RBG leaves the stage.

[angrysoba]

In that last sentence you say "packing", but I suspect you meant expanding. The GOP is currently working on the packing part. And this is why my first instinct is to indeed expand the court by two to make up for the two 'stolen' seats. A larger body in any event lessens the impact of just one individual. A 5 to 4 split might be common, but a 50 to 49 split should be less common (to use an exagerratedly large body for illustration.)

No, "packing" is what has been meant since FDR proposed doing it in 1937. It's the same meaning as I am giving it.

Of course, if you are in favour, you may prefer to use the term "expanding" because it sounds a little less frenzied.

 

[Cain]

In fact, it could be worse. They could start yammering about it all the time, try to do it, get halfway through proceedings and then, somewhere along the line FAIL to do it, and got called out for it in the next election.

Way too risky and so easy to see how Republicans would just nominate another five to overturn the decisions of the four the Democrats appoint, and then how each of the parties would begin appointing more and more whenever they are told that their new law or executive order is unconstituational.

I mostly agree. Democrats should not seriously threaten this kind of response because, if nothing else, it probably worsens their chances of winning back the Presidency and Senate. Instead they should play up the hypocrisy. If the Republicans successfully confirm someone to Ginsburg's former seat, and if the Democrats end up controlling the executive and legislative branches, they should just go ahead and immediately pack the court with two Justices.

They can argue Republicans unfortunately forced this result, and they were only reclaiming a balance that was unjustly stolen. They can also pretend it's what the American public wanted when it elected them. Turnabout-as-fairplay.

 

[Puppycow]

Four Republicans would be needed to block the nominee.

Looks doubtful.

McConnell Already Seems to Have the Votes

It took just three days after Ginsburg’s death on Friday for McConnell to appear to secure the votes he needs to go forward with the shameless maneuver. Republicans control 53 seats in the Senate and a tie is broken by Vice President Mike Pence, so McConnell could lose three seats and still have enough votes to push through the nomination. Over the weekend, Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine said that it was only fair to hold to the 2016 precedent and allow the winner of November’s election to fill the seat, while Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah has been coy about what he will do. Which meant that McConnell likely needs to keep the rest of his conference together.

Earlier on Monday, the New York Times put the focus on a trio of senators in a piece headlined “All Eyes on Romney, Grassley and Gardner as Supreme Court Confirmation Fight Looms Over the Senate.” By Monday evening, though, two of those senators had confirmed they would support moving forward with Trump’s nomination when Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Cory Gardner of Colorado announced they’d take up the president’s pick. Grassley was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee when it spent 11 months refusing to even hold a hearing on Garland’s nomination by President Barack Obama, and at the time he pledged he would do the same should the same situation arise in 2020. (As recently as July, Grassley said he would advise against holding a hearing for a nomination made before Nov. 3.) Current Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who repeatedly made the same pledge after backing McConnell’s blockade four years ago, over the weekend announced he was breaking that promise and supporting the nomination to go forward.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Retweeted

Sen. Jim Inhofe
@JimInhofe
The precedent here is clear. In the case of a united government, with voters having elected a Senate and White House of the same party, it is our constitutional obligation to consider a nomination of a Supreme Court justice.

Senator John Boozman
@JohnBoozman
There is no room to dispute the constitutional authority President Trump has to nominate an individual to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. Likewise, the Senate can also choose to exercise its role in confirming a nominee to the nation’s highest court.

@SenatorLankford
I look forward to considering and voting on @realDonaldTrump nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy before the end of the year. If the President puts forward a nomination, the Senate has the authority to provide advice and consent and I take this role very seriously.

ChuckGrassley
@ChuckGrassley
With a divided govt in 2016 there was ambiguity about what the American ppl wanted for the direction of the Supreme Court/ voters expanded republican majority in 2018 election after 2 Trump scotus confirmations There’s no ambiguity now w Republican Senate & president

Sen. Jim Inhofe
@JimInhofe
The precedent here is clear. In the case of a united government, with voters having elected a Senate and White House of the same party, it is our constitutional obligation to consider a nomination of a Supreme Court justice.

 

[angrysoba]

If the Republicans successfully confirm someone to Ginsburg's former seat, and if the Democrats end up controlling the executive and legislative branches, they should just go ahead and immediately pack the court with two Justices.

They can argue Republicans unfortunately forced this result, and they were only reclaiming a balance that was unjustly stolen. They can also pretend it's what the American public wanted when it elected them. Turnabout-as-fairplay.

Hmmm, that might be interesting. Then they could try to make some bipartisan bill for amending the constitution that spells out how many justices there are, and some specifications for how nominations and voting must be done to prevent the majority leader playing games.

They could call it the 9-->11 Bill, and tell everyone they must support the 9-->11 Bill and not supporting means hating America.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Very confused by the messaging from the Dems about what the response to a 6-3 SCOTUS will be if Biden wins and they take the Senate.

They seem to be speaking quite plainly (and correctly imo) about the existential danger such a court would be to our rights, but seem very vague about what they plan to do about it and hostile to the bold action (court expansion, etc) needed to correct such a situation.

The 6-3 court is going to happen, there really is no doubt. Whether before the election or during the lame duck is just a matter for Mitch and the Republicans to decide based on political expediency. Much focus is being placed on Roe and other civil rights that will undoubtedly be undermined or overturned by such a court, but more importantly perhaps is that ballot access will be rolled back.

The conservative project is one that clearly understands its mission to instate itself as permanent minority ruling power. A 6-3 court stripping back voting rights in order to protect such a ruling minority is absolutely vital. This coming election might be the high water mark for ballot access in this country unless Democrats win and take action to defang these Federalist society ghouls.

This is a situation where "lesser of two evils" simply isn't enough. An inadequate response is not distinguishable from inaction. Assuming this next election grants them the political ability to do so, Biden and the Democrats must destroy the conservative SCOTUS by any means within their power. Failing to do so at this opportunity may be an unrecoverable error.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Very confused by the messaging from the Dems about what the response to a 6-3 SCOTUS will be if Biden wins and they take the Senate.

They seem to be speaking quite plainly (and correctly imo) about the existential danger such a court would be to our rights, but seem very vague about what they plan to do about it and hostile to the bold action (court expansion, etc) needed to correct such a situation.

The 6-3 court is going to happen, there really is no doubt. Much focus is being placed on Roe and other civil rights that will undoubtedly be undermined or overturned by such a court, but more importantly perhaps is that ballot access will be rolled back.

The conservative project is one that clearly understands its mission to instate itself as permanent minority ruling power. A 6-3 court stripping back voting rights in order to protect such a ruling minority is absolutely vital. This coming election might be the high water mark for ballot access in this country unless Democrats win and take action to defang these Federalist society ghouls.

This is a situation where "lesser of two evils" simply isn't enough. Assuming this next election grants them the political ability to do so, Biden and the Democrats must destroy the conservative SCOTUS by any means within their power. Failing to do so at this opportunity may be an unrecoverable error.

Do you think the 6-3 court will make incorrect rulings or is your objection they will make correct ones and that is bad for your policy preferences?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Do you think the 6-3 court will make incorrect rulings or is your objection they will make correct ones and that is bad for your policy preferences?

I disagree with your premise that there are "correct" or "incorrect" rulings. The justices are political actors, not impartial legal logicians. The decisions they make are inherently political. For nearly every case the SCOTUS hears, there are various plausible legal theories to justify any outcome. The justices pick whatever suits their political ideology at the moment.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I disagree with your premise that there are "correct" or "incorrect" rulings. The justices are political actors, not impartial legal logicians. The decisions they make are inherently political. For nearly every case the SCOTUS hears, there are various plausible legal theories to justify any outcome. The justices pick whatever suits their political ideology at the moment.

But their job is to evaluate Constitutional claims. If the best that can be achieved is plausible, and their 6-3 rulings are plausible, then what is the problem?

 

[turingtest]

Trump Retweeted

Sen. Jim Inhofe
@JimInhofe
The precedent here is clear. In the case of a united government, with voters having elected a Senate and White House of the same party, it is our constitutional obligation to consider a nomination of a Supreme Court justice.

Senator John Boozman
@JohnBoozman
There is no room to dispute the constitutional authority President Trump has to nominate an individual to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. Likewise, the Senate can also choose to exercise its role in confirming a nominee to the nation’s highest court.

@SenatorLankford
I look forward to considering and voting on @realDonaldTrump nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy before the end of the year. If the President puts forward a nomination, the Senate has the authority to provide advice and consent and I take this role very seriously.

ChuckGrassley
@ChuckGrassley
With a divided govt in 2016 there was ambiguity about what the American ppl wanted for the direction of the Supreme Court/ voters expanded republican majority in 2018 election after 2 Trump scotus confirmations There’s no ambiguity now w Republican Senate & president

Sen. Jim Inhofe
@JimInhofe
The precedent here is clear. In the case of a united government, with voters having elected a Senate and White House of the same party, it is our constitutional obligation to consider a nomination of a Supreme Court justice.

I'd respect Republicans a little more if they would just be upfront about the hypocrisy. In 2016, they had the Senate, but not yet the WH, though there was a chance they could get that too. But that depended on what the voice of the people would say in a few months time, and they had no problem thinking the SC nomination could wait on hearing what that voice might say. Now, they have to depend on what the voice said two years and more ago, and cannot wait just over one month to hear a new opinion; because that voice might now speak against them, it's necessary to forestall it. It's just blatant hypocrisy to insist that the voice of the people has anything at all to do with a power grab that depends on pre-empting it.

 

[varwoche]

Can't filibuster -- that's gone for SC nominees. I heard someone say the Senate has scheduled only 13 working days until the election. The House could deliver Articles of Impeachment, which I understand automatically takes precedence over any other business in the Senate.

Is that a senate rule? Senate rules can be changed with a simple majority and can't be filibustered.

 

[JoeMorgue]

We might have 13 working days until the election (must be nice to only work 13 days in a month in a half grumble grumble grumble...) but remember no matter what results we have get on November 3rd we have the same Congress for another couple of months.

Lame duck Congresses have the exact same level of power.

 

[Segnosaur]

Can't filibuster -- that's gone for SC nominees. I heard someone say the Senate has scheduled only 13 working days until the election. The House could deliver Articles of Impeachment, which I understand automatically takes precedence over any other business in the Senate.

Is that a senate rule? Senate rules can be changed with a simple majority and can't be filibustered.

If its a senate rule, can it be changed in the middle of a session, or only at the start?

 

[JoeMorgue]

If its a senate rule, can it be changed in the middle of a session, or only at the start?

If McConnell says "It's changed because I said so!" what difference does it make? Who's gonna stop him?

 

[Segnosaur]

A more rational statement (instead of Trump's "RBG would have wanted me to fill the free slot on the supreme court!") would have been to say something along the lines of "the position is not hereditary... it belongs to the American people to decide how to handle the vacant seat".

The reason why Ginsburg's wishes are relevant is because they are entirely reasonable, ethically/morally sound, and best overall for society. She was not saying "keep the slot open until they find a way to resurrect the dead and I can become the first zombie judge". She was also not saying "The next judge should be a left-handed Libra". Instead she was just saying what the majority of voters are currently saying (and what the majority of senators and other politicians should be saying).

Why is it ethically the right thing to do wait? Most of it made sense, but that struck me as a big jump.

It has already been explained to you why earlier in the thread. I have no intention of bobbing the thread by explaining what has already been explained to you, simply because you want to play super-malcontent..

 

[BobTheCoward]

It has already been explained to you why earlier in the thread. I have no intention of bobbing the thread by explaining what has already been explained to you, simply because you want to play super-malcontent..

Explained by you? If so, I may not have seen it and don't want to base my understanding off the wrong posts. I didn't ask you for someone else's reasoning. I'm asking for your reasoning.

I respect you too much to substitute my perception of what your reasoning may be for your actual reasoning.

 

[varwoche]

If its a senate rule, can it be changed in the middle of a session, or only at the start?

If senate rules can't be changed mid-session, that's due to a senate rule which itself can be changed mid-session. Ask Alice.

 

[Segnosaur]

But their job is to evaluate Constitutional claims. If the best that can be achieved is plausible, and their 6-3 rulings are plausible, then what is the problem?

First of all, lets assume that a supreme court justice will always make rulings with at least some connection to the constitution, past rulings, etc.

Stubby McBonespurs did not win the popular vote. The Republicans in the senate do not represent the voting intentions of a majority of the population. Yet in the past 4 years they will have placed 2 (and likely 3) of the judges on the supreme court. So the majority of people in the country are going to be subject to the interpretation of the constitution by people that only a minority of the voters supported.

I do recognize that there is a need to prevent the majority from oppressing the minority. But the solution to that is not to let the minority overrun the majority.

Secondly, not all interpretations of the constitutions, precedents, laws, etc. have equal weight. One judge might make their ruling based on actual constitutional text and multiple precedents, and another might make their ruling based on "what the founding fathers intended"... both of them are following their own legal interpretation (and are in a sense 'valid'), but one of those clearly has a stronger claim than the other.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If senate rules can't be changed mid-session, that's due to a senate rule which itself can be changed mid-session. Ask Alice.

This really has been the "Oh crap" political realization of the last few years.

Our politicians got so used to wizards duel of procedural rule lawyering that on some level they forgot that the rules were often self imposed.

Which is why I've been so frustrated the last few years with Democrats and their flustered "But the rules say you can't do that!" reaction to so much.

Who are they talking to? What rule keeper are they invoking to react to the rules being broken?

The reason you don't headbutt or hit below the belt in boxing is because the ref will stop the fight and you will lose.

When the Republicans headbutt or hit below the belt the Democrats scream foul at a Ref who isn't there.

 

[BobTheCoward]

First of all, lets assume that a supreme court justice will always make rulings with at least some connection to the constitution, past rulings, etc.

Stubby McBonespurs did not win the popular vote. The Republicans in the senate do not represent the voting intentions of a majority of the population. Yet in the past 4 years they will have placed 2 (and likely 3) of the judges on the supreme court. So the majority of people in the country are going to be subject to the interpretation of the constitution by people that only a minority of the voters supported.

I do recognize that there is a need to prevent the majority from oppressing the minority. But the solution to that is not to let the minority overrun the majority.

Secondly, not all interpretations of the constitutions, precedents, laws, etc. have equal weight. One judge might make their ruling based on actual constitutional text and multiple precedents, and another might make their ruling based on "what the founding fathers intended"... both of them are following their own legal interpretation (and are in a sense 'valid'), but one of those clearly has a stronger claim than the other.

How do you know the nominated judge will not use the method with the stronger claim? Further, if it is established they are using the stronger method, what does it matter who nominated them?