Delvo
Дэлво Δε&#
That would explain the predictions that they won't, but not the arguments that they shouldn't.
RBG leaves the stage.
- Thread starter Bob001
- Start date
Elagabalus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 7,051
If you say so.
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
Does this guy enjoy being a twat?
It's overshadowed largely by the more practical real world issues, but one interesting piece of trivia caught my eye.
Despite the small size of the court (Usually 9, ranged from 5-10 prior to the late 19th century) and the generally long tenures of people on it, almost every President has gotten to nominate at least one SCOTUS judge.
Williams Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor didn't for obvious reasons, although of note both of their successors did during the timeframe that would have been during their terms had they lived. Andrew Johnson also failed to get a chance to nominate a SCOTUS member after he took office following the assassination of Lincoln.
George W. Bush, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and James Monroe all went their entire first terms without nominating one, but did so in their second (and later in FDR's case, ironically becoming the President to nominate the most SCOTUS judges) terms.
Jimmy Carter is the only President as of this moment to complete his full term as President and not nominate any SCOTUS judges.
Despite the small size of the court (Usually 9, ranged from 5-10 prior to the late 19th century) and the generally long tenures of people on it, almost every President has gotten to nominate at least one SCOTUS judge.
Williams Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor didn't for obvious reasons, although of note both of their successors did during the timeframe that would have been during their terms had they lived. Andrew Johnson also failed to get a chance to nominate a SCOTUS member after he took office following the assassination of Lincoln.
George W. Bush, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and James Monroe all went their entire first terms without nominating one, but did so in their second (and later in FDR's case, ironically becoming the President to nominate the most SCOTUS judges) terms.
Jimmy Carter is the only President as of this moment to complete his full term as President and not nominate any SCOTUS judges.
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Last edited:
Appointing everybody solves that.
rdwight
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2016
- Messages
- 1,269
I don't get the confusion. Republicans HAD the power to stop the nomination, and used bs to justify it. Democrats don't. It's that simple. And I don't think for one second that the Democrats wouldn't block this nomination if they had the power, despite what happened in 2016. Remove that whole situation, and there is 0% chance they wouldn't use the power they have to stop this given the makeup of the Supreme Court moving forward.
If voters really hate the selection, the house and senate, not to mention the presidency will look alot different because of it. If there is not an overwhelming change, maybe the country agrees with the actions taken. Might hate the idea, but if it happens some here might have to accept it.
If voters really hate the selection, the house and senate, not to mention the presidency will look alot different because of it. If there is not an overwhelming change, maybe the country agrees with the actions taken. Might hate the idea, but if it happens some here might have to accept it.
Mumbles
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2008
- Messages
- 8,726
They are who we thought they were
Well, when you look back at it, the so-called Moral Majority was formed by the likes of segregationists Jerry Falwell (who was angry about school desegregation, including Bob Jones University's loss of tax-exempt status) and Ronald Reagan (who wanted to restrict black people from living in suburbs - sound like anyone you know?). It was Paul Weyrich that came up with anti-abortionism as a more palatable alternative to, you know, racial hatred, since one could in theory frame it as "saving the babies", while white supremacism is just hate for profit, the end. You can read about it here, or just research it for yourself.
Well, when you look back at it, the so-called Moral Majority was formed by the likes of segregationists Jerry Falwell (who was angry about school desegregation, including Bob Jones University's loss of tax-exempt status) and Ronald Reagan (who wanted to restrict black people from living in suburbs - sound like anyone you know?). It was Paul Weyrich that came up with anti-abortionism as a more palatable alternative to, you know, racial hatred, since one could in theory frame it as "saving the babies", while white supremacism is just hate for profit, the end. You can read about it here, or just research it for yourself.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
So much pessimism. It's depressing.
Fortunately I'm a tad more optimistic. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
McConnell threatened if the Democrats pulled the nuclear option on federal judge appointments, making them simple majority approval, they'd be sorry.
Well the Democrats didn't and look what happened. McConnell did it anyway laughing all the way to the bank, filling up those federal judgeships as fast as he could with a bare majority while the GOP owned the Senate and POTUS.
Biden doesn't need to be afraid of expanding the SCOTUS, starting with a threat to do so.
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
In 1869 there were about 37 states, 7 territories and a population of about 35 million. The US is long overdue for an increase in the number SCOTUS judges.
angrysoba
Philosophile
I do not understand the joke or why laughing at my post is something you felt you had to post in so many letters.
I have a weird sense of humor, but this is weird even to me.
I really tried to 'get it' even if you meant it in a mean snarky way (which I am sure you did) but I still do not.
Help an aspie out here.
Sorry, I was laughing because the thought that the Republicans might decide that it would only be fair for whoever wins the election in November to choose the candidate rather than who is currently president - given that the Republicans have the presidency - is crazily unlikely.
If that happened... with that being the Republicans thinking, "yeah it is only fair...." is like thinking a man-eating shark might stop to consider the feelings of the family of the surfer he is gnawing on.
It ain't gonna happen.
Delvo
Дэлво Δε&#
Not at all.
For one thing, our Federal elections don't express the will of the people, or really even try. The system is inherently rigged toward Republicans, not just in the Presidential Electoral College but also in the fact that the Senate has two per state no matter how few people live in that state. Most people can think one way and elections can still turn out another way as long as the latter is the Republican way.
Secondly, the way voter response to things getting worse works is not "well this party did this awful thing so now I'll vote for the other party for the rest of my life". It's "well, we tried them and they just kept making it worse, so let's try the others... well, they just kept making it worse, so let's go back to trying the first one... well, they just kept making it worse, so let's switch back to the others... well, they just kept making it worse, so let's switch back to where we started..." And the switches back & forth can happen at a higher frequency than the frequency of elections; pretty much whenever either party makes any move on any issue. So no matter how much the people might hate what the Republicans are about to do to the Supreme court or even just the fact that what they've already done was criminally illegitimate, the Democrats will come along and piss them off again too in some other way, so there won't be much incentive to stick with the Democrats just because they weren't the cause of one of the steps a few rounds ago in the neverending "they both just keep making the country worse anyway" cycle. The only way for a serious change to come from elections is for there to be a party that quits participating in that cycle for multiple whole rounds in a row, not just from any one single horrifying issue.
Last edited:
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
David Souter retired in 2009, ensuring that Obama would pick his replacement. He was replaced by Sonia Sotomayor.
John Paul Stevens, another liberal justice, retired in 2010. He was replaced by Elena Kagan.
Ruth could have retired at the time and ensured that her replacement would be a liberal, but she chose not to. She chose to roll the dice and she lost, thus leaving the choice of her replacement to Donald J. Trump and a Senate controlled by Republicans.
If Roe is overturned, it will be her fault for not retiring when she had a chance.
John Paul Stevens, another liberal justice, retired in 2010. He was replaced by Elena Kagan.
Ruth could have retired at the time and ensured that her replacement would be a liberal, but she chose not to. She chose to roll the dice and she lost, thus leaving the choice of her replacement to Donald J. Trump and a Senate controlled by Republicans.
If Roe is overturned, it will be her fault for not retiring when she had a chance.
Elagabalus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 7,051
The milk has been spilled. Got anything else to work with?
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, it will be. However, as almost everyone else in the country, she likely expected Clinton to win. The polls were in her favor and she wasn't ready to give up a career she loved yet. Sadly, for her (and the country) it turned out the polls were wrong. I wouldn't judge her too harshly for that.
angrysoba
Philosophile
I don't think it will be her fault, if you are looking for a single place to put the blame.
Presumably the fault would be the Supreme Court justices who overturn it, plus the people who put them there - Trump, the Republican Party and the American electorate.
angrysoba
Philosophile
I think people are saying she should have retired back in 2012 or 2013 when the Democrats had the presidency and the Senate.
In those days, who knew it would be Clinton vs Trump? Absolutely nobody. If she had waited until the 2016 election then we know what would have happened. McConnell would have just blocked her successor.
That said, the lesson the Democrats should take from this in the future is that if they control the presidency and the Senate to clear out the Supreme court of anyone over 70 who wants their place to be taken by a progressive/liberal. Stephen Breyer should retire. Of course, it is up to him if he wants to step down. Justices can act independently of the party who appointed them, and in an ideal world that's what would always happen.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Cain
Straussian
She ****** up. Obama's people urged her to retire, but she said "no!"
She's had a string of illnesses and knew(?) about the cancer's reoccurrence back in February. If she had stepped down then, it would have given Trump plenty of time to replace her. It's just bad faith all around.
Anyway, if the Republicans fail to seat someone, and Trump loses the election, it's entirely possible Thomas could soon croak. Biden could then replace Ginsburg, Thomas, and probably Breyer as well.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
You tease, you.