the world Mitch McConnell would have us live in."
**********************************************

* " Melber agreed, and asked why it was so hard to get Democrats to understand that "if Mitch McConnell's hostage taking is rewarded, if there's no consequence, then you're actually incentivizing them doing it to you again." Mystal explained it was because Dems aren't thinking big enough...eleven justices? Thirteen? Why not 29? Why not 50? He said the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has 29 judges on it, and asked, "Can you give me an argument why the Supreme Court should be so significantly smaller than our circuit courts? I can't." And then he dropped one of the biggest reasons for that:

If there were that many justices on the Supreme Court, the death of ONE person would not throw the nation into a constitutional crisis: "The more justices on the Supreme Court there are, the less important any one random death is to our polity," said Mystal."
**************************************************

* " Additionally, Mystal hit on the capacity for increased diversity. "Expanded Supreme Court would hear more cases. That's more opportunity for intellectual, gender, and racial diversity. Right now the Supreme Court is currently staffed by nine people who went to two law schools. What's up with that? You could fix that," he argued.

Melber was intrigued, suggesting that for extremely important cases, the court could meet en banc (in full) to decide those, and Mystal confirmed that was exactly what he was proposing. And that with an expanded judiciary, a consecutive series of 15-14 decisions would be extremely unlikely. Compare that to now, when the possibility a 5-4 split leaves the population on tenterhooks awaiting every single decision, and the likelihood of such a split is high? Which seems better for the country?

MYSTAL: Do you know how difficult it would be to have a string of decisions -- say the court is 29 people. Do you know how difficult it would be to have a string of high profile decisions that came down 15-14? It would almost never happen. Because, Ari, as you know, the law is frankly too complicated for that, right? These high-level jurists have too many things going on to break down along hard core party lines, as you add more and more and more people to the mix. So, again, from a perspective of making the court less political, having more justices, having their deaths not matter as much, all of those are good things, before you now reenter the hypocrisy of McConnell and Graham and the Republicans having the current court based only on their whims."

https://crooksandliars.com/2020/09/elie-mystal-if-mitch-mcconnell-can-do-it

I know it's a pipe dream to think the D's can overcome their natural timidity, accept the power they have accrued, and use it exactly like the R's always do. Too bad there isn't 'grow-balls-R-us' store the incoming congress can visit as part of orientation
*****************************************************

and with their new power, and a court that actually represents the nation, the D's need to quickly address the injustice the R's have installed over the years. Save the Postal Service to start with. Then do everything they can at the federal level to expand vote-by-mail. Venue shop and bring cases to the SC that will overturn gerrymandering and prevent future gerrymandering. Eliminate all the corruptly motivated voter-ID laws and bring back laws outlawing voter suppression in all the corrupt forms the R's have reamed up

and yes, in the interest of justice and a 'revenge-is-a-dish-best-served-cold-tit-for-tat-stick-it-to-the-right' retaliation, pass statehood for Washington DC and Puerto Rico. That will at least go a long ways in addressing the giant advantage the rules for the Senate gives the R's

again, I know it's beyond ambitious to expect the D's to demonstrate they actually know how to wield power in the partisan fashion needed to overturn all the ways the R's have corrupted process. But why let the dream die so soon?

 

[lawai'a]

4 years ago did not set a precedent. When one party controls the president and senate, they have always historically proceeded with the SCOTUS nomination.

This has happened several times within the last century. There is no precedent to leave the seat open.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/


Here is another link with this graphic indicating that it's happened several times
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IN10455.pdf
View attachment 33647

it has never been done within 150 days of election before. that precedent happened when the chief justice resigned to run for president. the voting process with ballots cast already to determine the next administration is the big difference. what is it, 43 days till Nov.3? this is the "precedent" setting nature of the appointment and vote on it IMHO>

 

[lawai'a]

Of course they would try, I think the bigger issue is the precedent set 4 years ago. Had that not been done, nobody would bat an eye at this, IMO.

i think the bigger deal will occur if and when it is a lame duck senate that has lost its' majority after the election continues the process and approves the appointment. nominating before and holding hearings before the election seem prudent, but the timing and circumstances of the vote following the election will prove the hypocrisy. to vote to appoint a justice that will continue to shield the executive branch and big money is a huge failure if it comes to pass IMHO.

 

[SlyPokerDog]