RBG leaves the stage.

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Tweets

Today, it was my great honor to nominate one of our nation’s most brilliant and gifted legal minds to the Supreme Court. She is a woman of unparalleled achievement, towering intellect, sterling credentials, and unyielding loyalty to the Constitution: Judge Amy Coney Barrett

 

[Garrison]

She probably should have retired back in 2012/2013 or whatever. But she didn't.

So what is to be done now?

Sit and watch while Republican Party that's abandoned even the thin pretence of having principles loads the dice in the SCOTUS for a generation and uses it as a weapon to cripple the power of the presidency whenever a Democrat is in power.

Sure the Democratic Party could simply follow the Republicans down the rabbit hole and take a hammer to what's left of the US system of government in an effort to temporarily offset but that's just a different flavour of bad.

The USA may have passed the point where there are any good solutions.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I suggest Necromancy.

[pedantry]

Although popular culture uses the term 'necromancy' to refer to magical reanimation of the dead, the term in its actual historical and etymological meaning is just communication with the dead. One doesn't need to summon up a presence, physical or otherwise, to necromance; a simple trans-vital phone call suffices. Those plans are crazy expensive though, AT&T is a ripoff.

[/pedantry]

 

[Andy_Ross]

NBC News

Senate Judiciary Cmte. Chairman Graham says confirmation hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett is scheduled to start October 12.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

[pedantry]

Although popular culture uses the term 'necromancy' to refer to magical reanimation of the dead, the term in its actual historical and etymological meaning is just communication with the dead. One doesn't need to summon up a presence, physical or otherwise, to necromance; a simple trans-vital phone call suffices. Those plans are crazy expensive though, AT&T is a ripoff.

[/pedantry]

I would support the confirmation of a Medium that can connect to RBG at will.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So dumb question.

Would Souter and Kennedy have to go through the whole reconfirmation process?

 

[Craig4]

Pure wishful thinking in the event of a President Biden but I may be mistaken.

You may be right about the court but I think Biden would go along with adding two states.

 

[theprestige]

Sit and watch while Republican Party that's abandoned even the thin pretence of having principles loads the dice in the SCOTUS for a generation and uses it as a weapon to cripple the power of the presidency whenever a Democrat is in power.

I'm trying to imagine how that would work.

A Democrat gets elected. Before he even takes office, SCOTUS decides to hear a case that would curtail her constitutional power, and within a few monts (weeks?), they issue a ruling to that effect.

But the ruling applies equally to all presidents, regardless of party affiliation. So when a Republican gets elected, the court decides to hear a case that restores the previously-curtailed presidedntial power, and rule accordingly.

Sounds exhausting. Implausibly exhausting.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I still can't tell if you think Barrett will make the incorrect decisions or that the problem is she will make the correct ones.

 

[Garrison]

I'm trying to imagine how that would work.

A Democrat gets elected. Before he even takes office, SCOTUS decides to hear a case that would curtail her constitutional power, and within a few monts (weeks?), they issue a ruling to that effect.

But the ruling applies equally to all presidents, regardless of party affiliation. So when a Republican gets elected, the court decides to hear a case that restores the previously-curtailed presidedntial power, and rule accordingly.

Sounds exhausting. Implausibly exhausting.

Or they will simply choose to ignore the ruling and come up with some BS why their situation is different or based on their current behaviour not even bother with the BS. I mean the 'rule' that you don't nominate SCOTUS appointees in a presidential election year magically disappeared when it didn't suit the Republicans and loyal little Trumpistas just cheer at their 'cleverness'.

 

[johnny karate]

I'm trying to imagine how that would work.

A Democrat gets elected. Before he even takes office, SCOTUS decides to hear a case that would curtail her constitutional power, and within a few monts (weeks?), they issue a ruling to that effect.

But the ruling applies equally to all presidents, regardless of party affiliation. So when a Republican gets elected, the court decides to hear a case that restores the previously-curtailed presidedntial power, and rule accordingly.

Sounds exhausting. Implausibly exhausting.

They have already been doing a version of this at the state level.

“Implausible” doesn’t apply to Republicans anymore.

 

[Andy_Ross]

President Donald Trump has said it is "certainly possible" that his Supreme Court pick will be involved in a ruling revisiting the landmark 1973 decision that legalised abortion in the US.

Mr Trump said he did not discuss abortion rights with Amy Coney Barrett before choosing her for the top court.

But Ms Coney Barrett was "certainly conservative in her views", he said.

Mr Trump said he did not know how the judge would vote on the issue if her nomination was approved.

"Mostly I'm looking for somebody who can interpret the constitution as written. She is very strong on that," Mr Trump said in an interview with Fox & Friends on Sunday.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54317894

 

[theprestige]

Or they will simply choose to ignore the ruling and come up with some BS why their situation is different or based on their current behaviour not even bother with the BS. I mean the 'rule' that you don't nominate SCOTUS appointees in a presidential election year magically disappeared when it didn't suit the Republicans and loyal little Trumpistas just cheer at their 'cleverness'.

They don't need to pack the court to do that.

 

[Stacyhs]

President Donald Trump has said it is "certainly possible" that his Supreme Court pick will be involved in a ruling revisiting the landmark 1973 decision that legalised abortion in the US.

Mr Trump said he did not discuss abortion rights with Amy Coney Barrett before choosing her for the top court. But Ms Coney Barrett was "certainly conservative in her views", he said.

Mr Trump said he did not know how the judge would vote on the issue if her nomination was approved.
"Mostly I'm looking for somebody who can interpret the constitution as written. She is very strong on that," Mr Trump said in an interview with Fox & Friends on Sunday.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54317894

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

NBC News

Senate Judiciary Cmte. Chairman Graham says confirmation hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett is scheduled to start October 12.

One suggestion I've heard is that Democrats could impeach either Trump again, or Barr before then. Senate rules are that impeachment takes precedent over everything else, so this might work as a delaying tactic.

Seems highly unlikely to me - especially Barr, as he could just resign. But it is a suggestion that's out there.

 

[angrysoba]

This is John Oliver's Last Week Tonight, which takes the death of RBG as its jumping off point.

He considers how the Democrats should respond, and argues that expanding the Supreme Court is a bad idea, but then goes on to say that expanding the Senate by making Washington DC and Puerto Rico states would be a better idea and of course, doing away with the Electoral College. However, as it is too difficult to abolish it de jure, he points to the Interstate Compact to do away with it (in some states) de facto.



I definitely agree with gettin rid of the electoral college, but I am not sure the compact really does that. From what I can see, all it does is transfer all state electors to the winner of the popular vote. But isn't it likely that only Democratic states would do that, in which case, does it really give an advantage (I don't know the actual answer to that).

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I definitely agree with gettin rid of the electoral college

Really shortsighted thinking there. It will ultimately result in the destruction of this nation...be sure.

In fact the power of the populous cities is already overbalanced and contributing locally to such disasters as the California wildfires.

Should this imbalance reach the extreme case where low populous rural areas have no control at all, it could reach a critically destructive stage pretty damn soon.

There is a dynamic here that transcends party politics. It is a larger social problem resulting from the people with power regarding land management are completely disconnected from the very land that supports them. Huge huge mistakes in judgement happen for this reason.

Of all the ways to destroy this country, most are pretty far fetched, but that one is actually the one that might do it.

 

[angrysoba]

Really shortsighted thinking there. It will ultimately result in the destruction of this nation...be sure.
In fact the power of the populous cities is already overbalanced and contributing locally to such disasters as the California wildfires.

Should this imbalance reach the extreme case where low populous rural areas have no control at all, it could reach a critically destructive stage pretty damn soon.

There is a dynamic here that transcends party politics. It is a larger social problem resulting from the people with power regarding land management are completely disconnected from the very land that supports them. Huge huge mistakes in judgement happen for this reason.

Of all the ways to destroy this country, most are pretty far fetched, but that one is actually the one that might do it.

Huh!? What? The popular vote would destroy the country? No, that is ridiculous.

 

[Suddenly]

... and despite claims to the contrary, she did not send a single person to jail for their children's truancy (and while it's framed as "Johnny Highschooler skips out for the afternoon", we're really discussing more like "Timmy in second grade has been absent for 600 days so far out of 180 total in the school year without explanation, what the entire **** is happening with him?").

Harris was as progressive as a prosecutor as possible in the political climate at the time and place. I don't think any of this is disqualifying. On one hand, I'm tired of the party seeing being a prosecutor as a plus, on the other we need more liberal/progressive influence in those offices.

However, lets not fool ourselves about the truancy thing. She was in favor of laws criminalizing it and giving potential jail time. She sponsored a law allowing prosecutors to charge a misdemeanor if a kid had unexcused absences more than 10% of the time. Including fines and up to a year in jail.

And then said jail was an unintended consequence. When the statute allowed for a whole year. It was a vague law that gave prosecutors broad powers and counted on them being reasonable. Her expressing surprise that people went to jail is total BS. As if just being charged wasn't enough to derail the life of an overwhelmed single parent.

Again, at that time this was common so she gets some leeway, but it would be nice for her to just admit being really wrong and explaining why she now knows she was wrong rather than just minimize things, but so it goes.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Huh!? What? The popular vote would destroy the country? No, that is ridiculous.

Really? Just dismissed as ridiculous the very foundation of this country? That is an astonishing comment from you considering your last comment to me was thoughtful.

From:
The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection
From the New York Packet. Friday, November 23, 1787.
MADISON

When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.

A very important check and balance.

But it goes deeper when you consider the dynamic I already pointed out above. It is already happening that ignorant masses who have taken control of things they know very little about, and are unknowing acting against BOTH the public good and taking away the rights of other citizens. It ultimately will become suicidal, if what little check and balance there is left were to be removed.....