sturg33
I
I obviously meant that they were appointed by Republicans
The SCOTUS Nomination and Confirmation Thread
- Thread starter striker42
- Start date
I obviously meant that they were appointed by Republicans
striker42
Well-known member
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...crats-changed-senate-filibuster-rules-n887271
Both parties are guilty of this. No one seems to realize when you create a weapon to use on someone else, that weapon can be turned on you down the road.
Last edited:
sturg33
I
Mconnell didnt change the rules. He used the rules after Reid changed them
striker42
Well-known member
SCOTUS picks could still be filibustered before McConnell changed that rule. Reid when nuclear and then McConnell expanded it. So yes, McConnell did change the rules.
He also refused to confirm a SCOTUS pick in an election year which had never been done before.
This is a cycle that has been going on for a while. One party changes the rules (whether written or unwritten), power changes hands, and the other party one ups the rule change.
If we win the election it will be within our constitutional rights to expand the court or contract it for that matter. The Republicans ma30y be within their rights, but they've shown they shown that they will do anything. to get their way. We should do the same. The number of appointments Trump has gotten in one term is a travesty. The Republicans are starting to dominate the federal judiciary despite only having won the popular vote in one election since Clinton got elected which was almost 30 years ago. As far as I'm concerned there is no action that wouldn't be justified to correct that at this point.
striker42
Well-known member
First, I always find the "we" and "them" talk distasteful. We're all Americans. Some Americans have different opinions on things. That doesn't make them an enemy. Political tribalism is not a great look.
More importantly, this is an emotional reaction. You're looking at immediate gratification. You have to look at the long range impact. If the Democrats take the Senate and the Presidency are they going to control it forever? Of course not. Eventually things will swing back to the Republicans and they'll be the ones with the power to retaliate.
You're playing monopoly and someone else just bought Boardwalk. Changing the rules to allow add two more Boardwalks that are immediately given to you might seem like a great idea. You now have twice the number of Boardwalks. However, what happens when the person you're playing against changes the rules and adds 5 Boardwalks? By changing the rules you break the game.
That's the case here. If the Democrats react calmly they'll eventually see things go back their direction. It'll take time for sure. You might have a conservative leaning court for 15 or 20 years but these things are never permanent. If you changes the law and expand the SCOTUS to 13, Biden immediately appoints 4 justices. You then have 7 liberal justices and so a liberal majority. However, the first time the Republicans take over at the top of their list is to expand the court to 17 and swing things back. This kind of cycle breaks the game.
sturg33
I
The reason conservatives dominate the judiciary is they think much more long term than Dems.... and you are doing the exact same thing as "your team" by thinking extremely short term
57Brave
Well-known member
No, this is why conservatives are dominating the judiciary.
Manipulation of procedures
Blind loyalty.
In real time
Brian Schatz
@brianschatz
·
1h
They have the votes for the nominee before they even know who it is.
What an embarrassment to this institution, which I still love, but lies bleeding.
Manipulation of procedures
Blind loyalty.
In real time
Brian Schatz
@brianschatz
·
1h
They have the votes for the nominee before they even know who it is.
What an embarrassment to this institution, which I still love, but lies bleeding.
57Brave
Well-known member
Adam Jentleson Balloon
@AJentleson
This is essential. Republicans are relying on Dems to be constrained by norms
that Republicans defy at will. Norms are important but they must serve fair rules.
When they cease to, both must be reformed through the democratic process.
To be healthy, democracy must be responsive.
Quote Tweet
Conor Sen
@conorsen
· 20h
The McConnell strategy is optimized for a world where Dems are unwilling
to break norms. If they are, it’s not unreasonable to say you could undo a
decade of McConnell’s work in one congressional term.
@AJentleson
This is essential. Republicans are relying on Dems to be constrained by norms
that Republicans defy at will. Norms are important but they must serve fair rules.
When they cease to, both must be reformed through the democratic process.
To be healthy, democracy must be responsive.
Quote Tweet
Conor Sen
@conorsen
· 20h
The McConnell strategy is optimized for a world where Dems are unwilling
to break norms. If they are, it’s not unreasonable to say you could undo a
decade of McConnell’s work in one congressional term.
sturg33
I
How is this different than Dems demanding no vote before they know who the nominee is?
Would they refuse to confirm Garland?
striker42
Well-known member
This is an awful take. First, there are 51 Republicans willing to bring the nominee for a vote. There's no count yet on confirmation.
Second, a party is almost always going to blindly support anyone their President nominates for the SCOTUS. How many Democrats would have defected from an Obama pick? Obama could have named one of his daughters to the SCOTUS and still gotten nearly all the Democrats to vote for it. I think "blind loyalty" is a problem but it's hardly a problem just for the Republicans. Parties have always fallen in line behind a president from their party, especially for court picks.
57Brave
Well-known member
the nominee ?
we wont know until Friday or Saturday who the "nominee" is --- but, 51 (R) will support ---
that isnt a bit odd to you ?
Would you vote for a City Councilperson or School Board seat without knowing who that nominee is ?
But you are cool with a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land
based on the nomination of DJT
Whoever that is because ---
If there is a nominee rest assured those 51 will jump into line.
That is who they are
That is who they have been
/////////
Actually it is a spot on take
we wont know until Friday or Saturday who the "nominee" is --- but, 51 (R) will support ---
that isnt a bit odd to you ?
Would you vote for a City Councilperson or School Board seat without knowing who that nominee is ?
But you are cool with a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land
based on the nomination of DJT
Whoever that is because ---
If there is a nominee rest assured those 51 will jump into line.
That is who they are
That is who they have been
/////////
Actually it is a spot on take
striker42
Well-known member
You keep going to twitter for your analysis. Twitter is a wretched place full of the worst analysis on any topic imaginable. The very format prevents any kind of comprehensive breakdown of a topic. These are no different.
The idea that it's only Republicans who break the norm is laughable.
You had 3 Republicans vote against Ginsburg and 9 against Breyer. Roberts had 22 Democrats oppose him and Alito had 40 Democrats oppose him. I could even go into the opposition to Bork if we really wanted to go back in time. So it was the Democrats who changed the norm of not letting partisanship be a reason to vote against a SCOTUS justice.
Then you have the filibustering of judicial nominees. That really started in earnest during Bush 43's term. Bill Frist threatened the nuclear option and Democrats threatened to deny a quorum and shut down the Senate all together. Then you have the Republicans filibustering Obama's nominees and Harry Reid uses the nuclear option.
So the idea that Democrats are "unwilling to break norms" couldn't be a worse take if it was put out there by a troll.
striker42
Well-known member
Would I vote for someone without knowing who they are? No. Would I say someone should get a vote? Yes. For the record, I think Garland should have gotten a vote.
The take is terrible because it's one sided. The person is clearly firing a shot at the Republicans without realizing the Democrats do the exact same crap. If anything, Democrats are currently showing even more blind loyalty. Do you forget how Pelosi was lording it over Trump in stimulus negotiations that the Democrats are united while the Republicans are fractured?
The take should have been that essentially everyone in the Senate has made up their minds how they will vote without ever knowing who the candidate is.
57Brave
Well-known member
I am in favor of expanding the SC.
We have been at nine since U.S. Grant was President and a population of 38M
I am also in favor of Statehood for DC and Puerto Rico.
Our history going back to slavehood was as one free state enters one slave state enters.
Which later turned into for every (R) state there was one (D) state
See Hawaii and Alaska
To protect the integrity of what ?
A practice that came out of slavery ... IF (R) think this way, propose policies that would attract voters to vote for (R) Senators in DC and PR
Dont hold your breath
We have been at nine since U.S. Grant was President and a population of 38M
I am also in favor of Statehood for DC and Puerto Rico.
Our history going back to slavehood was as one free state enters one slave state enters.
Which later turned into for every (R) state there was one (D) state
See Hawaii and Alaska
To protect the integrity of what ?
A practice that came out of slavery ... IF (R) think this way, propose policies that would attract voters to vote for (R) Senators in DC and PR
Dont hold your breath
57Brave
Well-known member
well, politics is one sided.
That is Kinda the point
Evidence is aplenty.
Did you think Burr and Hamilton dueled over a football bet ?
But, in the past 40-50 years it is only structured and broadcast as one sided when (D) exercises any of its constitutional power over (R)
Funny how that seems to work.
///////////
Last edited:
striker42
Well-known member
There are problems with expanding the SCOTUS. First, the SCOTUS doesn't operate like Congress where the justices pushing a button to cast their vote and the results being read off. They vote but they also circulate drafts of opinions among themselves, they change the drafts based on what others are saying, and sometimes (as in the case of Obamacare) you actually have a justice change his vote and shift the whole direction of a case.
As for the population issue, it's irrelevant. Every justice participates on every case. If anything, adding to the number just increases the work load as that means more concurrences and more dissents everyone on the court has to read.
You also have to realize the impact of opinions. Most people think one person writes for the court and that's it. That's not it at all. You actually have some cases where there are multiple camps that agree with each other on some things and disagree on others. You can have one justice's opinion control on one issue and a separate justice's opinion control on another issue. The more justices you add the more chance you have of these fractured opinions.
You also have the problem of how to do it effectively. If the Democrats raise the number to 13, do Republicans say "Darn you got us. I guess you win!"? No! The next time they gain power they'll just up the number to 17 or 19. Then the Dems retaliate and so on.
There's a reason the number has stayed at 9 for 150 years.
57Brave
Well-known member
Ever notice I have never quoted Ben Shapiro ?