by liberal japonicus
My mother kept a diary when I was a baby. I’ve been trying to find it now, but if my memory is correct, it was all in the first person, i.e. my view of the world. However, the day that Robert Kennedy was assassinated, if I am remembering correctly, she changed and wrote half a page about waking up to the news. I’m not writing in anyone else’s voice, but I imagine that how my mother felt is the way I’m feeling now.
A thread for discussion.
Ginsburg was a dedicated and outstanding jurist, and an amazing ground-breaker for women’s rights in this country.
There are tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of young girls in this country who will be inspired to excellence by her example, whether in public service or not.
I’m sure McConnell is lining up the votes for her replacement as we speak. He is a man without honor, I expect nothing more or less from him.
He will inspire no-one, to anything.
I thank Justice Ginsburg for her lifetime of service to the law and to this country. May her memory be a blessing, and may she find peace and rest.
Ginsburg was a dedicated and outstanding jurist, and an amazing ground-breaker for women’s rights in this country.
There are tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of young girls in this country who will be inspired to excellence by her example, whether in public service or not.
I’m sure McConnell is lining up the votes for her replacement as we speak. He is a man without honor, I expect nothing more or less from him.
He will inspire no-one, to anything.
I thank Justice Ginsburg for her lifetime of service to the law and to this country. May her memory be a blessing, and may she find peace and rest.
Shaka, when the walls fell.
Shaka, when the walls fell.
What russell said. With one exception:
He [McConnell] will inspire no-one, to anything.
I submit that revulsion can be a form of inspiration. And McConnell will manage that. Some, hopefully many, will be inspired by his example to be as different as possible. And the country will be better for it.
What russell said. With one exception:
He [McConnell] will inspire no-one, to anything.
I submit that revulsion can be a form of inspiration. And McConnell will manage that. Some, hopefully many, will be inspired by his example to be as different as possible. And the country will be better for it.
I’m sure McConnell is lining up the votes for her replacement as we speak.
No doubt he is. The good news is that there are some indications that there are a couple of Republicans Senators (starting with Romney) who may decline. And it only requires a couple.
Admittedly, a frail reed on which to suspend hopes. But it’s what we’ve got.
I’m sure McConnell is lining up the votes for her replacement as we speak.
No doubt he is. The good news is that there are some indications that there are a couple of Republicans Senators (starting with Romney) who may decline. And it only requires a couple.
Admittedly, a frail reed on which to suspend hopes. But it’s what we’ve got.
It requires more than a couple.
Even a 50/50 tie would see Pence casting the deciding vote.
Are there four Republican senators with a functioning conscience ?
One of the sadder things about this is that rather than celebrating the life of a remarkable woman, we are already parsing the grubby calculus of her replacement.
It requires more than a couple.
Even a 50/50 tie would see Pence casting the deciding vote.
Are there four Republican senators with a functioning conscience ?
One of the sadder things about this is that rather than celebrating the life of a remarkable woman, we are already parsing the grubby calculus of her replacement.
Are there four Republican senators with a functioning conscience?
If McConnell tries for before the election, figure these as having either a conscience:
Romney
Murkowski
or a care for their (slim) reelection prospects:
Collins
Gardner
And after the election, if Trump has lost, figure Romney and Murkowski to remain against. And Collins and Gardner? Well, if they’ve lost, they owe McConnell nothing. And probably blame Trump (correctly) for their loss. So still against, if only as payback.
If Trump lost, but they won, the situation is murkier. But I’d guess they’d figure their long-term political prospects on the side of against as well.
Are there four Republican senators with a functioning conscience?
If McConnell tries for before the election, figure these as having either a conscience:
Romney
Murkowski
or a care for their (slim) reelection prospects:
Collins
Gardner
And after the election, if Trump has lost, figure Romney and Murkowski to remain against. And Collins and Gardner? Well, if they’ve lost, they owe McConnell nothing. And probably blame Trump (correctly) for their loss. So still against, if only as payback.
If Trump lost, but they won, the situation is murkier. But I’d guess they’d figure their long-term political prospects on the side of against as well.
If you don’t know already, there’s a documentary on Netflix:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biIRlcQqmOc
A bit too hagiographic and superficial for my taste, but still a nice watch.
If you don’t know already, there’s a documentary on Netflix:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biIRlcQqmOc
A bit too hagiographic and superficial for my taste, but still a nice watch.
Oddly enough, she and Scalia were big pals.
Oddly enough, she and Scalia were big pals.
What russell said. A great loss and, potentially, a disaster.
What russell said. A great loss and, potentially, a disaster.
I believe hundreds of mourners are gathered on the steps of the Supreme Court, saying kaddish for Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I find this very moving.
I believe hundreds of mourners are gathered on the steps of the Supreme Court, saying kaddish for Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I find this very moving.
If Moscow Mitch has doubts that he has the votes now, he will simply do it in the lame duck session when his gang has to fear no consequences. Collins could do her usual shtick and abandon her ‘principled’ stand again once the election is over. If she loses her seat, it would allow her to send a final FU to her (then ex-)constituents.
Or be prepared for Mitch using a moment when the Dems are not all present to push it through with a mere relative majority (maybe Barr could detain some Dems for him).
In any case, vials with butanethiol should be kept at the ready. Plus copious amounts of hagfish exudate.
And, yes, I will applaud should some Dem have the courage to end Mitch’s inevitable victory gloat with a punch to his face* and the use of some particularly indecorous words in front of the whole senate and the cameras.
*groin and stomach are off-limits!
If Moscow Mitch has doubts that he has the votes now, he will simply do it in the lame duck session when his gang has to fear no consequences. Collins could do her usual shtick and abandon her ‘principled’ stand again once the election is over. If she loses her seat, it would allow her to send a final FU to her (then ex-)constituents.
Or be prepared for Mitch using a moment when the Dems are not all present to push it through with a mere relative majority (maybe Barr could detain some Dems for him).
In any case, vials with butanethiol should be kept at the ready. Plus copious amounts of hagfish exudate.
And, yes, I will applaud should some Dem have the courage to end Mitch’s inevitable victory gloat with a punch to his face* and the use of some particularly indecorous words in front of the whole senate and the cameras.
*groin and stomach are off-limits!
Correction: thousands.
Correction: thousands.
Finding my mother’s diary, it was JFK’s death. But the feeling seems to have been the same.
Finding my mother’s diary, it was JFK’s death. But the feeling seems to have been the same.
a completely predictable complete disaster.
a completely predictable complete disaster.
a completely predictable complete disaster.Murder Most Foul.
Yes, and the Kennedy assassination was
Similar feeling of doom.
a completely predictable complete disaster.Murder Most Foul.
Yes, and the Kennedy assassination was
Similar feeling of doom.
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NbQkyvbw18
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NbQkyvbw18
I’m also very moved by the picture of her with the slogan “Rest in Power” below, projected on the Supreme Court of New York. Also, elsewhere, “May her memory be a revolution”.
I’m also very moved by the picture of her with the slogan “Rest in Power” below, projected on the Supreme Court of New York. Also, elsewhere, “May her memory be a revolution”.
Celebrating Rosh Hashanah and my daughter’s birthday last night when the news came like a punch in the gut. This is sad and bad. The universe is owning the libs.
Celebrating Rosh Hashanah and my daughter’s birthday last night when the news came like a punch in the gut. This is sad and bad. The universe is owning the libs.
the news came like a punch in the gut
Yes. This feels grim, and getting grimmer.
the news came like a punch in the gut
Yes. This feels grim, and getting grimmer.
Are there four Republican Senators up for re-election who can be influenced by their constituents, who can be told to respect the 2016 precedent? It’s worth taking a chance to contact them at senate.gov. And it’s worth a chance to tell Democratic Senators that you support them in respecting her wishes and delaying the nomination process until after the inauguration. Mourn her, yes, but honor her by pushing the Senate to do the right thing.
Are there four Republican Senators up for re-election who can be influenced by their constituents, who can be told to respect the 2016 precedent? It’s worth taking a chance to contact them at senate.gov. And it’s worth a chance to tell Democratic Senators that you support them in respecting her wishes and delaying the nomination process until after the inauguration. Mourn her, yes, but honor her by pushing the Senate to do the right thing.
I’m seeing a bunch of comments (elsewhere) on the general theme of “Ginsburg could have avoided this be resigning while Obama was still president. But she bet the Clinton would win.”
What makes these people think McConnell would have allowed a confirmation for her successor, when he wouldn’t for Scalia’s? We’d just have gotten a Trump nominee sooner.
I’m seeing a bunch of comments (elsewhere) on the general theme of “Ginsburg could have avoided this be resigning while Obama was still president. But she bet the Clinton would win.”
What makes these people think McConnell would have allowed a confirmation for her successor, when he wouldn’t for Scalia’s? We’d just have gotten a Trump nominee sooner.
Also — I remember when Bobby Kennedy was shot; I saw it on tv, while I was in English class. The teacher had turned it on since we’d finished assigned work early, and we watched his speech, watched him walk offstage — and then all hell broke loose. It was very much like when his brother John was shot a few years earlier — fear and anger and fury and pain all tangled together. The only recent event I can compare with it is 9/11.
This, losing Ruth Bader Ginsberg after a long life, where she died in the presence of her family? Is nothing like that.
Also — I remember when Bobby Kennedy was shot; I saw it on tv, while I was in English class. The teacher had turned it on since we’d finished assigned work early, and we watched his speech, watched him walk offstage — and then all hell broke loose. It was very much like when his brother John was shot a few years earlier — fear and anger and fury and pain all tangled together. The only recent event I can compare with it is 9/11.
This, losing Ruth Bader Ginsberg after a long life, where she died in the presence of her family? Is nothing like that.
I was only 2, so I only have my mother’s diary to go by, but the sense of loss and feeling that things are falling apart seems to be the same that I’m feeling now. Not really comparing the situations.
I was only 2, so I only have my mother’s diary to go by, but the sense of loss and feeling that things are falling apart seems to be the same that I’m feeling now. Not really comparing the situations.
About wj’s comment, this from Paul Campos at LGM seems appropriate.
About wj’s comment, this from Paul Campos at LGM seems appropriate.
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2020/09/a-prayer-for-our-daughters
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2020/09/a-prayer-for-our-daughters
lj, I’m totally with you on the comparison. And of course, while the manner and circumstances of the deaths can’t be compared, what can, and what is causing the feelings, is the fear following the loss of the symbol. RBG was a symbol of liberal integrity and the fight for equality and against bigotry, and her loss (as that of the Kennedy brothers) inspires fear of the increased chances of a regression into unbridled prejudice and repression.
lj, I’m totally with you on the comparison. And of course, while the manner and circumstances of the deaths can’t be compared, what can, and what is causing the feelings, is the fear following the loss of the symbol. RBG was a symbol of liberal integrity and the fight for equality and against bigotry, and her loss (as that of the Kennedy brothers) inspires fear of the increased chances of a regression into unbridled prejudice and repression.
or a care for their (slim) reelection prospects:
Collins
Gardner
Gardner is almost certainly toast regardless. For him, voting to confirm is one last middle finger to Colorado’s increasingly Democratic voters before he retires.
or a care for their (slim) reelection prospects:
Collins
Gardner
Gardner is almost certainly toast regardless. For him, voting to confirm is one last middle finger to Colorado’s increasingly Democratic voters before he retires.
Gardner is almost certainly toast regardless. For him, voting to confirm is one last middle finger to Colorado’s increasingly Democratic voters before he retires.
Alternatively, not voting to corfirm is one last middle finger to those (Trump, McConnell) who forced him to the right, into positions which resulted in him getting voted out. You doubtless know more of Colorado’s politics than I. But my sense is that, left to his natural inclinations, he might well have been able to achieve reelection, even in purple Colorado. So he would have some reason to be irritated with them.
Gardner is almost certainly toast regardless. For him, voting to confirm is one last middle finger to Colorado’s increasingly Democratic voters before he retires.
Alternatively, not voting to corfirm is one last middle finger to those (Trump, McConnell) who forced him to the right, into positions which resulted in him getting voted out. You doubtless know more of Colorado’s politics than I. But my sense is that, left to his natural inclinations, he might well have been able to achieve reelection, even in purple Colorado. So he would have some reason to be irritated with them.
I interacted with Gardner a few times when he was in the state legislature and I was on the budget staff. He’s sharp, he’s charismatic, and in practice he was exactly as conservative as you would expect someone elected from the far eastern plains part of Colorado to be. He has a terrific “I’m really a moderate” shtick right up until it’s time to vote on the bills.
All that aside, his big problem is that he won by 40,000 votes in 2014, a Republican wave year. In the six years since, Colorado has gained on the order of 400,000 new voters that skew quite heavily Democratic. 2018 was a bloodbath for the Colorado Republicans.
I interacted with Gardner a few times when he was in the state legislature and I was on the budget staff. He’s sharp, he’s charismatic, and in practice he was exactly as conservative as you would expect someone elected from the far eastern plains part of Colorado to be. He has a terrific “I’m really a moderate” shtick right up until it’s time to vote on the bills.
All that aside, his big problem is that he won by 40,000 votes in 2014, a Republican wave year. In the six years since, Colorado has gained on the order of 400,000 new voters that skew quite heavily Democratic. 2018 was a bloodbath for the Colorado Republicans.
538 on the politics of the situation:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/videos/will-the-supreme-court-be-the-most-important-issue-for-voters-in-2020/
538 on the politics of the situation:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/videos/will-the-supreme-court-be-the-most-important-issue-for-voters-in-2020/
When I replaced my computer at the beginning of the year I didn’t replace all my bookmarks, favourites etc, so stopped checking sites that weren’t my regulars. lj’s link reminded me, so in the aftermath of RBG’s death, feeling the need for more input, I checked in again with LGM and BJ. I’d forgotten how good they were.
When I replaced my computer at the beginning of the year I didn’t replace all my bookmarks, favourites etc, so stopped checking sites that weren’t my regulars. lj’s link reminded me, so in the aftermath of RBG’s death, feeling the need for more input, I checked in again with LGM and BJ. I’d forgotten how good they were.
It occurs to me that there is another factor here. Given how the polls look, Trump might well decide that the critical factor in a nominee is not their position on liberal/conservative issues. It’s what their position would be on cases involving Trump. Of which there are a fair number on the horizon. I could see him insisting on meeting any potential nominee and making a decision based on how effectively they pander to him.
It occurs to me that there is another factor here. Given how the polls look, Trump might well decide that the critical factor in a nominee is not their position on liberal/conservative issues. It’s what their position would be on cases involving Trump. Of which there are a fair number on the horizon. I could see him insisting on meeting any potential nominee and making a decision based on how effectively they pander to him.
He has a terrific “I’m really a moderate” shtick right up until it’s time to vote on the bills.
But Trump has made it impossible for him to even talk up being moderate. He’s had to be all in Trump.
He has a terrific “I’m really a moderate” shtick right up until it’s time to vote on the bills.
But Trump has made it impossible for him to even talk up being moderate. He’s had to be all in Trump.
(This is in part triggered by Kit Mason’s comment at 12:05. I wrote an even longer response earlier and threw it out, but Michael’s 3:13 revived a thought train.)
He has a terrific “I’m really a moderate” shtick right up until it’s time to vote on the bills.
All that aside, his big problem is that he won by 40,000 votes in 2014, a Republican wave year. In the six years since…
The first sentence of Michael’s that I quoted is Susan Collins to a T.
The second is a partial echo — Susan won 68% of the vote in 2014, but now, post-Kavanaugh, with the faux-moderateness having been unmasked to a lot of people who weren’t really paying attention to the mechanism before, she is loathed by thousands of voters who were part of that 68% in 2014. Last time I saw any numbers, her approval rating in Maine was below 40%. IIRC she went in short order from the, or one of the, senators with the highest approval rating to the senator with the lowest.
Her speech accompanying the Kavanagh vote could be translated as 5 words to the non-R people who voted for her, many of them repeatedly: “I spit in your eye.”
People did not take kindly to that.
In short, I don’t understand the logic of calling endangered R Senators. For what? To appeal to their integrity, maybe, assuming they have any, but surely not for any calculation relating to votes.
Susan Collins knows that if she defies Clickbait and McConnell, her base is going to be furious. The rest of us are already furious, and for the most part aren’t going to drink her Kool-Aid ever again.
Calling endangered R Senators seems like a waste of time to me. Even more so, a friend of mine is all in a dither today trying to get people to call McConnell’s office. That seems even worse: I can just see him laughing his ass off.
(This is in part triggered by Kit Mason’s comment at 12:05. I wrote an even longer response earlier and threw it out, but Michael’s 3:13 revived a thought train.)
He has a terrific “I’m really a moderate” shtick right up until it’s time to vote on the bills.
All that aside, his big problem is that he won by 40,000 votes in 2014, a Republican wave year. In the six years since…
The first sentence of Michael’s that I quoted is Susan Collins to a T.
The second is a partial echo — Susan won 68% of the vote in 2014, but now, post-Kavanaugh, with the faux-moderateness having been unmasked to a lot of people who weren’t really paying attention to the mechanism before, she is loathed by thousands of voters who were part of that 68% in 2014. Last time I saw any numbers, her approval rating in Maine was below 40%. IIRC she went in short order from the, or one of the, senators with the highest approval rating to the senator with the lowest.
Her speech accompanying the Kavanagh vote could be translated as 5 words to the non-R people who voted for her, many of them repeatedly: “I spit in your eye.”
People did not take kindly to that.
In short, I don’t understand the logic of calling endangered R Senators. For what? To appeal to their integrity, maybe, assuming they have any, but surely not for any calculation relating to votes.
Susan Collins knows that if she defies Clickbait and McConnell, her base is going to be furious. The rest of us are already furious, and for the most part aren’t going to drink her Kool-Aid ever again.
Calling endangered R Senators seems like a waste of time to me. Even more so, a friend of mine is all in a dither today trying to get people to call McConnell’s office. That seems even worse: I can just see him laughing his ass off.
By the way, I don’t want to just say that something is a waste of time without offering constructive ideas.
Best to just refer it to BJ, where the front page has links to lists they’re keeping:
Political Fundraising
Taking Action: Things We Can Do
Voting Plan Illustrations
I Voted!
I mostly give $, because I’m staying in COVID-19 quarantine for the most part. (Remember COVID-19?)
By the way, I don’t want to just say that something is a waste of time without offering constructive ideas.
Best to just refer it to BJ, where the front page has links to lists they’re keeping:
Political Fundraising
Taking Action: Things We Can Do
Voting Plan Illustrations
I Voted!
I mostly give $, because I’m staying in COVID-19 quarantine for the most part. (Remember COVID-19?)
What makes these people think McConnell would have allowed a confirmation for her successor, when he wouldn’t for Scalia’s? We’d just have gotten a Trump nominee sooner.
Obama appointed Sotamayor, and Kagan, right?
What makes these people think McConnell would have allowed a confirmation for her successor, when he wouldn’t for Scalia’s? We’d just have gotten a Trump nominee sooner.
Obama appointed Sotamayor, and Kagan, right?
One of the few cheering aspects of a very bad, sad day:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/18/us/elections/democrats-shatter-actblues-donation-records-after-ginsburgs-death.html
(and the numbers keep going up, they’ve changed since I first saw a reference to this on hilzoy’s twitter feed)
One of the few cheering aspects of a very bad, sad day:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/18/us/elections/democrats-shatter-actblues-donation-records-after-ginsburgs-death.html
(and the numbers keep going up, they’ve changed since I first saw a reference to this on hilzoy’s twitter feed)
hilzoy also retweeted this thread by someone called Patrick Skinner, who apparently is a CIA guy turned cop:
Hard to argue with a single word.
hilzoy also retweeted this thread by someone called Patrick Skinner, who apparently is a CIA guy turned cop:
Hard to argue with a single word.
The first sentence of Michael’s that I quoted is Susan Collins to a T.
When it counted, Collins at least voted against killing the ACA. Gardner voted to kill it. Every. Single. Time. It’s one of the reasons he had to quit making public appearances in Colorado. People shouted him down over his ACA votes.
The first sentence of Michael’s that I quoted is Susan Collins to a T.
When it counted, Collins at least voted against killing the ACA. Gardner voted to kill it. Every. Single. Time. It’s one of the reasons he had to quit making public appearances in Colorado. People shouted him down over his ACA votes.
The surest sign to me that the constitution has ceased to work as a ruleset is the way that all of our various deliberative processes have devolved into proxies for control of the supreme court. Something has to be done to change the way that Supreme Court appointments function else this ruleset remains broken and will never not be dysfunctional and corrosive of bipartisanship.
Justices should be able to retire or not based on their own preferences (subject to any term limits that might be put in place, of course) and not be held hostage to anti-democratic political agendas.
RBG had earned a damn rest.
The surest sign to me that the constitution has ceased to work as a ruleset is the way that all of our various deliberative processes have devolved into proxies for control of the supreme court. Something has to be done to change the way that Supreme Court appointments function else this ruleset remains broken and will never not be dysfunctional and corrosive of bipartisanship.
Justices should be able to retire or not based on their own preferences (subject to any term limits that might be put in place, of course) and not be held hostage to anti-democratic political agendas.
RBG had earned a damn rest.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said Saturday that whoever is elected this November should pick Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s replacement on the Supreme Court
She may cave in the end. But perhaps a glimmer that she may decide to do the right thing.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said Saturday that whoever is elected this November should pick Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s replacement on the Supreme Court
She may cave in the end. But perhaps a glimmer that she may decide to do the right thing.
Something has to be done to change the way that Supreme Court appointments function else this ruleset remains broken and will never not be dysfunctional and corrosive of bipartisanship.
absolutely.
my favorite idea (so far) is to make it work more like a circuit court, where there are many judges and the judges for each case are basically picked at random.
so, expand the court to 15 or 20 judges, and have each case heard by a panel of five. the randomness reduces the ability to game things.
but as it is now, it’s a broken system (as so many of our systems are).
we’ll get to SCOTUS reform as soon as we’re done with EC reform.
so: never.
Something has to be done to change the way that Supreme Court appointments function else this ruleset remains broken and will never not be dysfunctional and corrosive of bipartisanship.
absolutely.
my favorite idea (so far) is to make it work more like a circuit court, where there are many judges and the judges for each case are basically picked at random.
so, expand the court to 15 or 20 judges, and have each case heard by a panel of five. the randomness reduces the ability to game things.
but as it is now, it’s a broken system (as so many of our systems are).
we’ll get to SCOTUS reform as soon as we’re done with EC reform.
so: never.
Collins will find a reason to cave (and the prospect of forever living in fear of some MAGA yahoo shooting her for being a traitor to the cause will probably be the real reason).
Collins will find a reason to cave (and the prospect of forever living in fear of some MAGA yahoo shooting her for being a traitor to the cause will probably be the real reason).
wj, this has been her game forever. Get credit for moderate bipartisanship at the beginning with a lot of fanfare, vote with the party at the end. (Yes, Michael Cain is right about the ACA vote. But many others did not go that way.) Use as many weasel words as necessary to allow yourself wiggle room later.
Her words were chosen very, very carefully. She said that the next justice should be the person chosen by the president elected on November 3. She said nothing about waiting until a new Senate is seated. So in a scenario where Clickbait wins and the Dems take the Senate, she is perfectly fine voting as (FSM please grant it) a lame duck Senator in a lame duck Senate, for an SC appointee who would not be confirmed if the vote was delayed until January.
If Biden wins, McConnell may still have some slack to let her off the hook anyhow. Post-Kavanaugh, I have no glimmers of hope in relation to what she might decide to do when the chips are down.
wj, this has been her game forever. Get credit for moderate bipartisanship at the beginning with a lot of fanfare, vote with the party at the end. (Yes, Michael Cain is right about the ACA vote. But many others did not go that way.) Use as many weasel words as necessary to allow yourself wiggle room later.
Her words were chosen very, very carefully. She said that the next justice should be the person chosen by the president elected on November 3. She said nothing about waiting until a new Senate is seated. So in a scenario where Clickbait wins and the Dems take the Senate, she is perfectly fine voting as (FSM please grant it) a lame duck Senator in a lame duck Senate, for an SC appointee who would not be confirmed if the vote was delayed until January.
If Biden wins, McConnell may still have some slack to let her off the hook anyhow. Post-Kavanaugh, I have no glimmers of hope in relation to what she might decide to do when the chips are down.
I’m going to stop thinking about this for now, and think about RBG instead. I wouldn’t be paying this kind of attention to senate machinations, especially right at this moment, if Collins weren’t my senator, and I weren’t so permanently furious about her Kavanaugh speech and vote.
*****
RBG RIP.
I’m going to stop thinking about this for now, and think about RBG instead. I wouldn’t be paying this kind of attention to senate machinations, especially right at this moment, if Collins weren’t my senator, and I weren’t so permanently furious about her Kavanaugh speech and vote.
*****
RBG RIP.
we’ll get to SCOTUS reform as soon as we’re done with EC reform.
so: never.
Except that the EC is more fully defined in the constitutions and thus can only be changed by amendment or fought out for every state individually.
The Supreme Court is much less circumscribed by the constitution. Congress could do all manner of things to the way that it functions without running afoul of constitutional problems. All it takes is a majority and a will to change.
And protocol is already dead.
we’ll get to SCOTUS reform as soon as we’re done with EC reform.
so: never.
Except that the EC is more fully defined in the constitutions and thus can only be changed by amendment or fought out for every state individually.
The Supreme Court is much less circumscribed by the constitution. Congress could do all manner of things to the way that it functions without running afoul of constitutional problems. All it takes is a majority and a will to change.
And protocol is already dead.
But Trump has made it impossible for him to even talk up being moderate. He’s had to be all in Trump.
Gardner voted as a bog-standard non-moderate Republican for six years in Congress before Trump showed up. His campaign changed in 2014 when he had to appeal at least somewhat to the Front Range suburbs instead of just his deep-red eastern plains House district, but his voting never changed.
But Trump has made it impossible for him to even talk up being moderate. He’s had to be all in Trump.
Gardner voted as a bog-standard non-moderate Republican for six years in Congress before Trump showed up. His campaign changed in 2014 when he had to appeal at least somewhat to the Front Range suburbs instead of just his deep-red eastern plains House district, but his voting never changed.
All it takes is a majority and a will to change.
Is that not also true for Puerto Rican statehood ?
All it takes is a majority and a will to change.
Is that not also true for Puerto Rican statehood ?
How certain is it that the winner of the Arizona (and Georgia) special election be seated in the lame duck Senate ?
How certain is it that the winner of the Arizona (and Georgia) special election be seated in the lame duck Senate ?
The marvel of Puerto Rican statehood is this. The two parties there are defined by one critical point: whether Puerto Rico should become a state or not. And, for at least as long as I have been paying attention (say since 1964), the Republican party has been the one in Puerto Rico arguing for statehood. Indeed, I have a clear memory of the 1964 Republican convention, with the nomination rollcall including “Puerto Rico, our next state, casts [however many] votes for ….”
It will make for some interesting interactions, should they become a state over unanimous Republican opposition in Congress.
The marvel of Puerto Rican statehood is this. The two parties there are defined by one critical point: whether Puerto Rico should become a state or not. And, for at least as long as I have been paying attention (say since 1964), the Republican party has been the one in Puerto Rico arguing for statehood. Indeed, I have a clear memory of the 1964 Republican convention, with the nomination rollcall including “Puerto Rico, our next state, casts [however many] votes for ….”
It will make for some interesting interactions, should they become a state over unanimous Republican opposition in Congress.
How certain is it that the winner of the Arizona (and Georgia) special election be seated in the lame duck Senate ?
In Arizona, Senator Kelly could be sworn in as early as November 30. That being the date results become official.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/19/politics/arizona-senate-race-rbg/index.html
In Georgia, it depends on whether any candidate has, not just a plurality but a majority of the votes in the special election. If nobody does, which seems likely, there will have to be a run-off (to be held, if necessary, January 5).
How certain is it that the winner of the Arizona (and Georgia) special election be seated in the lame duck Senate ?
In Arizona, Senator Kelly could be sworn in as early as November 30. That being the date results become official.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/19/politics/arizona-senate-race-rbg/index.html
In Georgia, it depends on whether any candidate has, not just a plurality but a majority of the votes in the special election. If nobody does, which seems likely, there will have to be a run-off (to be held, if necessary, January 5).
Nell Lancaster, who used to comment here, linked to this—
https://twitter.com/Taniel/status/1307146228170461185
The gist is that people should target their campaign donations to races where Democrats have the best chance of winning. Supposedly there are 11 states which are closer ( with Democrats having a better shot) than the one between McConnell and McGrath. Apparently Lindsey Graham is in a tight race. I would not have guessed that, but toppling Graham would be worth a few bucks.
Okay, a tangential mini-rant. I wish people would stop it with the “ Moscow Mitch” thing. The man is clearly a homegrown red white and a Blue American slime ball. It hurts my sense of patriotism to think that anyone would imagine he needs foreign influence to be the worthless cynical amoral POS he is. But then I always was an American exceptionalist.
Nell Lancaster, who used to comment here, linked to this—
https://twitter.com/Taniel/status/1307146228170461185
The gist is that people should target their campaign donations to races where Democrats have the best chance of winning. Supposedly there are 11 states which are closer ( with Democrats having a better shot) than the one between McConnell and McGrath. Apparently Lindsey Graham is in a tight race. I would not have guessed that, but toppling Graham would be worth a few bucks.
Okay, a tangential mini-rant. I wish people would stop it with the “ Moscow Mitch” thing. The man is clearly a homegrown red white and a Blue American slime ball. It hurts my sense of patriotism to think that anyone would imagine he needs foreign influence to be the worthless cynical amoral POS he is. But then I always was an American exceptionalist.
I wish people would stop it with the “ Moscow Mitch” thing.
The thing is, while there’s a lot more evidence to support “Moscow Donald,” it doesn’t alliterate. And alliteration is a core requirement.
I wish people would stop it with the “ Moscow Mitch” thing.
The thing is, while there’s a lot more evidence to support “Moscow Donald,” it doesn’t alliterate. And alliteration is a core requirement.
“ The thing is, while there’s a lot more evidence to support “Moscow Donald,” it doesn’t alliterate.”
I meant to delete that paragraph, but got distracted. I started to post a reply to yours just now, but it would become a foreign policy thread jack and belongs in another thread.
Maybe tomorrow, in the tactics thread.
“ The thing is, while there’s a lot more evidence to support “Moscow Donald,” it doesn’t alliterate.”
I meant to delete that paragraph, but got distracted. I started to post a reply to yours just now, but it would become a foreign policy thread jack and belongs in another thread.
Maybe tomorrow, in the tactics thread.
Well, just a marker for that potential future comment, if it pisses McConnell off, I don’t see any reason why it shouldn’t be used.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/30/us/politics/moscow-mitch-mcconnell.html
Well, just a marker for that potential future comment, if it pisses McConnell off, I don’t see any reason why it shouldn’t be used.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/30/us/politics/moscow-mitch-mcconnell.html
Just because he’s doing Moscow’s work for them unpaid doesn’t make it any less apposite.
Just because he’s doing Moscow’s work for them unpaid doesn’t make it any less apposite.
Thanks, wj.
Is there anything (other than the vote of the Senate itself) to prevent Trump calling a special session straight after the election ?
Thanks, wj.
Is there anything (other than the vote of the Senate itself) to prevent Trump calling a special session straight after the election ?
Never deal with a rotten conservative and/or republican without a loaded gun, safety off, pointed at his or her subhuman face:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/walkback-for-the-ages-graham-ditches-mcconnell-rule-he-promised-to-apply-evenly
Don’t trust, don’t verify.
Wreak vengeance.
Never deal with a rotten conservative and/or republican without a loaded gun, safety off, pointed at his or her subhuman face:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/walkback-for-the-ages-graham-ditches-mcconnell-rule-he-promised-to-apply-evenly
Don’t trust, don’t verify.
Wreak vengeance.
Is there anything (other than the vote of the Senate itself) to prevent Trump calling a special session straight after the election ?
The Constitution allows him to call Congress back on “extraordinary occasions”. There is no requirement for how quickly Congress must respond. At the time the Constitution was written, it could take weeks for the message to get out and the members respond. This year Congress is merely recessing before the elections. The Senate is already scheduled to reconvene on Nov 9, the House on Nov 16.
Is there anything (other than the vote of the Senate itself) to prevent Trump calling a special session straight after the election ?
The Constitution allows him to call Congress back on “extraordinary occasions”. There is no requirement for how quickly Congress must respond. At the time the Constitution was written, it could take weeks for the message to get out and the members respond. This year Congress is merely recessing before the elections. The Senate is already scheduled to reconvene on Nov 9, the House on Nov 16.
This is what we are up against.
This is what we are up against.
Is what is happening to us now the same as this?
Is what is happening to us now the same as this?
God, bobbyp, that second link is really something.
“We have to justify our having injured those we have injured, or we have to persuade others to our guilty view in order to implicate them in our guilt.”
***
“What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise,” the philologist told Mayer. The Nazi dictatorship was “diverting,” he said, in that it kept people “so busy with continuous changes and ‘crises’ and so fascinated… by the machinations of the ‘national enemies’ without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us.”
***
“You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow.” But that moment never came. “That’s the difficulty,” the philologist told Mayer. “If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes millions would have been sufficiently shocked… But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you to not be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.”
God, bobbyp, that second link is really something.
“We have to justify our having injured those we have injured, or we have to persuade others to our guilty view in order to implicate them in our guilt.”
***
“What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise,” the philologist told Mayer. The Nazi dictatorship was “diverting,” he said, in that it kept people “so busy with continuous changes and ‘crises’ and so fascinated… by the machinations of the ‘national enemies’ without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us.”
***
“You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow.” But that moment never came. “That’s the difficulty,” the philologist told Mayer. “If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes millions would have been sufficiently shocked… But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you to not be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.”
This is what we are up against.
I graduated from law school in 1984. The Federalist Society was but a flyer on the bulletin board. “Federalists? That’s interesting,” I thought. I read about them. Another Reagan-era civil society sabotage attempt, it seemed. Sad that it has come to this.
Is what is happening to us now the same as this?
Not if we see it for what it is, and make it stop.
Thanks, bobbyp.
This is what we are up against.
I graduated from law school in 1984. The Federalist Society was but a flyer on the bulletin board. “Federalists? That’s interesting,” I thought. I read about them. Another Reagan-era civil society sabotage attempt, it seemed. Sad that it has come to this.
Is what is happening to us now the same as this?
Not if we see it for what it is, and make it stop.
Thanks, bobbyp.
for some reason, i really love watching Jennifer Rubin seething in anger over what the GOP has become:
can’t say i entirely disagree with her, either.
(i still think packing the Court is a shortsighted idea)
for some reason, i really love watching Jennifer Rubin seething in anger over what the GOP has become:
can’t say i entirely disagree with her, either.
(i still think packing the Court is a shortsighted idea)
(i still think packing the Court is a shortsighted idea)
The Republicans are making the concept of “shortsighted” with respect to the Supreme Court moot. The court is likely to retain its current character for a very long time. I should say “the federal courts.” Significant damage has been done.
(i still think packing the Court is a shortsighted idea)
The Republicans are making the concept of “shortsighted” with respect to the Supreme Court moot. The court is likely to retain its current character for a very long time. I should say “the federal courts.” Significant damage has been done.
@Kit: I’m curious about where you went to school, that you would have been in class when Robert Kennedy was shot. It happened after midnight in Los Angeles.
I was fast asleep, having gone to bed early on the night of my high school graduation. I woke up around 5 a.m. to get ready for the first day of my summer job as a nursing home orderly, and the clock radio was blaring the news of the assassination, which had taken place a couple of hours earlier. Kennedy wasn’t dead but it seemed very grim. It might have been that day or maybe the next day when I heard one of the patients shout at his TV “I hope the bastard dies.” It’s not nice to say, but I’m happy I outlived that guy.
@Kit: I’m curious about where you went to school, that you would have been in class when Robert Kennedy was shot. It happened after midnight in Los Angeles.
I was fast asleep, having gone to bed early on the night of my high school graduation. I woke up around 5 a.m. to get ready for the first day of my summer job as a nursing home orderly, and the clock radio was blaring the news of the assassination, which had taken place a couple of hours earlier. Kennedy wasn’t dead but it seemed very grim. It might have been that day or maybe the next day when I heard one of the patients shout at his TV “I hope the bastard dies.” It’s not nice to say, but I’m happy I outlived that guy.
I watched a couplle of Republican Senatorial clowns in two clips just now.
Court packing is the only way to go if Republicans ram through another Justice after all that bull crap they spouted in 2016. It’s not ideal, but expecting Republicans to play by any rules is stupid.
And if possible, statehood for DC and Puerto Rico. Take the gloves off. The Republican Party can’t be trusted.
( I might do the other argument about Mitch later In the other thread , or might not. )
I watched a couplle of Republican Senatorial clowns in two clips just now.
Court packing is the only way to go if Republicans ram through another Justice after all that bull crap they spouted in 2016. It’s not ideal, but expecting Republicans to play by any rules is stupid.
And if possible, statehood for DC and Puerto Rico. Take the gloves off. The Republican Party can’t be trusted.
( I might do the other argument about Mitch later In the other thread , or might not. )
On the PR level, “ court packing” should be changed. “ Ensuring fairness and justice on the courts” or some such.
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1307620853983719424
On the PR level, “ court packing” should be changed. “ Ensuring fairness and justice on the courts” or some such.
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1307620853983719424
I’d say statehood for DC and Puerto Rico should happen, totally independent of what happens over this Supreme Court seat.
I’d say statehood for DC and Puerto Rico should happen, totally independent of what happens over this Supreme Court seat.
Let’s keep in mind there is the other side, every Democrat and everyone here was absolutely for a vote Merrick Garland. Including Joe Biden.
So, as usual, political hypocrisy knows no bounds. And Democrats want to change the rules and pack the court because it dudnt work out for them.
SSDD.
Let’s keep in mind there is the other side, every Democrat and everyone here was absolutely for a vote Merrick Garland. Including Joe Biden.
So, as usual, political hypocrisy knows no bounds. And Democrats want to change the rules and pack the court because it dudnt work out for them.
SSDD.
The GOPsters had all the right to vote Garland* Down. They not only refused to vote, they refused to even call a hearing. The former would have been constitutional, the latter was not. Btw, Mitch announced at the time that, should Hillary win but the GOP keep the senate, there would be NO consideration of any judge nominated by her even if she stayed in office for 8 years. There were also threats to start impeaching her possibly before she even got inaugurated.
There is no good faith left on the GOP side and any intelligent uncomatose person claiming otherwise shall be considered henceforth as lacking the same unless meeting very high bars of proof to the contrary.
*whom they proposed as the ideal compromise candidate just shortly before
The GOPsters had all the right to vote Garland* Down. They not only refused to vote, they refused to even call a hearing. The former would have been constitutional, the latter was not. Btw, Mitch announced at the time that, should Hillary win but the GOP keep the senate, there would be NO consideration of any judge nominated by her even if she stayed in office for 8 years. There were also threats to start impeaching her possibly before she even got inaugurated.
There is no good faith left on the GOP side and any intelligent uncomatose person claiming otherwise shall be considered henceforth as lacking the same unless meeting very high bars of proof to the contrary.
*whom they proposed as the ideal compromise candidate just shortly before
Agreed, wj.
Marty, it’s a little weird that you think the Merrick Garland case works against Democrats. If the Republicans had allowed a vote people wouldn’t be so bitter about Republicans now demanding one. They change the rules to suit themselves. So yeah, if Democrats get in they should stop expecting Republicans to adhere to rules. You want Democrats to roll over and play by whatever rules the Republicans see as in their current interest.
Now if Mitch said that the nomination would be postponed until after the election was decided, and the results taken into account, I wouldn’t be asking for court packing. But your side doesn’t go by rules. They want power and change the rules to get it. Okay.
Incidentally, I am not exactly a big fan of Democratic partisan bs.. Ask me what I think of Russiagate. Not in this thread though.
Agreed, wj.
Marty, it’s a little weird that you think the Merrick Garland case works against Democrats. If the Republicans had allowed a vote people wouldn’t be so bitter about Republicans now demanding one. They change the rules to suit themselves. So yeah, if Democrats get in they should stop expecting Republicans to adhere to rules. You want Democrats to roll over and play by whatever rules the Republicans see as in their current interest.
Now if Mitch said that the nomination would be postponed until after the election was decided, and the results taken into account, I wouldn’t be asking for court packing. But your side doesn’t go by rules. They want power and change the rules to get it. Okay.
Incidentally, I am not exactly a big fan of Democratic partisan bs.. Ask me what I think of Russiagate. Not in this thread though.
oh good, i was wondering when Marty would be here to tell Democrats to follow the rules his own shitty party won’t follow.
oh good, i was wondering when Marty would be here to tell Democrats to follow the rules his own shitty party won’t follow.
and, is anyone saying Trump’s next shitty nominee shouldn’t get a vote?
i see a lot of people* pointing out the nihilistic hypocrisy of the GOP rushing to fill RGB’s former seat in light of MERRICK FUCKING GARLAND. i don’t see a lot of people saying it shouldn’t happen for any other reason than the (clearly bullsht) McConnell Rule.
* notably not ObWi’s foremost expert on boundless political hypocrisy, of course.
and, is anyone saying Trump’s next shitty nominee shouldn’t get a vote?
i see a lot of people* pointing out the nihilistic hypocrisy of the GOP rushing to fill RGB’s former seat in light of MERRICK FUCKING GARLAND. i don’t see a lot of people saying it shouldn’t happen for any other reason than the (clearly bullsht) McConnell Rule.
* notably not ObWi’s foremost expert on boundless political hypocrisy, of course.
Douthat has an odd argument.
Romney, he implies, should vote for a right wing SC nominee precisely because it will delegitimize the SC, lead to court packing and ultimately a world where we hash things out through the legislature and/ or a court system openly regarded as political, rather than a system where legally trained Mandarins with lifetime appointments send down their rulings chiseled in stone from Mt.. Sinai.
I don’t entirely trust Ross’s reasoning and the convenient place where he ends up ( I actually like the guy most of the time) but it might work out that way.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/20/opinion/republican-supreme-court.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
Douthat has an odd argument.
Romney, he implies, should vote for a right wing SC nominee precisely because it will delegitimize the SC, lead to court packing and ultimately a world where we hash things out through the legislature and/ or a court system openly regarded as political, rather than a system where legally trained Mandarins with lifetime appointments send down their rulings chiseled in stone from Mt.. Sinai.
I don’t entirely trust Ross’s reasoning and the convenient place where he ends up ( I actually like the guy most of the time) but it might work out that way.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/20/opinion/republican-supreme-court.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
oh good, i was wondering when Marty would be here to tell Democrats to follow the rules his own shitty party won’t follow.
The challenge is this. Assume, strictly for the sake of discussion, that the Democrats are willing to follow whatever rules the Republicans have set. What rules would those be, exactly?
Just doing whatever the other party demands, moment to moment, is obviously not following anything that could be dignified as “rules”. But established practice of Republicans is sufficiently mutable** that it seems we would need a reference point in time. And how to pick that?
So all in all, about the only way to follow the rules that Republicans like McConnell and Trump have embodied is to impute those rules from their actions. Which results in just one rule of thumb: anything you can get away with, which will maintain or increase your power, is right. Not, I suspect, a rule they would like the Democrats to conform to.
** It’s like working for Trump, and trying to conform to his “policy” tweets. You just never know when you’ll get a 180 degree reversal. To not only adjust to, but to try to defend as no change at all.
oh good, i was wondering when Marty would be here to tell Democrats to follow the rules his own shitty party won’t follow.
The challenge is this. Assume, strictly for the sake of discussion, that the Democrats are willing to follow whatever rules the Republicans have set. What rules would those be, exactly?
Just doing whatever the other party demands, moment to moment, is obviously not following anything that could be dignified as “rules”. But established practice of Republicans is sufficiently mutable** that it seems we would need a reference point in time. And how to pick that?
So all in all, about the only way to follow the rules that Republicans like McConnell and Trump have embodied is to impute those rules from their actions. Which results in just one rule of thumb: anything you can get away with, which will maintain or increase your power, is right. Not, I suspect, a rule they would like the Democrats to conform to.
** It’s like working for Trump, and trying to conform to his “policy” tweets. You just never know when you’ll get a 180 degree reversal. To not only adjust to, but to try to defend as no change at all.
Not, I suspect, a rule they would like the Democrats to conform to.
tit for tat.
and i suspect those are gonna be some tough titties.
Not, I suspect, a rule they would like the Democrats to conform to.
tit for tat.
and i suspect those are gonna be some tough titties.
Seems a futile argument to me.
Just warn the Republicans not to seat another Justice before the next Congress, and if they do so, then let them face the consequences.
Marty can call it whatever he likes.
And, btw, so are us the gushing encomiums for Ginsburg when you’re preparing at all costs to trample on her legacy. Looking at you, Ted Cruz.
Seems a futile argument to me.
Just warn the Republicans not to seat another Justice before the next Congress, and if they do so, then let them face the consequences.
Marty can call it whatever he likes.
And, btw, so are us the gushing encomiums for Ginsburg when you’re preparing at all costs to trample on her legacy. Looking at you, Ted Cruz.
And in one sense, Marty is correct.
Little point in trying to search out any principle on the part of McConnell, or criticising him for hypocrisy. He has no principle other than the exercise of power.
And in one sense, Marty is correct.
Little point in trying to search out any principle on the part of McConnell, or criticising him for hypocrisy. He has no principle other than the exercise of power.
‘spare us’ not ‘so us’.
Typing in a screen…
‘spare us’ not ‘so us’.
Typing in a screen…
And, btw, so are us the gushing encomiums for Ginsburg when you’re preparing at all costs to trample on her legacy.
Remember Orrin Hatch? He and Ted Kennedy were friends for all their time in the Senate. Family dinners together friends. The minute Ted was gone, Hatch did everything he could to destroy the causes Ted cared about most.
Remember Lindsay Graham? Great friends with Mohm McCain. The minute McCain was gone, he betrayed every principle McCain fought for. Also called Joe Biden one of the finest human beings he has ever known. Now that Biden is running for President, Graham is in boots and all to publicize a fake scandal in order to damage Biden.
GOPers have no internalized sense of ethics, and so their morals are whatever gets them the most power/money on any given day.
GOPers have no internalized sense of ethics, so their positions can change 180 degrees from day to day.
Most importantly, GOPers have no internalized sense of ethics and they assume the same is true of everyone else, which is why they constantly accuse Democrats of “virtue signaling” when we (Democrats) advocate for equitable social and environmental policies.
GOPers have no internalized sense of ethics so they are incapable of understanding the concept of values which actually mean something, are actually important to people, and drive policy making.
GOPers have no internalized sense of ethics so they think it’s all smoke and mirrors – because to them, it is.
And, btw, so are us the gushing encomiums for Ginsburg when you’re preparing at all costs to trample on her legacy.
Remember Orrin Hatch? He and Ted Kennedy were friends for all their time in the Senate. Family dinners together friends. The minute Ted was gone, Hatch did everything he could to destroy the causes Ted cared about most.
Remember Lindsay Graham? Great friends with Mohm McCain. The minute McCain was gone, he betrayed every principle McCain fought for. Also called Joe Biden one of the finest human beings he has ever known. Now that Biden is running for President, Graham is in boots and all to publicize a fake scandal in order to damage Biden.
GOPers have no internalized sense of ethics, and so their morals are whatever gets them the most power/money on any given day.
GOPers have no internalized sense of ethics, so their positions can change 180 degrees from day to day.
Most importantly, GOPers have no internalized sense of ethics and they assume the same is true of everyone else, which is why they constantly accuse Democrats of “virtue signaling” when we (Democrats) advocate for equitable social and environmental policies.
GOPers have no internalized sense of ethics so they are incapable of understanding the concept of values which actually mean something, are actually important to people, and drive policy making.
GOPers have no internalized sense of ethics so they think it’s all smoke and mirrors – because to them, it is.
Little point in trying to search out any principle on the part of McConnell, or criticising him for hypocrisy.
if it was just McConnell, that’d be one (slimy, vile) thing. but the entire GOP went all-in on the McConnell Rule: top to bottom.
they’re about to reap that whirlwind.
Little point in trying to search out any principle on the part of McConnell, or criticising him for hypocrisy.
if it was just McConnell, that’d be one (slimy, vile) thing. but the entire GOP went all-in on the McConnell Rule: top to bottom.
they’re about to reap that whirlwind.
GOPers have no internalized sense of ethics and they assume the same is true of everyone else, which is why they constantly accuse Democrats of “virtue signaling” when we (Democrats) advocate for equitable social and environmental policies.
Not quite true. They only assume the utter lack of ethics is true for other politicians, But not true of the general population. Otherwise, “virtue signaling” would be pointless.
GOPers have no internalized sense of ethics and they assume the same is true of everyone else, which is why they constantly accuse Democrats of “virtue signaling” when we (Democrats) advocate for equitable social and environmental policies.
Not quite true. They only assume the utter lack of ethics is true for other politicians, But not true of the general population. Otherwise, “virtue signaling” would be pointless.
we’ll see.
we’ll see.
wrong link re: Murkowski.
NPR
wrong link re: Murkowski.
NPR
So, as usual, political hypocrisy knows no bounds
There is no precedent for filling a Supreme Court vacancy which arises as close to the election as this one.
There was no precedent for not filling a Supreme Court vacancy which arouse as far from the election as the one Merrick Garland was nominated for.
For Marty to accuse the Ds over this: well, political hypocrisy knows no bounds.
The overriding consideration is that the composition of any politically appointed body should mildly favour the party which gets more votes. A 6-3 majority of extreme candidates chosen by the party which usually gets the second most votes: this is not democracy.
So, as usual, political hypocrisy knows no bounds
There is no precedent for filling a Supreme Court vacancy which arises as close to the election as this one.
There was no precedent for not filling a Supreme Court vacancy which arouse as far from the election as the one Merrick Garland was nominated for.
For Marty to accuse the Ds over this: well, political hypocrisy knows no bounds.
The overriding consideration is that the composition of any politically appointed body should mildly favour the party which gets more votes. A 6-3 majority of extreme candidates chosen by the party which usually gets the second most votes: this is not democracy.
Marty, I really think you have lost touch with what our objection in the Merrick Garland case was. Hartmut @12.55 puts it all pretty concisely, and cleek summarises nicely:
i see a lot of people* pointing out the nihilistic hypocrisy of the GOP rushing to fill RGB’s former seat in light of MERRICK FUCKING GARLAND. i don’t see a lot of people saying it shouldn’t happen for any other reason than the (clearly bullsht) McConnell Rule.
Sorry to flog a dead horse, but for clarity:
McConnell made up a rule to avoid bringing the Garland nomination to the floor. He is flouting his own rule in order to instal a replacment for Ginsburg before the election (or possibly the inauguration).
The absolutely unavoidable conclusion is that he (and the GOP) will do absolutely anything to get their own people in, and absolutely anything to avoid any Dem people getting in, no matter the circumstances, and no matter how they contradict their previous justification and rationale. They are, in fact, the definition of hypocrisy.
Marty, I really think you have lost touch with what our objection in the Merrick Garland case was. Hartmut @12.55 puts it all pretty concisely, and cleek summarises nicely:
i see a lot of people* pointing out the nihilistic hypocrisy of the GOP rushing to fill RGB’s former seat in light of MERRICK FUCKING GARLAND. i don’t see a lot of people saying it shouldn’t happen for any other reason than the (clearly bullsht) McConnell Rule.
Sorry to flog a dead horse, but for clarity:
McConnell made up a rule to avoid bringing the Garland nomination to the floor. He is flouting his own rule in order to instal a replacment for Ginsburg before the election (or possibly the inauguration).
The absolutely unavoidable conclusion is that he (and the GOP) will do absolutely anything to get their own people in, and absolutely anything to avoid any Dem people getting in, no matter the circumstances, and no matter how they contradict their previous justification and rationale. They are, in fact, the definition of hypocrisy.
wj I’m not even sure about that, based on what GOP voters – hoi polloi – say. From what I can tell, their belief is that we are ALL faking it, politicians and general population alike.
Why would we all be faking it, you ask?
Answer: to make the poor GOPers feel bad. To guilt them into giving their hard-earned $$ to mudpeople and otherwise including subhumans in human discourse.
IOW, we only advocate for policies in order to manipulate GOPers, steal from GOPers, and feel superior to GOPers. Not because we actually care about mudpeople and subhumans (or the environment, etc.) because, really, who possibly could?
wj I’m not even sure about that, based on what GOP voters – hoi polloi – say. From what I can tell, their belief is that we are ALL faking it, politicians and general population alike.
Why would we all be faking it, you ask?
Answer: to make the poor GOPers feel bad. To guilt them into giving their hard-earned $$ to mudpeople and otherwise including subhumans in human discourse.
IOW, we only advocate for policies in order to manipulate GOPers, steal from GOPers, and feel superior to GOPers. Not because we actually care about mudpeople and subhumans (or the environment, etc.) because, really, who possibly could?
(i still think packing the Court is a shortsighted idea)
Here is a reply.
The GOP has set this table. The new norm is this: If it is not expressly prohibited, it is permitted. This is not about hypocrisy. It is about power and the willingness to wield it.
Let that sink in.
(i still think packing the Court is a shortsighted idea)
Here is a reply.
The GOP has set this table. The new norm is this: If it is not expressly prohibited, it is permitted. This is not about hypocrisy. It is about power and the willingness to wield it.
Let that sink in.
Let’s keep in mind there is the other side, every Democrat and everyone here was absolutely for a vote Merrick Garland. Including Joe Biden.
So, as usual, political hypocrisy knows no bounds. And Democrats want to change the rules and pack the court because it dudnt work out for them.
Let’s keep in mind that the novelty in the case of Merrick Garland was McConnell’s refusal to give him a hearing. So yes, (D)’s and everybody here and quite a lot of other people wanted Garland to get a vote because… that’s what we do when a SCOTUS seat is empty.
POTUS nominates, Senate votes.
Let’s also keep in mind that the “rule” that was applied in Garland’s case was one that McConnell pulled straight out of his own ass. For the convenience of his party.
And the person breaking that “rule” now is McConnell. For the convenience of his party.
So as far as this goes:
Democrats want to change the rules
F*** that noise. But thanks for playing.
(R)’s represent a minority of the country. Trump lost the popular vote. The (R)’s in the Senate represent about 15 million fewer Americans than the (D)’s in the Senate.
The (R)’s want to govern as if they have a popular mandate that they do not have. That is not sustainable.
If Trump and McConnell push a SCOTUS justice through, I will absolutely support adding additional seats to the SCOTUS. If Biden wins and the (D)’s take the Senate, I will absolutely support them doing so as the first order of business in the Biden presidency.
The Constitution offers some safeguards for minority interests in governance. Those are meant to be safeguards, not levers for obstructing the wishes of the majority of the population for as long as the (R)’s can get away with it.
So there is going to be payback. This year, next year, four years from now, ten years from now.
Whenever.
There is going to be payback. Not dumb-ass right-wing “we’re gonna shoot you all” payback, but legal, Constitutionally sound, legitimate payback. The means of thwarting the wishes of *most people in this country* will be taken away from the (R)’s.
You can only spit in people’s eye so many times before they figure out that they’ve had enough.
Consider this my daily dose of hook biting. Once a day is sufficient.
Let’s keep in mind there is the other side, every Democrat and everyone here was absolutely for a vote Merrick Garland. Including Joe Biden.
So, as usual, political hypocrisy knows no bounds. And Democrats want to change the rules and pack the court because it dudnt work out for them.
Let’s keep in mind that the novelty in the case of Merrick Garland was McConnell’s refusal to give him a hearing. So yes, (D)’s and everybody here and quite a lot of other people wanted Garland to get a vote because… that’s what we do when a SCOTUS seat is empty.
POTUS nominates, Senate votes.
Let’s also keep in mind that the “rule” that was applied in Garland’s case was one that McConnell pulled straight out of his own ass. For the convenience of his party.
And the person breaking that “rule” now is McConnell. For the convenience of his party.
So as far as this goes:
Democrats want to change the rules
F*** that noise. But thanks for playing.
(R)’s represent a minority of the country. Trump lost the popular vote. The (R)’s in the Senate represent about 15 million fewer Americans than the (D)’s in the Senate.
The (R)’s want to govern as if they have a popular mandate that they do not have. That is not sustainable.
If Trump and McConnell push a SCOTUS justice through, I will absolutely support adding additional seats to the SCOTUS. If Biden wins and the (D)’s take the Senate, I will absolutely support them doing so as the first order of business in the Biden presidency.
The Constitution offers some safeguards for minority interests in governance. Those are meant to be safeguards, not levers for obstructing the wishes of the majority of the population for as long as the (R)’s can get away with it.
So there is going to be payback. This year, next year, four years from now, ten years from now.
Whenever.
There is going to be payback. Not dumb-ass right-wing “we’re gonna shoot you all” payback, but legal, Constitutionally sound, legitimate payback. The means of thwarting the wishes of *most people in this country* will be taken away from the (R)’s.
You can only spit in people’s eye so many times before they figure out that they’ve had enough.
Consider this my daily dose of hook biting. Once a day is sufficient.
Marty is to Trump and the Republican Party what von Ribbentrop was to Hitler, an advance man sent into the lair of the Nazi’s prey to blame the prey themselves … the Austrians, the Czechs, the Poles … the “other side”, always perfectly equal and balanced in both-sides-do-it depravity … for forcing innocent-faced fucking ruthless Germany to resort to extreme means to achieve its evil ends.
And what is this word “hypocrisy”?
Weak tea.
The trump conservative movement is a treacherous, depraved internal enemy of all good things American and human.
Thieves, liars, and cheats, to a man and woman.
That we are even discussing the civilized formality of an election against these filth instead of outright insurrection, as they, their armed vermin selves, are doing in every conservative fascist venue, as we speak .. win or lose .. brings a smirk to every fascist McConnell/Putin/Trump republican face, and the faces of every brutal autocrat across the globe who watches trump for the cue to murder their own people, for its pure innocent naive faith that civilized normative behavior, all now dead, will win the day.
Make no mistake. They are killers.
Marty is to Trump and the Republican Party what von Ribbentrop was to Hitler, an advance man sent into the lair of the Nazi’s prey to blame the prey themselves … the Austrians, the Czechs, the Poles … the “other side”, always perfectly equal and balanced in both-sides-do-it depravity … for forcing innocent-faced fucking ruthless Germany to resort to extreme means to achieve its evil ends.
And what is this word “hypocrisy”?
Weak tea.
The trump conservative movement is a treacherous, depraved internal enemy of all good things American and human.
Thieves, liars, and cheats, to a man and woman.
That we are even discussing the civilized formality of an election against these filth instead of outright insurrection, as they, their armed vermin selves, are doing in every conservative fascist venue, as we speak .. win or lose .. brings a smirk to every fascist McConnell/Putin/Trump republican face, and the faces of every brutal autocrat across the globe who watches trump for the cue to murder their own people, for its pure innocent naive faith that civilized normative behavior, all now dead, will win the day.
Make no mistake. They are killers.
Let that sink in.
why the GOP wouldn’t then do the exact same thing as soon as they get a chance; and why the Dems wouldn’t do it again; then the GOP; then the Dems? and why won’t the end result be a second legislature, where the justice system enforces laws depending on the party in power ?
the GOP needs to be ground to dust.
do we need to take the Court there with it?
Let that sink in.
why the GOP wouldn’t then do the exact same thing as soon as they get a chance; and why the Dems wouldn’t do it again; then the GOP; then the Dems? and why won’t the end result be a second legislature, where the justice system enforces laws depending on the party in power ?
the GOP needs to be ground to dust.
do we need to take the Court there with it?
I’m not even sure about that, based on what GOP voters – hoi polloi – say. From what I can tell, their belief is that we are ALL faking it, politicians and general population alike.
Casey, that may well be true. But there must be some voters (independents, perhaps?) who do have some ethics not based on expediency — or, at least, Republican politicians think there are. Else, as I say, charging “virtue signaling” would be pointless.
I’m not even sure about that, based on what GOP voters – hoi polloi – say. From what I can tell, their belief is that we are ALL faking it, politicians and general population alike.
Casey, that may well be true. But there must be some voters (independents, perhaps?) who do have some ethics not based on expediency — or, at least, Republican politicians think there are. Else, as I say, charging “virtue signaling” would be pointless.
(i still think packing the Court is a shortsighted idea)
That depends. If you think Court packing will result in reversing the disenfranchisement of a significant number of votets? In particular for state level elections. That could change the complexion of politics to the point where it is not so shortsighted.
I might also note that “court packing”, for Federal courts below the Supreme Court level, is exactly what McConnell et al have been engaged in. To the point of putting in justices who are Not Qualified. Indeed, what they say thay have been trying to do. So perhaps, on that evidence, shortsighted indeed.
(i still think packing the Court is a shortsighted idea)
That depends. If you think Court packing will result in reversing the disenfranchisement of a significant number of votets? In particular for state level elections. That could change the complexion of politics to the point where it is not so shortsighted.
I might also note that “court packing”, for Federal courts below the Supreme Court level, is exactly what McConnell et al have been engaged in. To the point of putting in justices who are Not Qualified. Indeed, what they say thay have been trying to do. So perhaps, on that evidence, shortsighted indeed.
i think Casey nails it.
when the GOP doesn’t want to address an issue it says the issue doesn’t exist and that the left is just trying to make everybody feel bad by saying there is (as part of the left’s ongoing plot to %%Q-ADJACENT-CONSPIRACY%%)
that way, the GOP laity doesn’t need to wonder if maybe the left is onto something. there’s nothing there and the left was just faking it. problem obviated.
i think Casey nails it.
when the GOP doesn’t want to address an issue it says the issue doesn’t exist and that the left is just trying to make everybody feel bad by saying there is (as part of the left’s ongoing plot to %%Q-ADJACENT-CONSPIRACY%%)
that way, the GOP laity doesn’t need to wonder if maybe the left is onto something. there’s nothing there and the left was just faking it. problem obviated.
That depends. If you think Court packing will result in reversing the disenfranchisement of a significant number of votets? I
i think it will ultimately destroy the Court and the judicial system as a whole.
That depends. If you think Court packing will result in reversing the disenfranchisement of a significant number of votets? I
i think it will ultimately destroy the Court and the judicial system as a whole.
To the point of putting in justices who are Not Qualified.
On that, it occurs to me to wonder: is it not possible to find enough attorneys who are both qualufied and conservative? (If not, why might that be?) So why not nominate them?
The best explanation I can come up with is that it’s part of signaling distain for elites. To show that disregard for expertise extends beyong just scientists and diplomats. Would their base carry that to disliking of expertise to their own personal physicians** and auto mechanics? Inquiring minds want to know….
** OK, stipulated that the antivaxxers would. But even on the right, they are a small, albeit loud, minority.
To the point of putting in justices who are Not Qualified.
On that, it occurs to me to wonder: is it not possible to find enough attorneys who are both qualufied and conservative? (If not, why might that be?) So why not nominate them?
The best explanation I can come up with is that it’s part of signaling distain for elites. To show that disregard for expertise extends beyong just scientists and diplomats. Would their base carry that to disliking of expertise to their own personal physicians** and auto mechanics? Inquiring minds want to know….
** OK, stipulated that the antivaxxers would. But even on the right, they are a small, albeit loud, minority.
I see the first poll on the issue has over 60% of respondents saying the pick should wait for the next elected President.
Perceived fairness tends to overwhelm sophistry in the end.
I came across this delightful RBG story which I’d not seen before. Made me smile.
https://twitter.com/shershovitz/status/1307704249220911105
I see the first poll on the issue has over 60% of respondents saying the pick should wait for the next elected President.
Perceived fairness tends to overwhelm sophistry in the end.
I came across this delightful RBG story which I’d not seen before. Made me smile.
https://twitter.com/shershovitz/status/1307704249220911105
That was me, btw.
Not claiming to be nice.
That was me, btw.
Not claiming to be nice.
i think it will ultimately destroy the Court and the judicial system as a whole.
Brinkmanship over the Supreme Court isn’t ideal, I agree. I’m wondering how it’s not destroying the Court to have allowed McConnell to annul Obama’s right to choose a Justice, and then turn around and pack the court with Ginsberg’s replacement, not to mention an entire Federal bench full of unqualified (according to the standards of the American Bar Association) ideologues. The Court may or may not overturn the ACA. Maybe they won’t do the worst we fear. But it would be more disingenuous of Democrats to wait and see than it would to just say that, on principal, we have to enforce some fairness.
I think the ruin may have already occurred. Certainly it’s not going to be fixed in my lifetime without some extraordinary events or measures.
i think it will ultimately destroy the Court and the judicial system as a whole.
Brinkmanship over the Supreme Court isn’t ideal, I agree. I’m wondering how it’s not destroying the Court to have allowed McConnell to annul Obama’s right to choose a Justice, and then turn around and pack the court with Ginsberg’s replacement, not to mention an entire Federal bench full of unqualified (according to the standards of the American Bar Association) ideologues. The Court may or may not overturn the ACA. Maybe they won’t do the worst we fear. But it would be more disingenuous of Democrats to wait and see than it would to just say that, on principal, we have to enforce some fairness.
I think the ruin may have already occurred. Certainly it’s not going to be fixed in my lifetime without some extraordinary events or measures.
I can see cleek’s argument about the downside of stacking the court, but at the moment, and given McConnell’s (and Graham’s et al) barefaced shamelessness and corruption, I can’t see any alternative. I am starting (quite contrary to my normal view) to agree with those who say that unless the Dems threaten to play hardball, and then do so, the Rs will go on as they have been, only more and more outrageously. Very soon, there would be no way for the majority of the population ever to see their political choices elected, or their preferred policies enacted. As Pro Bono said, it would be impossible to regard this as democracy.
I can see cleek’s argument about the downside of stacking the court, but at the moment, and given McConnell’s (and Graham’s et al) barefaced shamelessness and corruption, I can’t see any alternative. I am starting (quite contrary to my normal view) to agree with those who say that unless the Dems threaten to play hardball, and then do so, the Rs will go on as they have been, only more and more outrageously. Very soon, there would be no way for the majority of the population ever to see their political choices elected, or their preferred policies enacted. As Pro Bono said, it would be impossible to regard this as democracy.
I just lost a comment. Shorter me: I used to worry about the adviseability of stacking the court, but can now see no alternative. McConnell’s (and Graham’s et al) barefaced shamelessness (and corruption) mean that the Dems must bite the bullet, threaten, and if necessary act. Otherwise, and it wouldn’t take long, there would be no way (what with gerrymandering further legitimised by a 6:3 court) for the majority of the population to ever see their preferred politicians elected, or their preferred policies enacted in their country. As Pro Bono says, you could not then claim to be a democracy.
I just lost a comment. Shorter me: I used to worry about the adviseability of stacking the court, but can now see no alternative. McConnell’s (and Graham’s et al) barefaced shamelessness (and corruption) mean that the Dems must bite the bullet, threaten, and if necessary act. Otherwise, and it wouldn’t take long, there would be no way (what with gerrymandering further legitimised by a 6:3 court) for the majority of the population to ever see their preferred politicians elected, or their preferred policies enacted in their country. As Pro Bono says, you could not then claim to be a democracy.
I’m wondering how it’s not destroying the Court to …
the primary problem there is with the Senate, McConnell specifically.
the nomination process pre-Garland wasn’t ideal. but it was at least reasonable – a President could be expected get his nominees through. now that’s gone thanks to McConnell.
permanently changing the nature of the Court in order to (temporarily) undo what McConnell has wrought is an entirely different thing.
I’m wondering how it’s not destroying the Court to …
the primary problem there is with the Senate, McConnell specifically.
the nomination process pre-Garland wasn’t ideal. but it was at least reasonable – a President could be expected get his nominees through. now that’s gone thanks to McConnell.
permanently changing the nature of the Court in order to (temporarily) undo what McConnell has wrought is an entirely different thing.
What GftNC said.
What GftNC said.
Hey, somebody with the keys, I just lost two comments! I’d be very grateful if someone could rescue the second.
Hey, somebody with the keys, I just lost two comments! I’d be very grateful if someone could rescue the second.
Sorry, didn’t realise we’d gone onto a new page!
Sorry, didn’t realise we’d gone onto a new page!
I used to worry about the adviseability of stacking the court, but can now see no alternative.
this really feels like a “We must do something! This is something!” moment.
the cure would be at least at bad as the disease.
yes, Dems would feel good for a few years. but that would turn to anguish the second the GOP wins the WH and Congress – and that could be sooner than hoped-for. court packing would create backlash.
I used to worry about the adviseability of stacking the court, but can now see no alternative.
this really feels like a “We must do something! This is something!” moment.
the cure would be at least at bad as the disease.
yes, Dems would feel good for a few years. but that would turn to anguish the second the GOP wins the WH and Congress – and that could be sooner than hoped-for. court packing would create backlash.
cleek, I really get what you are saying, and was of your mind until this. But what do you think is the alternative, given a 6:3 court, and the possible destruction of the ACA, overturning of Roe v Wade, solidification of gerrymandering etc? Quite apart from the fact that all of this would be contrary to the will of the majority of the American people, how do you suppose future elections would go?
cleek, I really get what you are saying, and was of your mind until this. But what do you think is the alternative, given a 6:3 court, and the possible destruction of the ACA, overturning of Roe v Wade, solidification of gerrymandering etc? Quite apart from the fact that all of this would be contrary to the will of the majority of the American people, how do you suppose future elections would go?
permanently changing the nature of the Court in order to (temporarily) undo what McConnell has wrought is an entirely different thing.
If Democrats (by some crazy luck) ever have a majority on the Court, you’d better believe that Republicans will stack it. Ever since Republicans went full-on crazytown, they have had a majority on the Supreme Court, although it’s been close, with some occasional moderate defectors. Soon, there will be an ideological lock. And, yes, there were some pleasant surprises with the Trump tax case, and a couple of other matters, even with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. But itt seems more cynical (to me) to wait to see whether that continues than to stand on principle regarding the Garland/Ginsberg replacement.
If they hold off on the Ginsberg replacement, I don’t think the number should be increased. If they replace her, it should. If I didn’t strongly believe that Republicans are out of the barn with norm-busting, I would hold your view, cleek. But we have no way to be legitimately represented again with Republicans disposed to power at all costs.
permanently changing the nature of the Court in order to (temporarily) undo what McConnell has wrought is an entirely different thing.
If Democrats (by some crazy luck) ever have a majority on the Court, you’d better believe that Republicans will stack it. Ever since Republicans went full-on crazytown, they have had a majority on the Supreme Court, although it’s been close, with some occasional moderate defectors. Soon, there will be an ideological lock. And, yes, there were some pleasant surprises with the Trump tax case, and a couple of other matters, even with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. But itt seems more cynical (to me) to wait to see whether that continues than to stand on principle regarding the Garland/Ginsberg replacement.
If they hold off on the Ginsberg replacement, I don’t think the number should be increased. If they replace her, it should. If I didn’t strongly believe that Republicans are out of the barn with norm-busting, I would hold your view, cleek. But we have no way to be legitimately represented again with Republicans disposed to power at all costs.
But what do you think is the alternative, given a 6:3 court, and the possible destruction of the ACA, overturning of Roe v Wade, solidification of gerrymandering etc?
i don’t know what the alternative is. but again, just because this is something that can be done doesn’t make it a prudent thing, or a good thing, to do.
it feels like revenge, not a way to get a better country.
—
If Democrats (by some crazy luck) ever have a majority on the Court, you’d better believe that Republicans will stack it.
maybe. but the Dems are talking about doing it right now (well, the Dem base is, actual politicians aren’t so much). the GOP isn’t.
and nobody has come close to convincing me it’s not going to play out the way i described. exchanging a disaster that the GOP made for one the Dems made doesn’t sound like a good plan to me.
But what do you think is the alternative, given a 6:3 court, and the possible destruction of the ACA, overturning of Roe v Wade, solidification of gerrymandering etc?
i don’t know what the alternative is. but again, just because this is something that can be done doesn’t make it a prudent thing, or a good thing, to do.
it feels like revenge, not a way to get a better country.
—
If Democrats (by some crazy luck) ever have a majority on the Court, you’d better believe that Republicans will stack it.
maybe. but the Dems are talking about doing it right now (well, the Dem base is, actual politicians aren’t so much). the GOP isn’t.
and nobody has come close to convincing me it’s not going to play out the way i described. exchanging a disaster that the GOP made for one the Dems made doesn’t sound like a good plan to me.
If they hold off on the Ginsberg replacement, I don’t think the number should be increased. If they replace her, it should. If I didn’t strongly believe that Republicans are out of the barn with norm-busting, I would hold your view, cleek. But we have no way to be legitimately represented again with Republicans disposed to power at all costs.
What sapient said. Of course, it’s bitter to have e.g. Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS, and no Merrick Garland, but even so.
If they hold off on the Ginsberg replacement, I don’t think the number should be increased. If they replace her, it should. If I didn’t strongly believe that Republicans are out of the barn with norm-busting, I would hold your view, cleek. But we have no way to be legitimately represented again with Republicans disposed to power at all costs.
What sapient said. Of course, it’s bitter to have e.g. Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS, and no Merrick Garland, but even so.
The court-packing idea has been discussed endlessly at Balloon-Juice. I’m not going to try to reconstruct all the facets — it’s many-tentacled and complex.
Here’s David Anderson:
I’m not endorsing this particular thought train, or any other with this comment, just pointing out that thoughtful people are proposing courses of action with much more complexity than just “We must do something! This is something!”
We must, in fact, do something, or, as russell said @3:58, we will lose our democracy. Hence: There is going to be payback. Not dumb-ass right-wing “we’re gonna shoot you all” payback, but legal, Constitutionally sound, legitimate payback. The means of thwarting the wishes of *most people in this country* will be taken away from the (R)’s.
The court-packing idea has been discussed endlessly at Balloon-Juice. I’m not going to try to reconstruct all the facets — it’s many-tentacled and complex.
Here’s David Anderson:
I’m not endorsing this particular thought train, or any other with this comment, just pointing out that thoughtful people are proposing courses of action with much more complexity than just “We must do something! This is something!”
We must, in fact, do something, or, as russell said @3:58, we will lose our democracy. Hence: There is going to be payback. Not dumb-ass right-wing “we’re gonna shoot you all” payback, but legal, Constitutionally sound, legitimate payback. The means of thwarting the wishes of *most people in this country* will be taken away from the (R)’s.
it feels like revenge
I understand the feeling, but it wouldn’t be revenge. It would be the only way to try to restore some fairness to the system, which has been remorselessly gamed with a complete lack of integrity. russell has a good post on another thread with quotations from the Federalist Papers concerning the will of the majority being held hostage by the minority. It is impossible for that to continue for any length of time, and for democracy to continue.
it feels like revenge
I understand the feeling, but it wouldn’t be revenge. It would be the only way to try to restore some fairness to the system, which has been remorselessly gamed with a complete lack of integrity. russell has a good post on another thread with quotations from the Federalist Papers concerning the will of the majority being held hostage by the minority. It is impossible for that to continue for any length of time, and for democracy to continue.
There are a lot of things at stake here. Not only the ACA, women’s reproductive rights, voting rights. Social Security, and the entire infrastructure (“the administrative state”) is opposed by some of these people. The situation is dire.
There are a lot of things at stake here. Not only the ACA, women’s reproductive rights, voting rights. Social Security, and the entire infrastructure (“the administrative state”) is opposed by some of these people. The situation is dire.
And I see from BJ that ActBlue reports $100 million has been raised since Friday night. This is extremely cheering.
And I see from BJ that ActBlue reports $100 million has been raised since Friday night. This is extremely cheering.
Here’s a solution: Trump could nominate Garland.
Think that’ll happen?
I’d trade court packing for non-lifetime tenure – 20 years, say? – but that would require an Amendment. So no dice, most likely.
What we have now is unacceptable.
Here’s a solution: Trump could nominate Garland.
Think that’ll happen?
I’d trade court packing for non-lifetime tenure – 20 years, say? – but that would require an Amendment. So no dice, most likely.
What we have now is unacceptable.
I am starting (quite contrary to my normal view) to agree with those who say that unless the Dems threaten to play hardball, and then do so, the Rs will go on as they have been, only more and more outrageously.
In short, they have embraced (if they hadn’t already) the Trump approach of, if I didn’t actually get punished, personally and severely, for something, then I’m free to keep doing it. See Trump’s post impeachment behavior.
Among civilized adults, this kind of grammer school tit for tat is generally avoided. But that’s not what we’re dealing with. Even beyond Trump, who everyone including his own staff agrees is neither adult nor civilized.
Doing something may feel like revenge. It may even be revenge. But sometimes it takes a 2×4 up side the head to communicate the point that a particular behavior won’t be tolerated.
I am starting (quite contrary to my normal view) to agree with those who say that unless the Dems threaten to play hardball, and then do so, the Rs will go on as they have been, only more and more outrageously.
In short, they have embraced (if they hadn’t already) the Trump approach of, if I didn’t actually get punished, personally and severely, for something, then I’m free to keep doing it. See Trump’s post impeachment behavior.
Among civilized adults, this kind of grammer school tit for tat is generally avoided. But that’s not what we’re dealing with. Even beyond Trump, who everyone including his own staff agrees is neither adult nor civilized.
Doing something may feel like revenge. It may even be revenge. But sometimes it takes a 2×4 up side the head to communicate the point that a particular behavior won’t be tolerated.
Norms once broken cannot be unilaterally restored. So if Republicans firmly establish “anything that is not strictly forbidden by the Constitution is permitted” as the de facto norm of governance, Democrats should act in kind should they win in November. This will not be an easy path for the clearly norm-loving Democratic establishment to follow, but constitutional hardball is a much better alternative for the people they represent than the Supreme Court being under the decades-long control of a political faction that has given up even trying to appeal to the majority of the American people.
Norms once broken cannot be unilaterally restored. So if Republicans firmly establish “anything that is not strictly forbidden by the Constitution is permitted” as the de facto norm of governance, Democrats should act in kind should they win in November. This will not be an easy path for the clearly norm-loving Democratic establishment to follow, but constitutional hardball is a much better alternative for the people they represent than the Supreme Court being under the decades-long control of a political faction that has given up even trying to appeal to the majority of the American people.
And please, don’t count on persuading so-called independents. That does not appear to be how it works.
And please, don’t count on persuading so-called independents. That does not appear to be how it works.
why the GOP wouldn’t then do the exact same thing as soon as they get a chance
They do it in any event, don’t you understand this? They are doing it now. Putting somebody like Amy Barrett on the SC is just gilding the lily.
Even if, you-know-who willing, the GOP is “ground to dust” this November, is your corrective to simply work for 50 years to replace the reactionaries in the federal courts as they slowly die off and let them effectively blunt all progressive policies in the meantime?
This strikes me as politically untenable, and might well lead to even worse outcomes.
why the GOP wouldn’t then do the exact same thing as soon as they get a chance
They do it in any event, don’t you understand this? They are doing it now. Putting somebody like Amy Barrett on the SC is just gilding the lily.
Even if, you-know-who willing, the GOP is “ground to dust” this November, is your corrective to simply work for 50 years to replace the reactionaries in the federal courts as they slowly die off and let them effectively blunt all progressive policies in the meantime?
This strikes me as politically untenable, and might well lead to even worse outcomes.
The arguments against several of the Democrats’ possible courses of action seem to come down to this:
Don’t do this because, if you do, the Republicans will do the same back, next time they can.
The trouble with that argument is, in several cases, the Republicans already have. And there’s no indications that they would behave better next time, if only the Democrats exercise restraint now.
The arguments against several of the Democrats’ possible courses of action seem to come down to this:
Don’t do this because, if you do, the Republicans will do the same back, next time they can.
The trouble with that argument is, in several cases, the Republicans already have. And there’s no indications that they would behave better next time, if only the Democrats exercise restraint now.
The court-packing idea has been discussed endlessly at Balloon-Juice.
and elsewhere. and i remain unconvinced.
revenge is not a good plan for a stable well-functioning government.
because the side winning a tit-for-tat battle will voluntarily back down? you’re voting for the woman who says “maybe we should let the GOP have a say!”
thoughtful people are proposing courses of action with much more complexity than just “We must do something! This is something!”
there’s nothing there that’s any more thoughtful that what’s been said here. and i’ve seen nothing better anywhere else. the arguments for are “revenge!” and “we must act!”. they fall short.
i realize i’m in the minority here.
but, i’m on record.
The court-packing idea has been discussed endlessly at Balloon-Juice.
and elsewhere. and i remain unconvinced.
revenge is not a good plan for a stable well-functioning government.
because the side winning a tit-for-tat battle will voluntarily back down? you’re voting for the woman who says “maybe we should let the GOP have a say!”
thoughtful people are proposing courses of action with much more complexity than just “We must do something! This is something!”
there’s nothing there that’s any more thoughtful that what’s been said here. and i’ve seen nothing better anywhere else. the arguments for are “revenge!” and “we must act!”. they fall short.
i realize i’m in the minority here.
but, i’m on record.
The trouble with that argument is, in several cases, the Republicans already have. And there’s no indications that they would behave better next time, if only the Democrats exercise restraint now.
the GOP hasn’t increased the size of the Court for partisan gain. but they will, if the Dems do. it’s a certainty. and then it’s a ratchet.
The trouble with that argument is, in several cases, the Republicans already have. And there’s no indications that they would behave better next time, if only the Democrats exercise restraint now.
the GOP hasn’t increased the size of the Court for partisan gain. but they will, if the Dems do. it’s a certainty. and then it’s a ratchet.
They do it in any event, don’t you understand this? They are doing it now.
for fuck’s sake, they. are. not.
they have not altered the structure of the Court. they have abused Senate norms to put their people on the Court. you’re advocating changing the nature of the Court. the GOP hasn’t done that, yet.
They do it in any event, don’t you understand this? They are doing it now.
for fuck’s sake, they. are. not.
they have not altered the structure of the Court. they have abused Senate norms to put their people on the Court. you’re advocating changing the nature of the Court. the GOP hasn’t done that, yet.
it feels like revenge, not a way to get a better country.
First of all, talking ain’t doing. The fact that people are talking about increasing the number of SCOTUS justices is several miles away from actually making it happen.
Second of all, it’s not revenge. Should it happen, it’s a response to blatant provocation. If you don’t respond, forcefully, to a bully when it pisses on your shoes, it will keep pissing on your shoes. Forever. Until you fight back.
Yeah, it’s “just McConnell”. But the entire (R) party has chosen to line up behind McConnell. So actually it’s not “just McConnell”.
i don’t know what the alternative is.
Yeah, me either.
There have, at various points, been 5, or 6, or 7, or 9, or 10 SCOTUS justices. SCOTUS justices used to also be circuit court justices; they would spend part of their time sitting on circuit courts, and part of their time on the SCOTUS.
We’ve had 9 SCOTUS justice since 1869, and they haven’t done double duty on the circuit court since 1891.
So, things were kind of fluid for about 100 years, and they’ve been stable for about 150. All things being equal, in the realm of governance stable is nicer than fluid, but it’s not an iron law.
If the (D)’s somehow gain the opportunity to increase the number of justices, and decide to do so, it won’t be the end of the world. They could just as easily decide to decrease the number of justices to 7, and dethrone Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
Would that be suitable?
None of that would be any more or less outrageous than telling the most popular POTUS in the last 30 years that his nominee for SCOTUS would not even be brought to the Senate floor for a vote.
Trump could nominate a moderate. He will not do so. McConnell could, out of respect for Ginsburg’s last wishes and from a basic sense of fairness, decline to bring whoever Trump nominates to a vote until and unless Trump prevails in November. The (R) party as a body could, out of a basic sense of fairness, decline to bring any nominee to a vote until the election has been decided.
None of those people will do any of those things.
So I don’t see the (D)’s as being under any obligation to bow to tradition here.
IMO bumping up the number of justices would be disruptive. And I’m not sure that is unwarranted at this point.
Trump and/or the (R)’s can head this off anytime they like. Decline to nominate someone until after the election, or nominate an obvious moderate.
Problem solved.
Why the f*** is it always the (D)’s job to be the bigger person? At what point is it legitimate for the rest of us to say we’re tired of being punked?
it feels like revenge, not a way to get a better country.
First of all, talking ain’t doing. The fact that people are talking about increasing the number of SCOTUS justices is several miles away from actually making it happen.
Second of all, it’s not revenge. Should it happen, it’s a response to blatant provocation. If you don’t respond, forcefully, to a bully when it pisses on your shoes, it will keep pissing on your shoes. Forever. Until you fight back.
Yeah, it’s “just McConnell”. But the entire (R) party has chosen to line up behind McConnell. So actually it’s not “just McConnell”.
i don’t know what the alternative is.
Yeah, me either.
There have, at various points, been 5, or 6, or 7, or 9, or 10 SCOTUS justices. SCOTUS justices used to also be circuit court justices; they would spend part of their time sitting on circuit courts, and part of their time on the SCOTUS.
We’ve had 9 SCOTUS justice since 1869, and they haven’t done double duty on the circuit court since 1891.
So, things were kind of fluid for about 100 years, and they’ve been stable for about 150. All things being equal, in the realm of governance stable is nicer than fluid, but it’s not an iron law.
If the (D)’s somehow gain the opportunity to increase the number of justices, and decide to do so, it won’t be the end of the world. They could just as easily decide to decrease the number of justices to 7, and dethrone Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
Would that be suitable?
None of that would be any more or less outrageous than telling the most popular POTUS in the last 30 years that his nominee for SCOTUS would not even be brought to the Senate floor for a vote.
Trump could nominate a moderate. He will not do so. McConnell could, out of respect for Ginsburg’s last wishes and from a basic sense of fairness, decline to bring whoever Trump nominates to a vote until and unless Trump prevails in November. The (R) party as a body could, out of a basic sense of fairness, decline to bring any nominee to a vote until the election has been decided.
None of those people will do any of those things.
So I don’t see the (D)’s as being under any obligation to bow to tradition here.
IMO bumping up the number of justices would be disruptive. And I’m not sure that is unwarranted at this point.
Trump and/or the (R)’s can head this off anytime they like. Decline to nominate someone until after the election, or nominate an obvious moderate.
Problem solved.
Why the f*** is it always the (D)’s job to be the bigger person? At what point is it legitimate for the rest of us to say we’re tired of being punked?
[you’re advocating a changing the rules of the game.
there was supposed to be a “?” at the end]
[you’re advocating a changing the rules of the game.
there was supposed to be a “?” at the end]
It would be the only way to try to restore some fairness to the system,
sorry, but no.
fairness would be a scheme that removes the partisan inputs, or limits the chance for partisan outcomes. fairness isn’t changing the rules so that one side gets to say what’s law and what isn’t until the point where it loses all three branches of government, whereupon the other side gets to run roughshod.
2032, the GOP gets all branches installs 875 Justices, lines up the cases, and BOOM – every fucking liberal law and regulation and rule is gone. utterly gone.
until the Dems get control again.
what kind of climate is that for anything? we’d be a goddamned banana republic.
it’s just so fucking stupid. i can’t believe you all are falling for this.
It would be the only way to try to restore some fairness to the system,
sorry, but no.
fairness would be a scheme that removes the partisan inputs, or limits the chance for partisan outcomes. fairness isn’t changing the rules so that one side gets to say what’s law and what isn’t until the point where it loses all three branches of government, whereupon the other side gets to run roughshod.
2032, the GOP gets all branches installs 875 Justices, lines up the cases, and BOOM – every fucking liberal law and regulation and rule is gone. utterly gone.
until the Dems get control again.
what kind of climate is that for anything? we’d be a goddamned banana republic.
it’s just so fucking stupid. i can’t believe you all are falling for this.
Alternative #2:
If Trump and McConnell push somebody through, bump the number of justices to 11.
The nominally conservative side of the court retains their majority. They just have to actually work for their wins.
How’s that? Fair enough?
The fear here seems to be that if the (D)’s increase the number of justices, it will spark some kind of SCOTUS arms race. Every time one party holds both the WH and the Senate, they will add more justices to the SCOTUS.
I guess that could happen, but it would devolve into farce pretty quickly.
If the nation will abide a farce, then I guess we might get a farce.
Trump and the (R)’s can head this problem off in a NY minute. Decline to nominate somebody, or nominate a moderate.
Problem solved.
Speaking for myself, I’m sick of playing Charlie Brown holding the football for Lucy.
If fairness doesn’t go 2 ways, it’s not fairness.
Alternative #2:
If Trump and McConnell push somebody through, bump the number of justices to 11.
The nominally conservative side of the court retains their majority. They just have to actually work for their wins.
How’s that? Fair enough?
The fear here seems to be that if the (D)’s increase the number of justices, it will spark some kind of SCOTUS arms race. Every time one party holds both the WH and the Senate, they will add more justices to the SCOTUS.
I guess that could happen, but it would devolve into farce pretty quickly.
If the nation will abide a farce, then I guess we might get a farce.
Trump and the (R)’s can head this problem off in a NY minute. Decline to nominate somebody, or nominate a moderate.
Problem solved.
Speaking for myself, I’m sick of playing Charlie Brown holding the football for Lucy.
If fairness doesn’t go 2 ways, it’s not fairness.
fairness isn’t changing the rules
The rule is that Congress decides how many SCOTUS justices there are. Article III, section 1.
That is the rule in question.
People talk about this stuff like every detail of governance is set in stone. It’s not, and quite a number of things that are “set in stone” are so as a matter of precedent and practice, not law.
If we want 10,000 SCOTUS justices, we can have 10,000 SCOTUS justices. It would be absurd, but it’s not illegitimate.
Nothing magic about 9.
The issue here is whether some action by the (D)’s to impose a “liberal” majority on the SCOTUS would create outcomes that we don’t want.
That’s a reasonable question. But that’s the question.
So don’t impose a “liberal” majority. Raise the number to 11. Make the conservatives work for their wins.
Or drop the number to 7. Last two go home, and we end up with 4 conservative and 3 liberal.
Why do any of this? Because the (R)’s are not, in any way whatsoever, respecting the fact that they represent a minority of the population, and are seizing every opportunity to grab and hold power that they do not deserve.
So fucking fight back. Not talk, but actions. Actions that matter.
Enough of this shit.
fairness isn’t changing the rules
The rule is that Congress decides how many SCOTUS justices there are. Article III, section 1.
That is the rule in question.
People talk about this stuff like every detail of governance is set in stone. It’s not, and quite a number of things that are “set in stone” are so as a matter of precedent and practice, not law.
If we want 10,000 SCOTUS justices, we can have 10,000 SCOTUS justices. It would be absurd, but it’s not illegitimate.
Nothing magic about 9.
The issue here is whether some action by the (D)’s to impose a “liberal” majority on the SCOTUS would create outcomes that we don’t want.
That’s a reasonable question. But that’s the question.
So don’t impose a “liberal” majority. Raise the number to 11. Make the conservatives work for their wins.
Or drop the number to 7. Last two go home, and we end up with 4 conservative and 3 liberal.
Why do any of this? Because the (R)’s are not, in any way whatsoever, respecting the fact that they represent a minority of the population, and are seizing every opportunity to grab and hold power that they do not deserve.
So fucking fight back. Not talk, but actions. Actions that matter.
Enough of this shit.
My solution to all of this bullshit:
Trump nominates Garland.
Problem solved.
Let the f’ing (R)’s step up for once.
My solution to all of this bullshit:
Trump nominates Garland.
Problem solved.
Let the f’ing (R)’s step up for once.
Second of all, it’s not revenge. Should it happen, it’s a response to blatant provocation.
there’s a fuckton of revenge in this impulse. advocates everywhere make it clear. even here.
Yeah, it’s “just McConnell”. But the entire (R) party has chosen to line up behind McConnell. So actually it’s not “just McConnell”.
i’m not sure i said it was “just McConnell”. citation?
So I don’t see the (D)’s as being under any obligation to bow to tradition here.
i’m not sure i said anything about that, either.
i’m saying packing as defined by lefty yakkers => blowing up the Court as an institution. and no, i don’t think it’s blown up right now. the GOP has abused the process by which people get to the Court and have thereby rigged the expected outcomes. but the Court itself is going to function as it should. packing would be damage to the Court itself.
no, i don’t have a better proposal. but that doesn’t make packing a good one.
you know, maybe it’s not an actual Constitutional crisis. maybe the Dems just fucking lost.
elections. consequences. do better next time.
Second of all, it’s not revenge. Should it happen, it’s a response to blatant provocation.
there’s a fuckton of revenge in this impulse. advocates everywhere make it clear. even here.
Yeah, it’s “just McConnell”. But the entire (R) party has chosen to line up behind McConnell. So actually it’s not “just McConnell”.
i’m not sure i said it was “just McConnell”. citation?
So I don’t see the (D)’s as being under any obligation to bow to tradition here.
i’m not sure i said anything about that, either.
i’m saying packing as defined by lefty yakkers => blowing up the Court as an institution. and no, i don’t think it’s blown up right now. the GOP has abused the process by which people get to the Court and have thereby rigged the expected outcomes. but the Court itself is going to function as it should. packing would be damage to the Court itself.
no, i don’t have a better proposal. but that doesn’t make packing a good one.
you know, maybe it’s not an actual Constitutional crisis. maybe the Dems just fucking lost.
elections. consequences. do better next time.
If we want 10,000 SCOTUS justices, we can have 10,000 SCOTUS justices. It would be absurd, but it’s not illegitimate.
right. also, totally unworkable. and terrible.
not illegal != good.
we’ve been over this before.
If we want 10,000 SCOTUS justices, we can have 10,000 SCOTUS justices. It would be absurd, but it’s not illegitimate.
right. also, totally unworkable. and terrible.
not illegal != good.
we’ve been over this before.
I was going to suggest the thought experiement of Garland being nominated, which would then have the Dems retreat to their usual refusal to confront Republican bad faith, but the Republicans, as we can see from Marty’s sally here, have guzzled the kool-aid and can’t imagine a situation where they take a step back.
Ironically, they are adopting a ‘heighten the contradictions’ approach that seems positively Leninist. If they win, they win, if they lose, they can have people like Marty believe that it is Democrats that are behaving in bad faith. If they get their nominee (and I think they will, I don’t think there are enough levers of sufficient strength to stop them), the Dems are going to push for more justices (and elimination of the filibuster and adding PR and DC statehood).
I don’t know if it is projection, where they assume that the Democrats would behave in the same bad faith way they are, so they can’t give them a chance, or if it is something more existential, where they cannot imagine existing in a country where anyone would disagree with them. So it is the Republicans who want the Dems to behave in this way. They certainly aren’t going to give them any options to behave in any other way…
I was going to suggest the thought experiement of Garland being nominated, which would then have the Dems retreat to their usual refusal to confront Republican bad faith, but the Republicans, as we can see from Marty’s sally here, have guzzled the kool-aid and can’t imagine a situation where they take a step back.
Ironically, they are adopting a ‘heighten the contradictions’ approach that seems positively Leninist. If they win, they win, if they lose, they can have people like Marty believe that it is Democrats that are behaving in bad faith. If they get their nominee (and I think they will, I don’t think there are enough levers of sufficient strength to stop them), the Dems are going to push for more justices (and elimination of the filibuster and adding PR and DC statehood).
I don’t know if it is projection, where they assume that the Democrats would behave in the same bad faith way they are, so they can’t give them a chance, or if it is something more existential, where they cannot imagine existing in a country where anyone would disagree with them. So it is the Republicans who want the Dems to behave in this way. They certainly aren’t going to give them any options to behave in any other way…
Every time one party holds both the WH and the Senate, they will add more justices to the SCOTUS.
The number of Supreme Court justices is set by law. It therefore requires the agreement of the House (as well as the Senate) to change the number of justices. The Republicans have, in the current environment, a built-in advantage in the makeup of the Senate. (One which adding DC and Puerto Rico would reduce, but not eliminate.**)
But demography gives the Democrats a similar advantage in the House. Neither is insuperable; both are real. So while a back and forth escalation is possible, it may not be quite so rapid as you expect.
** I wonder if the increased feasibility of remote work might not lead to a drastic change in state demographics. Consider the way it has already changed politics around the cities in red states. Might it not have a similar impact on those states overall? If I’m a computer guy, I can work from Wyoming as easily as from Silicon Valley. And my salary will go much, much further. “Rural” may not always mean, politically, what it does today.
Every time one party holds both the WH and the Senate, they will add more justices to the SCOTUS.
The number of Supreme Court justices is set by law. It therefore requires the agreement of the House (as well as the Senate) to change the number of justices. The Republicans have, in the current environment, a built-in advantage in the makeup of the Senate. (One which adding DC and Puerto Rico would reduce, but not eliminate.**)
But demography gives the Democrats a similar advantage in the House. Neither is insuperable; both are real. So while a back and forth escalation is possible, it may not be quite so rapid as you expect.
** I wonder if the increased feasibility of remote work might not lead to a drastic change in state demographics. Consider the way it has already changed politics around the cities in red states. Might it not have a similar impact on those states overall? If I’m a computer guy, I can work from Wyoming as easily as from Silicon Valley. And my salary will go much, much further. “Rural” may not always mean, politically, what it does today.
but they will, if the Dems do.
They might anyway.
the GOP hasn’t done that, yet.
They haven’t had to, or they would have. They have had a majority for many years. It hasn’t been a lock, but it’s been a fairly reliable conservative majority.
They have ignored many norms, including the “blue slip.” They’ve ignored ABA assessment of qualification. They’ve done with judicial appointments what Trump has done with the Executive branch. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re getting paid, honestly. Look at the very questionable Kavanaugh issues (and I’m not talking about Blasie-Ford).
This has ALREADY changed the nature of the entire judiciary. If Republicans played by any rules at all, I wouldn’t be in favor of doing this. I’m the most conservative institutionalist on this blog, probably. But the courts are powerful, and the Republicans are good at cheating in elections. It’s extremely possible that all of this discussion is bs because they’re going to cheat their way to victory this November. I have no doubt that some states will.
It’s just not sustainable for the reasonable people in this country (who seem to disagree on a lot within their ranks) to have to overwhelm the polls in such huge numbers to overcome the cheating, as well as the flaws in our system such as the electoral college. If we don’t figure out a way to be represented, there’s going to be a war, and that’s certainly not what we want.
I am all for coming up for some other way: convince Republicans to be decent, or fight back within Constitutional parameters. If you really disagree with this, cleek, tell us how to avoid a court that dismantles the administrative state, including Social Security, Medicare, all of it. We’ll truly go back to the Victorian era. That’s what they want, and they will make it happen.
They’ll change the nature of things alright.
but they will, if the Dems do.
They might anyway.
the GOP hasn’t done that, yet.
They haven’t had to, or they would have. They have had a majority for many years. It hasn’t been a lock, but it’s been a fairly reliable conservative majority.
They have ignored many norms, including the “blue slip.” They’ve ignored ABA assessment of qualification. They’ve done with judicial appointments what Trump has done with the Executive branch. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re getting paid, honestly. Look at the very questionable Kavanaugh issues (and I’m not talking about Blasie-Ford).
This has ALREADY changed the nature of the entire judiciary. If Republicans played by any rules at all, I wouldn’t be in favor of doing this. I’m the most conservative institutionalist on this blog, probably. But the courts are powerful, and the Republicans are good at cheating in elections. It’s extremely possible that all of this discussion is bs because they’re going to cheat their way to victory this November. I have no doubt that some states will.
It’s just not sustainable for the reasonable people in this country (who seem to disagree on a lot within their ranks) to have to overwhelm the polls in such huge numbers to overcome the cheating, as well as the flaws in our system such as the electoral college. If we don’t figure out a way to be represented, there’s going to be a war, and that’s certainly not what we want.
I am all for coming up for some other way: convince Republicans to be decent, or fight back within Constitutional parameters. If you really disagree with this, cleek, tell us how to avoid a court that dismantles the administrative state, including Social Security, Medicare, all of it. We’ll truly go back to the Victorian era. That’s what they want, and they will make it happen.
They’ll change the nature of things alright.
Ironically, they are adopting a ‘heighten the contradictions’ approach that seems positively Leninist.
I noticed, decades ago, the remarkable number of individuals who moved from far left politics to far right politics, without ever spending an instant in between. (It seems there are those whose politics simply must be extremist. But what kind of extremist doesn’t much matter to them.) That might well give them some pre-established Leninist reflexes.
Ironically, they are adopting a ‘heighten the contradictions’ approach that seems positively Leninist.
I noticed, decades ago, the remarkable number of individuals who moved from far left politics to far right politics, without ever spending an instant in between. (It seems there are those whose politics simply must be extremist. But what kind of extremist doesn’t much matter to them.) That might well give them some pre-established Leninist reflexes.
I see by rereading my comment that it isn’t clear in paragraphs 1 and 2 who “they” is. There has long been a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. It gave us Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, etc.
My second paragraph is talking about Republican senators who have ignored norms for appointing judges.
I see by rereading my comment that it isn’t clear in paragraphs 1 and 2 who “they” is. There has long been a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. It gave us Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, etc.
My second paragraph is talking about Republican senators who have ignored norms for appointing judges.
If you really disagree with this, cleek, tell us how to avoid a court that dismantles the administrative state, including Social Security, Medicare, all of it.
i don’t have that answer. and i don’t think you do either. you have a proposal that seems to achieve nothing in the long run.
look, you all should know i don’t need to be told that the GOP is bad. i’m aware. and more importantly, that’s not the issue. the question is: is the packing proposal good or not? telling me the GOP is bad doesn’t answer that question. it works as a lead-in, but it doesn’t answer the question.
at least not to me.
[please remember: we’re on the same side?]
If you really disagree with this, cleek, tell us how to avoid a court that dismantles the administrative state, including Social Security, Medicare, all of it.
i don’t have that answer. and i don’t think you do either. you have a proposal that seems to achieve nothing in the long run.
look, you all should know i don’t need to be told that the GOP is bad. i’m aware. and more importantly, that’s not the issue. the question is: is the packing proposal good or not? telling me the GOP is bad doesn’t answer that question. it works as a lead-in, but it doesn’t answer the question.
at least not to me.
[please remember: we’re on the same side?]
they have abused Senate norms to put their people on the Court.
We (I hope) have some kind of democracy. Our democracy depends, to a great extent, on mutually agreed to and respected norms, not just “structures”. The GOP is trashing them. This is trashing democracy. This is going down a road that will, if unchecked, reduce us to minority rule or worse. How’s that for “altering structures”?
We have already endured a lawless Supreme Court that handed the presidency to Bush in 2000. The GOP has won the presidency by clear majority vote only 1 out of the last 8 elections. They have made it clear that if they control the Senate that no Dem President will get a nominee through. EVER. Structure you say? There’s some structure for you. With a 6-3 hard core reactionary court, they will blunt and overturn all progressive policies, past, present, future. How’s that for “structure”?
I repeat. The new Constitutional rule is this: If it is not expressly forbidden, it is permitted. This new norm flies in the face of our history…the history where the Supremes go along (sometimes grudgingly) with the political majority in place. This is not the first time this kind of battle has taken place.
That’s the hand we are being dealt. You have not rebutted Lemieux’s argument in any substantive way.
With all due respect. I dissent. Forcefully.
they have abused Senate norms to put their people on the Court.
We (I hope) have some kind of democracy. Our democracy depends, to a great extent, on mutually agreed to and respected norms, not just “structures”. The GOP is trashing them. This is trashing democracy. This is going down a road that will, if unchecked, reduce us to minority rule or worse. How’s that for “altering structures”?
We have already endured a lawless Supreme Court that handed the presidency to Bush in 2000. The GOP has won the presidency by clear majority vote only 1 out of the last 8 elections. They have made it clear that if they control the Senate that no Dem President will get a nominee through. EVER. Structure you say? There’s some structure for you. With a 6-3 hard core reactionary court, they will blunt and overturn all progressive policies, past, present, future. How’s that for “structure”?
I repeat. The new Constitutional rule is this: If it is not expressly forbidden, it is permitted. This new norm flies in the face of our history…the history where the Supremes go along (sometimes grudgingly) with the political majority in place. This is not the first time this kind of battle has taken place.
That’s the hand we are being dealt. You have not rebutted Lemieux’s argument in any substantive way.
With all due respect. I dissent. Forcefully.
the question is: is the packing proposal good or not?
Actually, I have the impression that it’s somewhat different. The actual question seems to be
Will it work
a) in the short term, and
b) in the long run?
Unless you repurpose “good” and “bad” to something like “workable” / “unworkable” ….
the question is: is the packing proposal good or not?
Actually, I have the impression that it’s somewhat different. The actual question seems to be
Will it work
a) in the short term, and
b) in the long run?
Unless you repurpose “good” and “bad” to something like “workable” / “unworkable” ….
I wonder if the increased feasibility of remote work might not lead to a drastic change in state demographics.
What a lot of employers may discover is that, if an employee can work from home, they can also work from India.
I wonder if the increased feasibility of remote work might not lead to a drastic change in state demographics.
What a lot of employers may discover is that, if an employee can work from home, they can also work from India.
The number of supreme court justices is not a “structure”. it is a norm, a tradition, a convenience.
Changing that number has been done in the past.
As for characterizing our points as “fucking stupid” I would suggest an apology is in order.
The number of supreme court justices is not a “structure”. it is a norm, a tradition, a convenience.
Changing that number has been done in the past.
As for characterizing our points as “fucking stupid” I would suggest an apology is in order.
What a lot of employers may discover is that, if an employee can work from home, they can also work from India.
Um, I’m not sure this is news.
On the most obvious level, have you never called a help line, only to get someone with an Indian accent so thick that you can barely understand half the words they say?
I worked mostly from my home in Maine for a company headquartered in Cambridge. I had colleagues who worked mostly from their homes in SF, NZ, Denver…..
What a lot of employers may discover is that, if an employee can work from home, they can also work from India.
Um, I’m not sure this is news.
On the most obvious level, have you never called a help line, only to get someone with an Indian accent so thick that you can barely understand half the words they say?
I worked mostly from my home in Maine for a company headquartered in Cambridge. I had colleagues who worked mostly from their homes in SF, NZ, Denver…..
elections. consequences. do better next time.
First, this entire discussion assumes the (D)’s “do better next time”. Absent that, the topic is moot. The question is, should the (D)’s “do better next time”, should they make a substantive response to (R) obstruction of a (D) POTUS’s constitutional prerogative to name a SCOTUS justice, in the interest of packing the court with Federalist idealogues?
Is there another way to read the refusal to bring Garland’s nomination to a vote?
What you are asking for is that the (D)’s meet obvious provocation with grace.
For the good of the nation.
Would that actually be good for the nation? Why are (D)’s required to “observe the rules” that (R)’s happily ignore?
elections. consequences. do better next time.
First, this entire discussion assumes the (D)’s “do better next time”. Absent that, the topic is moot. The question is, should the (D)’s “do better next time”, should they make a substantive response to (R) obstruction of a (D) POTUS’s constitutional prerogative to name a SCOTUS justice, in the interest of packing the court with Federalist idealogues?
Is there another way to read the refusal to bring Garland’s nomination to a vote?
What you are asking for is that the (D)’s meet obvious provocation with grace.
For the good of the nation.
Would that actually be good for the nation? Why are (D)’s required to “observe the rules” that (R)’s happily ignore?
What a lot of employers may discover is that, if an employee can work from home, they can also work from India.
They discovered that a decade or two ago. More recently, they have been discovering that there are cultural and other issues which limit what kinds of work are fine to do there.
I’ve watched a couple of companies which had been moving their entire IT departments to India to reduce costs. But discovered that there were problems. Problems which slashed or totally eliminated the expected savings. To the point that they reversed course abruptly.
What a lot of employers may discover is that, if an employee can work from home, they can also work from India.
They discovered that a decade or two ago. More recently, they have been discovering that there are cultural and other issues which limit what kinds of work are fine to do there.
I’ve watched a couple of companies which had been moving their entire IT departments to India to reduce costs. But discovered that there were problems. Problems which slashed or totally eliminated the expected savings. To the point that they reversed course abruptly.
There has long been a conservative majority on the Supreme Court
We have had a conservative Supreme Court pretty much since Nixon bulldozed and schemed his nominees through after the initial rejection of Haynesworth and Carswell. In the intervening 50 or so years, we have had a a society that is more diverse, and more liberal.
The breaking point may be near, given the mass psychosis on the right. All the talk about “preserving structures” won’t mean jack diddly squat under that scenario.
“Elections have consequences. Win them.” I remember when Karl Rove said that. LOL.
There has long been a conservative majority on the Supreme Court
We have had a conservative Supreme Court pretty much since Nixon bulldozed and schemed his nominees through after the initial rejection of Haynesworth and Carswell. In the intervening 50 or so years, we have had a a society that is more diverse, and more liberal.
The breaking point may be near, given the mass psychosis on the right. All the talk about “preserving structures” won’t mean jack diddly squat under that scenario.
“Elections have consequences. Win them.” I remember when Karl Rove said that. LOL.
if an employee can work from home, they can also work from India.
Since we appear to be pursuing this aside:
If I hear someone say “just outsource it to India”, then I know I’m dealing with an idiot.
Not because there is anything wrong with Indian engineers, because there isn’t.
But because, as wj notes, there are a million cultural and logistical reasons why that may not be a good play.
Work, and workers, are not fungible. Management by spreadsheet is not management, it’s laziness.
Over and out.
if an employee can work from home, they can also work from India.
Since we appear to be pursuing this aside:
If I hear someone say “just outsource it to India”, then I know I’m dealing with an idiot.
Not because there is anything wrong with Indian engineers, because there isn’t.
But because, as wj notes, there are a million cultural and logistical reasons why that may not be a good play.
Work, and workers, are not fungible. Management by spreadsheet is not management, it’s laziness.
Over and out.
I hope this is not out of line, but I’ll psycho analyze cleek a bit here because I think it is a shared trait. What cleek (and a lot of others want to do) is that they want to be good people. They want to acknowledge the other side, they want to live in a world where there is give and take. I get that, and I’m usually there. But, when I thought experiment out Trump nominating Garland, I think it’s never going to happen. I can think of 100 ways where Trump and the Republicans could take a step back. And everytime I think of one, I think ‘nah, never happen’. Given the way things are, there is no long term. When someone is coming at you with a knife, you don’t think about what you will do after you have disarmed them.
Everyone will have their breaking point, the point where it is no longer acceptable. Unfortunately, because this all happens at different points, a whole industry has emerged to heighten the noise from that and use it to either have people just say fuck it or to increasingly tear into each other. It may be because their model profits from that noise (Facebook, Twitter), it may be that they think that they can move with the crowd, or it may be that they truely believe it. Tom Cotton, esrtwhile Trump nominee for SC who got squeezed out cause he’s a guy, just tweeted about how the Democrats are encouraging riots
https://twitter.com/tomcottonar/status/1267618312399306753?lang=en
Maybe he’s just mad that he got beaten out by a woman. But when there is such a refusal to acknowledge reality, I’m thinking that the Dems do what is necessary for the short term and figure out later how to fix that.
So I think the vehemence that cleek and others express is related to the effort that folks are making to hold on to their humanity. I’m not going to get angry at them for that, cause that could be me.
I hope this is not out of line, but I’ll psycho analyze cleek a bit here because I think it is a shared trait. What cleek (and a lot of others want to do) is that they want to be good people. They want to acknowledge the other side, they want to live in a world where there is give and take. I get that, and I’m usually there. But, when I thought experiment out Trump nominating Garland, I think it’s never going to happen. I can think of 100 ways where Trump and the Republicans could take a step back. And everytime I think of one, I think ‘nah, never happen’. Given the way things are, there is no long term. When someone is coming at you with a knife, you don’t think about what you will do after you have disarmed them.
Everyone will have their breaking point, the point where it is no longer acceptable. Unfortunately, because this all happens at different points, a whole industry has emerged to heighten the noise from that and use it to either have people just say fuck it or to increasingly tear into each other. It may be because their model profits from that noise (Facebook, Twitter), it may be that they think that they can move with the crowd, or it may be that they truely believe it. Tom Cotton, esrtwhile Trump nominee for SC who got squeezed out cause he’s a guy, just tweeted about how the Democrats are encouraging riots
https://twitter.com/tomcottonar/status/1267618312399306753?lang=en
Maybe he’s just mad that he got beaten out by a woman. But when there is such a refusal to acknowledge reality, I’m thinking that the Dems do what is necessary for the short term and figure out later how to fix that.
So I think the vehemence that cleek and others express is related to the effort that folks are making to hold on to their humanity. I’m not going to get angry at them for that, cause that could be me.
That’s all good, but it assumes that there us something inhumane about, for example, increasing the the number if SCOTUS seats.
I don’t know if it’s wise or not. If you’re against it, make your case.
But it’s not about being a “good person” or not.
That’s all good, but it assumes that there us something inhumane about, for example, increasing the the number if SCOTUS seats.
I don’t know if it’s wise or not. If you’re against it, make your case.
But it’s not about being a “good person” or not.
the question is: is the packing proposal good or not?
Yes, it is good politics. Because a democracy ruled in the interests of an unaccountable minority blatantly opposed to the desires of the majority cannot stand.
the question is: is the packing proposal good or not?
Yes, it is good politics. Because a democracy ruled in the interests of an unaccountable minority blatantly opposed to the desires of the majority cannot stand.
Russell, if you are asking me, I’m not, I think it is inevitable. Biden might, holding on to the chimera of bipartisanship, not push it, but it won’t be him that decides.
I’m just trying to understand the vehemence of the arguments. Which I think are only going to become more so for the foreseeable future.
Russell, if you are asking me, I’m not, I think it is inevitable. Biden might, holding on to the chimera of bipartisanship, not push it, but it won’t be him that decides.
I’m just trying to understand the vehemence of the arguments. Which I think are only going to become more so for the foreseeable future.
I’m not=I’m not against it
I’m not=I’m not against it
I’m just trying to understand the vehemence of the arguments. Which I think are only going to become more so for the foreseeable future.
I’m going to psychoanalyze others here. So feel free to delete this if it’s out of line.
I think the vehemence stems from a desperate desire to believe that it is still possible to address the situation as between civilized human beings. A desperation made worse by the wealth of evidence that one side not only isn’t civilized, but glories in rejecting it.
It’s not barbarism so much as a variety of nihilism — my way or the apocalypse. Sadly, it isn’t possible to negotiate a mutually beneficial compromise with someone of that mindset. Even if the existance of such a mutually beneficial option, and even its broad outlines, are obvious.
I’m just trying to understand the vehemence of the arguments. Which I think are only going to become more so for the foreseeable future.
I’m going to psychoanalyze others here. So feel free to delete this if it’s out of line.
I think the vehemence stems from a desperate desire to believe that it is still possible to address the situation as between civilized human beings. A desperation made worse by the wealth of evidence that one side not only isn’t civilized, but glories in rejecting it.
It’s not barbarism so much as a variety of nihilism — my way or the apocalypse. Sadly, it isn’t possible to negotiate a mutually beneficial compromise with someone of that mindset. Even if the existance of such a mutually beneficial option, and even its broad outlines, are obvious.
I don’t have a strong opinion either way on stacking the SCOTUS. It’s the kind of thing that makes my head hurt, because I’m just not good at thinking about it. But one piece of the logic is bothering me.
If packing the court is bad because the Rs will only pack it further if/when they gain control, even though the Rs are now a ruling minority because they’ve managed to put a thumb on the scale in various ways, what the hell does it matter? Can you take the thumb off the scale without a non-hostile SCOTUS?
Can you undo enough of the anti-democratic mechanisms that are already in place to prevent an undemocratic reinstatement of Republican control with an unbalanced or unrepresentative court? (Presumably, if the nation prefers Rs to be in office to the point that they can win fair elections, that’s not the problem to be solved. The lack of democratic fairness is the problem, right?)
I don’t have a strong opinion either way on stacking the SCOTUS. It’s the kind of thing that makes my head hurt, because I’m just not good at thinking about it. But one piece of the logic is bothering me.
If packing the court is bad because the Rs will only pack it further if/when they gain control, even though the Rs are now a ruling minority because they’ve managed to put a thumb on the scale in various ways, what the hell does it matter? Can you take the thumb off the scale without a non-hostile SCOTUS?
Can you undo enough of the anti-democratic mechanisms that are already in place to prevent an undemocratic reinstatement of Republican control with an unbalanced or unrepresentative court? (Presumably, if the nation prefers Rs to be in office to the point that they can win fair elections, that’s not the problem to be solved. The lack of democratic fairness is the problem, right?)
I do not doubt that changing the way the SC works will have a political cost. What keeps me from taking up cleeks position on this is that I have lost faith in the likelihood of avoiding further breakdown whether or not the Democrats change the rules.
Lifetime appointments and small numbers of justices create too big a lever that is too easily abused. Take that lever away, but do it in such a way that no one has a thirty year backstop on change. No one should have that.
More justices. Limited terms. Stagger the retirements to make the transitions smooth.
I do not doubt that changing the way the SC works will have a political cost. What keeps me from taking up cleeks position on this is that I have lost faith in the likelihood of avoiding further breakdown whether or not the Democrats change the rules.
Lifetime appointments and small numbers of justices create too big a lever that is too easily abused. Take that lever away, but do it in such a way that no one has a thirty year backstop on change. No one should have that.
More justices. Limited terms. Stagger the retirements to make the transitions smooth.
[please remember: we’re on the same side?]
Absolutely, cleek. I just won’t accept any more ruin without using every legal means to say “enough”. And even with that, if they gave an inch – if they seated Garland, or if they even followed their own rules – I would relent.
But it may not be a discussion if they steal the election again.
[please remember: we’re on the same side?]
Absolutely, cleek. I just won’t accept any more ruin without using every legal means to say “enough”. And even with that, if they gave an inch – if they seated Garland, or if they even followed their own rules – I would relent.
But it may not be a discussion if they steal the election again.
This puts it fairly well.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/ruth-bader-ginsburg-death-mitch-mcconnell.html?via=taps_top
… I think we have a habit of misnaming political experiences in ways that help us metabolize loss. I think, for example, that we have a bad habit of calling McConnell’s double standard—which will be devastating to a country already struggling through various legitimacy crises—“hypocrisy.” And sure, step onto Twitter after Lindsey Graham also unabashedly went back on his own word and you’ll see many a person rolling their eyes at anyone pointing out that Republicans are hypocrites, as if it matters. One can sympathize with the eye-rollers—of course hypocrisy doesn’t matter. But that’s mostly because hypocrisy isn’t the word for what this is. Hypocrisy is a mild failing. It applies to parents smoking when they advise their kids not to for their own good; it does not apply to parents lighting the family home on fire for the insurance money while high-fiving each other over how stupid their fleeing children were for thinking anything they told them was true…
This puts it fairly well.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/ruth-bader-ginsburg-death-mitch-mcconnell.html?via=taps_top
… I think we have a habit of misnaming political experiences in ways that help us metabolize loss. I think, for example, that we have a bad habit of calling McConnell’s double standard—which will be devastating to a country already struggling through various legitimacy crises—“hypocrisy.” And sure, step onto Twitter after Lindsey Graham also unabashedly went back on his own word and you’ll see many a person rolling their eyes at anyone pointing out that Republicans are hypocrites, as if it matters. One can sympathize with the eye-rollers—of course hypocrisy doesn’t matter. But that’s mostly because hypocrisy isn’t the word for what this is. Hypocrisy is a mild failing. It applies to parents smoking when they advise their kids not to for their own good; it does not apply to parents lighting the family home on fire for the insurance money while high-fiving each other over how stupid their fleeing children were for thinking anything they told them was true…
Why are (D)’s required to “observe the rules” that (R)’s happily ignore?
For. The. Good. Of. The. Nation.
Why are (D)’s required to “observe the rules” that (R)’s happily ignore?
For. The. Good. Of. The. Nation.
For. The. Good. Of. The. Nation.
This is where we disagree. The good of the nation doesn’t rest on the Supreme Court having 9 justices, when the number is set by law. Scott Lemieux is on fire in this post, and so are the commenters.
Democrats have done every possible thing, by the book, to rein in these criminals (and they are criminals, unlike the Democrats who they lie about). We still have some ammunition left in the law, and using it is for the good of the country. Will we have a chance to do it? Only if we win. Will it work? Only if we keep winning.
For. The. Good. Of. The. Nation.
This is where we disagree. The good of the nation doesn’t rest on the Supreme Court having 9 justices, when the number is set by law. Scott Lemieux is on fire in this post, and so are the commenters.
Democrats have done every possible thing, by the book, to rein in these criminals (and they are criminals, unlike the Democrats who they lie about). We still have some ammunition left in the law, and using it is for the good of the country. Will we have a chance to do it? Only if we win. Will it work? Only if we keep winning.
[please remember: we’re on the same side?]
Never forgotten for an instant. And cleek, I hope you know that your general attitude and opinion about this (loosely speaking: inadvisability of revenge and short-term advantage and to hell with what follows, becoming as bad as our enemies, etc etc) is very close indeed to what has always been mine as well.
But I think you are assuming that even with a 6:3 court, and gerrymandering, and the lower courts stacked with unfit judges (per the American Bar Association) there would still be ways for the majority to overcome. The difference between us is that people arguing (in many cases reluctantly) for this momentous step, see the likelihood of anything returning to what you would consider a roughly democratic business-as-usual (whatever that is) to be vanishingly small. The damage you fear is already being done, and will be consolidated unless this kind of step is taken. Unthinkably ridiculous things have already happened (Citizens United?) because of the bias of the court. Do you think any contested election a la Bush v Gore, or gerrymandering case, or environmental protections, or abortion protection, or Social Security and Medicaid, would be safe under a 6.3 court where some at least (maybe not Gorsuch, but for sure Kavanaugh and almost certainly Ginsburg’s replacement) would doggedly vote the R line? If this is not threatened, and then done if necessary (and we all hope it wouldn’t be, and that threats would be sufficient), do you think the party of Trump and McConnell would magically start acting fairly and reasonably and start considering the rights of the individual citizen, as opposed to the desires and financial advantage of their patrons?
[please remember: we’re on the same side?]
Never forgotten for an instant. And cleek, I hope you know that your general attitude and opinion about this (loosely speaking: inadvisability of revenge and short-term advantage and to hell with what follows, becoming as bad as our enemies, etc etc) is very close indeed to what has always been mine as well.
But I think you are assuming that even with a 6:3 court, and gerrymandering, and the lower courts stacked with unfit judges (per the American Bar Association) there would still be ways for the majority to overcome. The difference between us is that people arguing (in many cases reluctantly) for this momentous step, see the likelihood of anything returning to what you would consider a roughly democratic business-as-usual (whatever that is) to be vanishingly small. The damage you fear is already being done, and will be consolidated unless this kind of step is taken. Unthinkably ridiculous things have already happened (Citizens United?) because of the bias of the court. Do you think any contested election a la Bush v Gore, or gerrymandering case, or environmental protections, or abortion protection, or Social Security and Medicaid, would be safe under a 6.3 court where some at least (maybe not Gorsuch, but for sure Kavanaugh and almost certainly Ginsburg’s replacement) would doggedly vote the R line? If this is not threatened, and then done if necessary (and we all hope it wouldn’t be, and that threats would be sufficient), do you think the party of Trump and McConnell would magically start acting fairly and reasonably and start considering the rights of the individual citizen, as opposed to the desires and financial advantage of their patrons?
Nigel: good point on the “hypocrisy” issue.
Nigel: good point on the “hypocrisy” issue.
Good of the nation? How about the land itself?
Good of the nation? How about the land itself?
President Donald Trump said he is “counting on the federal court system” to ensure that the winner of the November presidential election is called just hours after the polls close, despite current rules across the country allowing ballots to be counted several days to weeks after the election.
“Now we’re counting on the federal court system to make it so that we can actually have an evening where we know who wins. Not where the votes are going to be counted a week later or two weeks later,” he said at a rally in North Carolina Saturday.
How convenient. According to Pew Research, Trump has appointed nearly a quarter of all active federal judges.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/07/15/how-trump-compares-with-other-recent-presidents-in-appointing-federal-judges/
President Donald Trump said he is “counting on the federal court system” to ensure that the winner of the November presidential election is called just hours after the polls close, despite current rules across the country allowing ballots to be counted several days to weeks after the election.
“Now we’re counting on the federal court system to make it so that we can actually have an evening where we know who wins. Not where the votes are going to be counted a week later or two weeks later,” he said at a rally in North Carolina Saturday.
How convenient. According to Pew Research, Trump has appointed nearly a quarter of all active federal judges.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/07/15/how-trump-compares-with-other-recent-presidents-in-appointing-federal-judges/
Don’t know if this will convince but lgm has this
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2020/09/norms-for-thee-not-for-me
Norms once broken cannot be unilaterally restored. So if Republicans firmly establish “anything that is not strictly forbidden by the Constitution is permitted” as the de facto norm of governance, Democrats should act in kind should they win in November. This will not be an easy path for the clearly norm-loving Democratic establishment to follow, but constitutional hardball is a much better alternative for the people they represent than the Supreme Court being under the decades-long control of a political faction that has given up even trying to appeal to the majority of the American people.
Don’t know if this will convince but lgm has this
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2020/09/norms-for-thee-not-for-me
Norms once broken cannot be unilaterally restored. So if Republicans firmly establish “anything that is not strictly forbidden by the Constitution is permitted” as the de facto norm of governance, Democrats should act in kind should they win in November. This will not be an easy path for the clearly norm-loving Democratic establishment to follow, but constitutional hardball is a much better alternative for the people they represent than the Supreme Court being under the decades-long control of a political faction that has given up even trying to appeal to the majority of the American people.
President Donald Trump described open federal judgeships as “golden nuggets” and said in interviews with journalist Bob Woodward that he expects to have appointed more than half of U.S. judges by the time he leaves office.
President Donald Trump described open federal judgeships as “golden nuggets” and said in interviews with journalist Bob Woodward that he expects to have appointed more than half of U.S. judges by the time he leaves office.
But I think you are assuming that even with a 6:3 court, and gerrymandering, and the lower courts stacked with unfit judges (per the American Bar Association) there would still be ways for the majority to overcome.
nope. losing the Court hurts.
do you think the party of Trump and McConnell would magically start acting fairly and reasonably and start considering the rights of the individual citizen, as opposed to the desires and financial advantage of their patrons?
nope. not a chance.
don’t vote for Republicans. they’re bad. they cause shit like this.
—
Will we have a chance to do it? Only if we win. Will it work? Only if we keep winning.
and since you can’t count on that…?
—
again, i don’t have a feasible solution. like nous, i think some reworking of how the Court functions would help a lot. and i think changing the Senate’s role in approving Justices would help, too. but most of that requires Amendments, so it’s not going to happen.
packing? meh. maybe, by the time more than single-digits of Dem Congresspeople support it, somebody will make the case for it in a way that grabs me.
But I think you are assuming that even with a 6:3 court, and gerrymandering, and the lower courts stacked with unfit judges (per the American Bar Association) there would still be ways for the majority to overcome.
nope. losing the Court hurts.
do you think the party of Trump and McConnell would magically start acting fairly and reasonably and start considering the rights of the individual citizen, as opposed to the desires and financial advantage of their patrons?
nope. not a chance.
don’t vote for Republicans. they’re bad. they cause shit like this.
—
Will we have a chance to do it? Only if we win. Will it work? Only if we keep winning.
and since you can’t count on that…?
—
again, i don’t have a feasible solution. like nous, i think some reworking of how the Court functions would help a lot. and i think changing the Senate’s role in approving Justices would help, too. but most of that requires Amendments, so it’s not going to happen.
packing? meh. maybe, by the time more than single-digits of Dem Congresspeople support it, somebody will make the case for it in a way that grabs me.
Don’t know if this will convince but lgm has this
that falls into the “We must do something! This is something!” bin, for me.
Don’t know if this will convince but lgm has this
that falls into the “We must do something! This is something!” bin, for me.
and since you can’t count on that…?
We can’t count on anything. Even buying some time might be better than destroying it all now.
and since you can’t count on that…?
We can’t count on anything. Even buying some time might be better than destroying it all now.
don’t vote for Republicans. they’re bad. they cause shit like this.
Spoken under circumstances where your vote still has a chance of being at all consequential.
don’t vote for Republicans. they’re bad. they cause shit like this.
Spoken under circumstances where your vote still has a chance of being at all consequential.
For. The. Good. Of. The. Nation.
Assumes the status quo is good for the nation.
I do take your point here, but I also think a response is needed. That’s not revenge, it’s defining a boundary.
If there’s a better idea, fine with me.
Ultimately the most tangible price will be if this costs (R) elections. So we’ll see what happens.
But the status quo is not good for the nation. On the contrary, it’s destroying the nation.
For. The. Good. Of. The. Nation.
Assumes the status quo is good for the nation.
I do take your point here, but I also think a response is needed. That’s not revenge, it’s defining a boundary.
If there’s a better idea, fine with me.
Ultimately the most tangible price will be if this costs (R) elections. So we’ll see what happens.
But the status quo is not good for the nation. On the contrary, it’s destroying the nation.
i’m definitely not advocating for the status quo. shit’s broke and the GOP broke it.
i just don’t think packing is the right fix.
i can imagine what i think are better fixes, but they face insurmountable legal hurdles (Amendments, etc.).
so, i don’t know what to do. doesn’t mean i like it.
i’m definitely not advocating for the status quo. shit’s broke and the GOP broke it.
i just don’t think packing is the right fix.
i can imagine what i think are better fixes, but they face insurmountable legal hurdles (Amendments, etc.).
so, i don’t know what to do. doesn’t mean i like it.
But the status quo is not good for the nation. On the contrary, it’s destroying the nation.
Yes. We need STRUCTURAL reform.
I may be just another “lefty yakker”, but I should think this to be self-evident.
But the status quo is not good for the nation. On the contrary, it’s destroying the nation.
Yes. We need STRUCTURAL reform.
I may be just another “lefty yakker”, but I should think this to be self-evident.
“If you really disagree with this, cleek, tell us how to avoid a court that dismantles the administrative state, including Social Security, Medicare, all of it.”
When I read this it sounds like the kind of baseless fear that many on the right exhibit, in fact, that I have been accused of. It assumes bad faith from the appointed Justices mkre than the appointees. As has been pointed out there has been a conservative tilted court for decades yet Roe v Wade and gay marriage, gay and trans protections, women’s rights, SS and Medicare all still exist.
Even the EPA exists with some limitations.
If there is s place that has ceded its responsibility to protect freedoms it is Congress, not the courts. The greatest real fear is that the left will have a harder time trying to legislate the more radical elements of its agenda through the courts.
For several decades the left has been able to flood the courts and find sympathetic judges at the federal district Court level for almost any agenda. The biggest fear at this point is that those courts would be more balanced.
As far as hypocrisy goes, both sides, yes in this case both sides equally, stand on purely political grounds. Neither side is acting any differently than if the situation was reversed, trying to couch it in some bigger moral equivalence. If the Democrats had the ability in the Senate to seat three liberal justices over the last 4 years, they would have. And the Republicans would have made all the same arguments against it.
The most purely political move was to not have a vote for Garland, but the outcome on the court would not be different. It was just better politically to not have the hearings and then vote against him. I would have preferred a vote, but the political calculus was understandable. It protected 50+ Senators politically while placing the majority of criticism on the Speaker, who may pay the price for it on Nov 3.
But assuming it would have changed the makeup of the court is problematic, the only way that would have happened is if it had created some backlash that lost the GOP the Senate in 2018. I think that’s unlikely.
In the end, appointing Justices is a political process, it has been for my whole life and I suspect longer than that. So accusing either side of politicizing the process seems like a red herring.
“If you really disagree with this, cleek, tell us how to avoid a court that dismantles the administrative state, including Social Security, Medicare, all of it.”
When I read this it sounds like the kind of baseless fear that many on the right exhibit, in fact, that I have been accused of. It assumes bad faith from the appointed Justices mkre than the appointees. As has been pointed out there has been a conservative tilted court for decades yet Roe v Wade and gay marriage, gay and trans protections, women’s rights, SS and Medicare all still exist.
Even the EPA exists with some limitations.
If there is s place that has ceded its responsibility to protect freedoms it is Congress, not the courts. The greatest real fear is that the left will have a harder time trying to legislate the more radical elements of its agenda through the courts.
For several decades the left has been able to flood the courts and find sympathetic judges at the federal district Court level for almost any agenda. The biggest fear at this point is that those courts would be more balanced.
As far as hypocrisy goes, both sides, yes in this case both sides equally, stand on purely political grounds. Neither side is acting any differently than if the situation was reversed, trying to couch it in some bigger moral equivalence. If the Democrats had the ability in the Senate to seat three liberal justices over the last 4 years, they would have. And the Republicans would have made all the same arguments against it.
The most purely political move was to not have a vote for Garland, but the outcome on the court would not be different. It was just better politically to not have the hearings and then vote against him. I would have preferred a vote, but the political calculus was understandable. It protected 50+ Senators politically while placing the majority of criticism on the Speaker, who may pay the price for it on Nov 3.
But assuming it would have changed the makeup of the court is problematic, the only way that would have happened is if it had created some backlash that lost the GOP the Senate in 2018. I think that’s unlikely.
In the end, appointing Justices is a political process, it has been for my whole life and I suspect longer than that. So accusing either side of politicizing the process seems like a red herring.
i just don’t think packing is the right fix.
I guess that depends on your assumptions and analysis of what could reasonably take place under a reactionary Court and possible one party minority rule.
Here’s another take.
i just don’t think packing is the right fix.
I guess that depends on your assumptions and analysis of what could reasonably take place under a reactionary Court and possible one party minority rule.
Here’s another take.
Even the EPA exists with some limitations.
Most of the changes at the EPA haven’t been court-ordered, but rather rewriting of rules by the agency to reflect a very different set of priorities.
This has always been a risk as Congress has, over the last 120 years or so, transferred more and more of its legislating to the executive branch. Yes, the EPA is nominally an independent agency. Nevertheless, we have seen that a change in the Oval Office can result in a reversal of major policies. The Massachusetts v. EPA decision holding that not only can the EPA regulate greenhouse gases but that it must regulate them still holds. It’s just that now the EPA is ignoring it and getting away with it.
Even the EPA exists with some limitations.
Most of the changes at the EPA haven’t been court-ordered, but rather rewriting of rules by the agency to reflect a very different set of priorities.
This has always been a risk as Congress has, over the last 120 years or so, transferred more and more of its legislating to the executive branch. Yes, the EPA is nominally an independent agency. Nevertheless, we have seen that a change in the Oval Office can result in a reversal of major policies. The Massachusetts v. EPA decision holding that not only can the EPA regulate greenhouse gases but that it must regulate them still holds. It’s just that now the EPA is ignoring it and getting away with it.
Here’s another take.
the first 4/5ths of that are “the GOP is bad”. yes, i know.
then we get to complaints about the prospect of an “anti-democratic” Court. that fails to move me because the Court is already anti-democratic, by design. it’s by far the branch most removed from voters (by design): the anti-democratically-elected President appoints unelected judges who are then approved by the anti-democratic Senate to well-insulated jobs for life. and originally, the Senators weren’t even democratically elected.
does the Court reflect the will of the people? of course not, and it’s not supposed to. is that good? maybe not, given today’s polarization.
then more warnings about the evils of conservatism. i get it. that’s why i don’t recommend voting for Republicans, ever.
Here’s another take.
the first 4/5ths of that are “the GOP is bad”. yes, i know.
then we get to complaints about the prospect of an “anti-democratic” Court. that fails to move me because the Court is already anti-democratic, by design. it’s by far the branch most removed from voters (by design): the anti-democratically-elected President appoints unelected judges who are then approved by the anti-democratic Senate to well-insulated jobs for life. and originally, the Senators weren’t even democratically elected.
does the Court reflect the will of the people? of course not, and it’s not supposed to. is that good? maybe not, given today’s polarization.
then more warnings about the evils of conservatism. i get it. that’s why i don’t recommend voting for Republicans, ever.
that’s why i don’t recommend voting for Republicans, ever.
But we’re not talking about what voters should do. We’re talking about what congress should do. (I don’t think we need to tell congressional Democrats not to vote for Republicans.)
that’s why i don’t recommend voting for Republicans, ever.
But we’re not talking about what voters should do. We’re talking about what congress should do. (I don’t think we need to tell congressional Democrats not to vote for Republicans.)
We’re talking about what congress should do.
said it before: i don’t know.
—
i think i’ve beaten this to death.
i’ll step away for a bit.
We’re talking about what congress should do.
said it before: i don’t know.
—
i think i’ve beaten this to death.
i’ll step away for a bit.
Good piece, bobbyp. But then, I would think that, since it’s making my point:
But with a partisan judiciary that is hostile to the franchise itself, court-packing may be the least-worst option. At this point, it may be the only way to prevent permanent rule by an increasingly radicalized GOP.
Of course, it says this after laying out some history, including:
All four of the Republican-appointed justices who sat on the Court in 2016 voted to reinstate the most aggressive voter suppression law in the country—a North Carolina law that, according to a federal appeals court, targeted “African Americans with almost surgical precision.”
Surely cleek’s “anti-democratic court by design” is not supposed, at least today, to suppress the vote of African Americans? And I simply cannot understand how recommending not voting for Republicans, ever, can protect your democracy when you have courts ready, willing and able to throw elections to Republicans in every case where they have the option – which is likely to be many cases.
Good piece, bobbyp. But then, I would think that, since it’s making my point:
But with a partisan judiciary that is hostile to the franchise itself, court-packing may be the least-worst option. At this point, it may be the only way to prevent permanent rule by an increasingly radicalized GOP.
Of course, it says this after laying out some history, including:
All four of the Republican-appointed justices who sat on the Court in 2016 voted to reinstate the most aggressive voter suppression law in the country—a North Carolina law that, according to a federal appeals court, targeted “African Americans with almost surgical precision.”
Surely cleek’s “anti-democratic court by design” is not supposed, at least today, to suppress the vote of African Americans? And I simply cannot understand how recommending not voting for Republicans, ever, can protect your democracy when you have courts ready, willing and able to throw elections to Republicans in every case where they have the option – which is likely to be many cases.
Peace be with you, cleek. There is absolutely no doubt your reservations come from a good and honourable place.
Peace be with you, cleek. There is absolutely no doubt your reservations come from a good and honourable place.
I don’t know. I think cleek may be a crypto-Republican concern troll. He’s clever.
I don’t know. I think cleek may be a crypto-Republican concern troll. He’s clever.
shit’s broke and the GOP broke it.
i just don’t think packing is the right fix.
Perhaps it would help if we found another term. “Court packing”, after all, originated as a pejorative. Would “court expansion” be less fraught?
shit’s broke and the GOP broke it.
i just don’t think packing is the right fix.
Perhaps it would help if we found another term. “Court packing”, after all, originated as a pejorative. Would “court expansion” be less fraught?
Yet another view.
https://jacobinmag.com/2020/09/liberal-supreme-court-rbg-ruth-bader-ginsburg
The writer makes a very startling ( to me) assertion— that a President could simply say that Marbury vs Madison was wrong and the Constitution does not give the SC that power. This is way outside of my field.
But legal merits aside, I sympathize. Even before this, to the extent I gave it much thought ( and I didnt give it much), the SC to me has too much power. I don’t want to overturn Roe v Wade or have states decide abortion— what a nightmare—but in general I sympathize somewhat with the idea that we shouldn’t give so much power to unelected offficials with lifetime appointments. We are trusting them to be wise— well, frequently, they aren’t.
And every Presidential election one of the main factors people are urged to consider is that some fraction of these unelected incredibly powerful people could drop dead and we need to have someone who will appoint the right replacements This seems backwards. Either SC justices should be elected (/which requires an Amendment) or the Court should be weakened one way or another. A SC with 57 Justices and more coming every few years seems like a legislature. That’s one way to do it, but as the writer says, not a very good way. Maybe there aren’t any good ways.
Presidents also have too much power, particularly on war and the Constitution is right on that point. That’s a different topic, but a similar theme.
Yet another view.
https://jacobinmag.com/2020/09/liberal-supreme-court-rbg-ruth-bader-ginsburg
The writer makes a very startling ( to me) assertion— that a President could simply say that Marbury vs Madison was wrong and the Constitution does not give the SC that power. This is way outside of my field.
But legal merits aside, I sympathize. Even before this, to the extent I gave it much thought ( and I didnt give it much), the SC to me has too much power. I don’t want to overturn Roe v Wade or have states decide abortion— what a nightmare—but in general I sympathize somewhat with the idea that we shouldn’t give so much power to unelected offficials with lifetime appointments. We are trusting them to be wise— well, frequently, they aren’t.
And every Presidential election one of the main factors people are urged to consider is that some fraction of these unelected incredibly powerful people could drop dead and we need to have someone who will appoint the right replacements This seems backwards. Either SC justices should be elected (/which requires an Amendment) or the Court should be weakened one way or another. A SC with 57 Justices and more coming every few years seems like a legislature. That’s one way to do it, but as the writer says, not a very good way. Maybe there aren’t any good ways.
Presidents also have too much power, particularly on war and the Constitution is right on that point. That’s a different topic, but a similar theme.
“ The writer makes a very startling ( to me) assertion— that a President could simply say that Marbury vs Madison was wrong and the Constitution does not give the SC that power.”
Probably shouldn’t let Trump hear that., true or not. Any bit of power he sees lying around he will pocket for himself.
“ The writer makes a very startling ( to me) assertion— that a President could simply say that Marbury vs Madison was wrong and the Constitution does not give the SC that power.”
Probably shouldn’t let Trump hear that., true or not. Any bit of power he sees lying around he will pocket for himself.
In the end, appointing Justices is a political process, it has been for my whole life and I suspect longer than that. So accusing either side of politicizing the process seems like a red herring.
Actually, it hasn’t been. Ginsburg, for example, was confirmed on a 96-3 vote. In fact, until this century, anything like a party line vote was very much the exception. A nominee had to be pretty bad for the vote to even be close.
In the end, appointing Justices is a political process, it has been for my whole life and I suspect longer than that. So accusing either side of politicizing the process seems like a red herring.
Actually, it hasn’t been. Ginsburg, for example, was confirmed on a 96-3 vote. In fact, until this century, anything like a party line vote was very much the exception. A nominee had to be pretty bad for the vote to even be close.
hsh: LOL. Yup, that would explain it.
hsh: LOL. Yup, that would explain it.
In fact, until this century, anything like a party line vote was very much the exception
It is, no doubt, entirely coincidental that the arrival of politicized votes of Supreme Court nominees coincided with McConnell becoming Minority Leader. Entirely coincidental.
/sarcasm
In fact, until this century, anything like a party line vote was very much the exception
It is, no doubt, entirely coincidental that the arrival of politicized votes of Supreme Court nominees coincided with McConnell becoming Minority Leader. Entirely coincidental.
/sarcasm
Cleek is right: anything Ds do to make the Supreme Court fairer, Rs when they can will use to cheat.
GftNC is right: democracy in the USA is at stake. Roberts has restrained the R majority on the Court to some extent, but not at all when electoral fairness has been the issue. A 6-3 R Court would mean that ever-increasing R cheating in elections.
We know what happens when a fascist government takes control of the electoral process…
Cleek is right: anything Ds do to make the Supreme Court fairer, Rs when they can will use to cheat.
GftNC is right: democracy in the USA is at stake. Roberts has restrained the R majority on the Court to some extent, but not at all when electoral fairness has been the issue. A 6-3 R Court would mean that ever-increasing R cheating in elections.
We know what happens when a fascist government takes control of the electoral process…
i’m definitely not advocating for the status quo. shit’s broke and the GOP broke it.
Maybe. I’d say there is fault to go around, but that is mostly irrelevant to court-packing.
i just don’t think packing is the right fix.
i can imagine what i think are better fixes, but they face insurmountable legal hurdles (Amendments, etc.).
so, i don’t know what to do. doesn’t mean i like it.
Here, we agree (which may cause Cleek to re-evaluate). Sometimes the outcome is just shitty. I find the current bipartisan hypocrisy nauseating. But screwing around with the fundamentals of our system is even worse. It’s a Pandora’s Box of the worst kind. We live in a democratic republic–not a pure democracy, and there is a big difference–and no one is guaranteed a win. If the basic outlines of how we govern ourselves are under attack, then what is left?
No sane person wants to go down that road and no one’s agenda is worth it.
i’m definitely not advocating for the status quo. shit’s broke and the GOP broke it.
Maybe. I’d say there is fault to go around, but that is mostly irrelevant to court-packing.
i just don’t think packing is the right fix.
i can imagine what i think are better fixes, but they face insurmountable legal hurdles (Amendments, etc.).
so, i don’t know what to do. doesn’t mean i like it.
Here, we agree (which may cause Cleek to re-evaluate). Sometimes the outcome is just shitty. I find the current bipartisan hypocrisy nauseating. But screwing around with the fundamentals of our system is even worse. It’s a Pandora’s Box of the worst kind. We live in a democratic republic–not a pure democracy, and there is a big difference–and no one is guaranteed a win. If the basic outlines of how we govern ourselves are under attack, then what is left?
No sane person wants to go down that road and no one’s agenda is worth it.
no one is guaranteed a win.
The problem comes when one side puts its thumb on the scale to achieve just that. At what point is the other side justified in taking extraordinary measures to restore the balance? And what measures — so that the cure is not worse than the disease?
Also, at what point is the only solution to break out a blank sheet and start over?
Those are really the questions we are wrestling with. This Supreme Court opening is just the proximate cause for the heated discussion. The underlying issue was there already.
no one is guaranteed a win.
The problem comes when one side puts its thumb on the scale to achieve just that. At what point is the other side justified in taking extraordinary measures to restore the balance? And what measures — so that the cure is not worse than the disease?
Also, at what point is the only solution to break out a blank sheet and start over?
Those are really the questions we are wrestling with. This Supreme Court opening is just the proximate cause for the heated discussion. The underlying issue was there already.
If the basic outlines of how we govern ourselves are under attack, then what is left?
The basic outlines of how we govern ourselves *are* under attack.
A democratic republic means that there are basic rights that the majority cannot remove or overrule.
A democratic republic does NOT mean that the minority can leverage the institutions of government to impede the will of the majority.
The issue here is not a majority looking to overrun the fundamental rights of a minority. The issue here is minority rule.
Which is not a functional model for a self-governing republic.
If the basic outlines of how we govern ourselves are under attack, then what is left?
The basic outlines of how we govern ourselves *are* under attack.
A democratic republic means that there are basic rights that the majority cannot remove or overrule.
A democratic republic does NOT mean that the minority can leverage the institutions of government to impede the will of the majority.
The issue here is not a majority looking to overrun the fundamental rights of a minority. The issue here is minority rule.
Which is not a functional model for a self-governing republic.
wj, It is incredibly interesting that McConnell was the Speaker when Clarence Thomas was confirmed 52-48? Party line votes became popular when Democrats decided to use character assassination as a tool in the confirmation process.
You can review the history, Kagan and Sotomayor were easily confirmed if not unanimously. It is only the conservatives that end up getting party line votes.
I am not sure McConnell caused that.
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm
wj, It is incredibly interesting that McConnell was the Speaker when Clarence Thomas was confirmed 52-48? Party line votes became popular when Democrats decided to use character assassination as a tool in the confirmation process.
You can review the history, Kagan and Sotomayor were easily confirmed if not unanimously. It is only the conservatives that end up getting party line votes.
I am not sure McConnell caused that.
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm
Kagan 63-37
Sotomayor 68-31
So not party line, but obviously a lot of Republicans opposed them.
Also, on “ character assassination”, it’s one person’s word against another. I don’t think “ character assassination” is the right term to use whether we are talking about a Democrat or Republican accused of sexual harassment or abuse. Are people supposed to ignore this?
And anyway, while I am not opposed to “ both sides” arguments in general, it requires a really strong stomach to listen to Republicans justify their stance on Garland and what they are doing now. Give an example of Democratic hypocrisy on judges comparable to this.
Btw, both Obama and Biden wanted to govern in a bipartisan fashion. Obama came in clearly wanting to be a unifier. Leftists were often disgusted, particularly on the Grand Bargain idea. And Biden has practically made a fetish of good old fashioned bipartisanship and has gotten in trouble fondly reminiscing about the good old days in the Senate. Republicans? Bipartisan? What a load of malarkey.
Kagan 63-37
Sotomayor 68-31
So not party line, but obviously a lot of Republicans opposed them.
Also, on “ character assassination”, it’s one person’s word against another. I don’t think “ character assassination” is the right term to use whether we are talking about a Democrat or Republican accused of sexual harassment or abuse. Are people supposed to ignore this?
And anyway, while I am not opposed to “ both sides” arguments in general, it requires a really strong stomach to listen to Republicans justify their stance on Garland and what they are doing now. Give an example of Democratic hypocrisy on judges comparable to this.
Btw, both Obama and Biden wanted to govern in a bipartisan fashion. Obama came in clearly wanting to be a unifier. Leftists were often disgusted, particularly on the Grand Bargain idea. And Biden has practically made a fetish of good old fashioned bipartisanship and has gotten in trouble fondly reminiscing about the good old days in the Senate. Republicans? Bipartisan? What a load of malarkey.
It is only the conservatives that end up getting party line votes.
Nope.
It’s a mixed bag.
It is only the conservatives that end up getting party line votes.
Nope.
It’s a mixed bag.
Obama lost that high road the day he said elections have consequences. If it was his goal he had no clue how.
Obama lost that high road the day he said elections have consequences. If it was his goal he had no clue how.
Really, this is all my bollocks.
There is no comparison between the behavior of the (R)’s and (D)’s over the last generation.
Enough of this crap.
Really, this is all my bollocks.
There is no comparison between the behavior of the (R)’s and (D)’s over the last generation.
Enough of this crap.
wj, It is incredibly interesting that McConnell was the Speaker when Clarence Thomas was confirmed 52-48?
Yes. That is very interesting as McConnell has never served in the House of Representatives and has never been Speaker.
wj, It is incredibly interesting that McConnell was the Speaker when Clarence Thomas was confirmed 52-48?
Yes. That is very interesting as McConnell has never served in the House of Representatives and has never been Speaker.
Party line votes became popular when Democrats decided to use character assassination as a tool in the confirmation process.
Abe Fortas
Party line votes became popular when Democrats decided to use character assassination as a tool in the confirmation process.
Abe Fortas
It was clear from the beginning that Kavanaugh was in for a bumpy appointment. There were plenty of conservative justices that could have been appointed without the inherent fuss. Kavanaugh was chosen precisely because the GOP knew that the Democrats would find him unacceptable, and he was put through that confirmation precisely so that he could be seated in a show of power and fulfill Trump and McConnell’s dearly held desires to make the Dems look impotent.
And now we get this revisionist narrative that the left started this by resorting to character assassination.
It was all avoidable with a more suitable, less inherently divisive pick. All this bewailing partisanship is belied by actions intended to heighten partisanship. It’s bullshit.
It was clear from the beginning that Kavanaugh was in for a bumpy appointment. There were plenty of conservative justices that could have been appointed without the inherent fuss. Kavanaugh was chosen precisely because the GOP knew that the Democrats would find him unacceptable, and he was put through that confirmation precisely so that he could be seated in a show of power and fulfill Trump and McConnell’s dearly held desires to make the Dems look impotent.
And now we get this revisionist narrative that the left started this by resorting to character assassination.
It was all avoidable with a more suitable, less inherently divisive pick. All this bewailing partisanship is belied by actions intended to heighten partisanship. It’s bullshit.
cleek is a treasure and I usually agree with him, but not now. The R’s are dismantling the US, right now, with malice aforethought.
Today Trump’s DOJ declared three major D cities “anarchist zones,” because those cities refused to let Barr send his goons in to break heads.
How big a step is it from that to sending federal troops(ICE?) in again – but this time with explicit federal authority to “ensure order”? And how much do you want to bet that will involve a federal, military presence at voting stations?
Please. the Democrats didn’t start this war on America. The GOP did.
cleek is a treasure and I usually agree with him, but not now. The R’s are dismantling the US, right now, with malice aforethought.
Today Trump’s DOJ declared three major D cities “anarchist zones,” because those cities refused to let Barr send his goons in to break heads.
How big a step is it from that to sending federal troops(ICE?) in again – but this time with explicit federal authority to “ensure order”? And how much do you want to bet that will involve a federal, military presence at voting stations?
Please. the Democrats didn’t start this war on America. The GOP did.
How big a step is it from that to sending federal troops(ICE?) in again – but this time with explicit federal authority to “ensure order”?
If it does happen I really hope he sends in the military. I have some faith that the troops will actually try to follow the law. Thugs from ICE? Not so much.
How big a step is it from that to sending federal troops(ICE?) in again – but this time with explicit federal authority to “ensure order”?
If it does happen I really hope he sends in the military. I have some faith that the troops will actually try to follow the law. Thugs from ICE? Not so much.
A lovely bit of sarcasm from Alexandra Petri
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/21/least-we-can-count-senate-republicans-do-right-thing/
A lovely bit of sarcasm from Alexandra Petri
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/21/least-we-can-count-senate-republicans-do-right-thing/
I’ve restrained myself on these threads today.
https://cdn1-www.comingsoon.net/assets/uploads/gallery/actors-who-have-taken-on-roles-made-iconic-by-other-actors/mgid_ao_image_mtv.jpg
I’ve restrained myself on these threads today.
https://cdn1-www.comingsoon.net/assets/uploads/gallery/actors-who-have-taken-on-roles-made-iconic-by-other-actors/mgid_ao_image_mtv.jpg
cleek has stepped away and we’ve had the ‘don’t throw me in the briar patch’ comments, but this point from the lgm post that I quoted makes me think there is no choice.
Assuming that’s correct, [Biden popular vote win in Nov] it would mean Democrats will have won the popular vote in seven out of the last eight presidential elections. Yet, if a Trump replacement for Ginsburg is confirmed, Republicans’ would have nominated a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court, a split that would be essentially impossible for Democrats to displace through ordinary means, irrespective of the results of future elections.
Just out of curiousity, here’s a list of things that have been mooted (if I missed any, please add them)
-add SC justices to balance the court
-end filibuster
-set up a national election framework
-statehood for DC
-statehood for PR
Of course, one might lead to another, and perhaps some are requisite for others to occur, but I’m curious what order people would put them in and where they would draw the line to say that was too far.
cleek has stepped away and we’ve had the ‘don’t throw me in the briar patch’ comments, but this point from the lgm post that I quoted makes me think there is no choice.
Assuming that’s correct, [Biden popular vote win in Nov] it would mean Democrats will have won the popular vote in seven out of the last eight presidential elections. Yet, if a Trump replacement for Ginsburg is confirmed, Republicans’ would have nominated a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court, a split that would be essentially impossible for Democrats to displace through ordinary means, irrespective of the results of future elections.
Just out of curiousity, here’s a list of things that have been mooted (if I missed any, please add them)
-add SC justices to balance the court
-end filibuster
-set up a national election framework
-statehood for DC
-statehood for PR
Of course, one might lead to another, and perhaps some are requisite for others to occur, but I’m curious what order people would put them in and where they would draw the line to say that was too far.
And Yglesias adds another (via lgm)
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2020/09/herrenvolk-democracy-gop-style
Expand the lower courts, at a minimum, as a way of improving the operation of the federal judicial system and putting the Supreme Court on notice to behave itself.
And Yglesias adds another (via lgm)
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2020/09/herrenvolk-democracy-gop-style
Expand the lower courts, at a minimum, as a way of improving the operation of the federal judicial system and putting the Supreme Court on notice to behave itself.
lj, I’m guessing that, when you say “set up a national election framework”, that has some relation to Yglesias’ “Adopt tough legislative curbs on partisan gerrymandering.” If not, probably should add that as well. And clarify what a “national election framework” might look like.
lj, I’m guessing that, when you say “set up a national election framework”, that has some relation to Yglesias’ “Adopt tough legislative curbs on partisan gerrymandering.” If not, probably should add that as well. And clarify what a “national election framework” might look like.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/09/21/what-drives-leonard-leos-campaign-to-remake-the-courts/
The Founders would have executed Leo.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/09/21/what-drives-leonard-leos-campaign-to-remake-the-courts/
The Founders would have executed Leo.
– end the filibuster. This comes first partly because it’s quickest and easiest — nobody beyond the Senate involved. And partly because, absent an unimaginable electoral blowout, it’s a prerequisite for doing the others.
– statehood for Puerto Rico. Not a philospohical issue, just a political one. It will take time to work thru the process, but no reason not to kick it off immediately.
– statehood for DC. Maybe, maybe, a tiny philosophical issue about whether the national capital should be a state or not. And, if not, how citizens living thete ought to get some say in national politics. Otherwise, basically the same as Puerto Rico
– balance out the Supreme Court, one way or another. The previous items don’t present constitutional issues, so the Court doesn’t come into them. But the rest might. At least with the Court makeup currently in prospect.
– curbs on partisan gerrymandering. It’s hard to come up with a plausible objection to this . . . unless you are determined to avoid ever trying to win a majority of the electorate. And who wants to admit to that? (Although Trump, being how he is, might blurt it out.) Not that it wouldn’t get a Supreme Court challenge (“states rights” maybe?). And the current partisan Court might somehow rationalize overturning it.
– national election framework. This comes last for a variety of reasons. Not least, that it would first require thrashing out just what it means and how to get there. A Federal law? A Constitutional amendment? Something else?
– end the filibuster. This comes first partly because it’s quickest and easiest — nobody beyond the Senate involved. And partly because, absent an unimaginable electoral blowout, it’s a prerequisite for doing the others.
– statehood for Puerto Rico. Not a philospohical issue, just a political one. It will take time to work thru the process, but no reason not to kick it off immediately.
– statehood for DC. Maybe, maybe, a tiny philosophical issue about whether the national capital should be a state or not. And, if not, how citizens living thete ought to get some say in national politics. Otherwise, basically the same as Puerto Rico
– balance out the Supreme Court, one way or another. The previous items don’t present constitutional issues, so the Court doesn’t come into them. But the rest might. At least with the Court makeup currently in prospect.
– curbs on partisan gerrymandering. It’s hard to come up with a plausible objection to this . . . unless you are determined to avoid ever trying to win a majority of the electorate. And who wants to admit to that? (Although Trump, being how he is, might blurt it out.) Not that it wouldn’t get a Supreme Court challenge (“states rights” maybe?). And the current partisan Court might somehow rationalize overturning it.
– national election framework. This comes last for a variety of reasons. Not least, that it would first require thrashing out just what it means and how to get there. A Federal law? A Constitutional amendment? Something else?
…curbs on partisan gerrymandering. It’s hard to come up with a plausible objection to this…
For US House districts, possibly, Article I Section 4 until the Supreme Court decides how far it stretches. It’s harder to come up with legal justification to interfere in state legislative districting beyond Reynolds v. Sims and explicit racial discrimination. Contemporary software makes that part easy. The software can probably even get around state constitutional requirements like contiguous, compact, or minimize city and county splitting.
It’s kind of fascinating living in a region where both red and blue states are implementing nonpartisan/bipartisan district drawing commissions.
…curbs on partisan gerrymandering. It’s hard to come up with a plausible objection to this…
For US House districts, possibly, Article I Section 4 until the Supreme Court decides how far it stretches. It’s harder to come up with legal justification to interfere in state legislative districting beyond Reynolds v. Sims and explicit racial discrimination. Contemporary software makes that part easy. The software can probably even get around state constitutional requirements like contiguous, compact, or minimize city and county splitting.
It’s kind of fascinating living in a region where both red and blue states are implementing nonpartisan/bipartisan district drawing commissions.
People have been taking Puerto Rico’s name in vain about this for a while now, as if all we have to do is snap our fingers and PR will help solve our problems. But Puerto Ricans have own ideas about statehood, and they’re complicated and changeable. There’s a referendum (their sixth, acc’ to the Wiki) on November 3.
People have been taking Puerto Rico’s name in vain about this for a while now, as if all we have to do is snap our fingers and PR will help solve our problems. But Puerto Ricans have own ideas about statehood, and they’re complicated and changeable. There’s a referendum (their sixth, acc’ to the Wiki) on November 3.
There’s a referendum (their sixth, acc’ to the Wiki) on November 3.
No one ever holds a gun to their head when they do these: choose statehood or independence, commonwealth status ends on date X. Myself, if Congress were to do that, I would like them to specify in the case of statehood which language the binding version of the state constitution that Congress must approve would be written. I don’t think Congress would allow Spanish, and I don’t think Puerto Ricans would vote for English. Possibly relevant background, the Federal Court for the District of Puerto Rico conducts all business in English.
There’s a referendum (their sixth, acc’ to the Wiki) on November 3.
No one ever holds a gun to their head when they do these: choose statehood or independence, commonwealth status ends on date X. Myself, if Congress were to do that, I would like them to specify in the case of statehood which language the binding version of the state constitution that Congress must approve would be written. I don’t think Congress would allow Spanish, and I don’t think Puerto Ricans would vote for English. Possibly relevant background, the Federal Court for the District of Puerto Rico conducts all business in English.
I’m fairly sure cleek would be all in for HR 1 passed by the House. If we take both the Presidency and the Senate, pass it immediately.
Then ratchet it up with the other reforms and see how it plays out, esp. reform of the federal district courts. It is a reform that many saner folks on both sides would agree is overdue.
Set the stage relentlessly and ceaselessly for “packing”.
Save the SC numbers game for the last “nuclear option” (thank you fucking fascist Bill Frist!), like, for example, when the Court simply overturns Roe v. Wade or a similar outrage of overreach.
But simply taking that last option off the table right now is truly not so great bargaining strategy and, simply put, is political suicide under current conditions.
I’m fairly sure cleek would be all in for HR 1 passed by the House. If we take both the Presidency and the Senate, pass it immediately.
Then ratchet it up with the other reforms and see how it plays out, esp. reform of the federal district courts. It is a reform that many saner folks on both sides would agree is overdue.
Set the stage relentlessly and ceaselessly for “packing”.
Save the SC numbers game for the last “nuclear option” (thank you fucking fascist Bill Frist!), like, for example, when the Court simply overturns Roe v. Wade or a similar outrage of overreach.
But simply taking that last option off the table right now is truly not so great bargaining strategy and, simply put, is political suicide under current conditions.
Puerto Rico.
Yes. JanieM is correct on this. It’s not so simple.
Puerto Rico.
Yes. JanieM is correct on this. It’s not so simple.
For national election framework, I was thinking just the running of the election: moving it to a weekend, a set of national rules for ballots, standards etc. That’s separate from anything about gerrymandering.
About PR statehood, that is true, but given the way PR has been treated during the Trump admin, it would seem like a point to push.
For national election framework, I was thinking just the running of the election: moving it to a weekend, a set of national rules for ballots, standards etc. That’s separate from anything about gerrymandering.
About PR statehood, that is true, but given the way PR has been treated during the Trump admin, it would seem like a point to push.
I would like them to specify in the case of statehood which language the binding version of the state constitution that Congress must approve would be written. I don’t think Congress would allow Spanish, and I don’t think Puerto Ricans would vote for English.
Simple solution: send both. Lots of stuff is equally official in translation. (Not to mention that the could send Congress an English version to be the “binding version”. And as soon as statehood is confirmed, amend by total replacement with a Spanish version.)
I can’t see Congress objecting, so long as English is one of the official languages — that is one of the languages the state government will publish documents in, accept documents in, etc. After all, Hawaiian is an official language in Hawai’i, Souix is an official language in South Dakota, and Alaska has a slew of native American languages that are official languages. Nobody elsewhere pays any attention. Note also that a lot of states, both blue (New York) and red (Louisiana), don’t have an offocial language specified at all.
I would like them to specify in the case of statehood which language the binding version of the state constitution that Congress must approve would be written. I don’t think Congress would allow Spanish, and I don’t think Puerto Ricans would vote for English.
Simple solution: send both. Lots of stuff is equally official in translation. (Not to mention that the could send Congress an English version to be the “binding version”. And as soon as statehood is confirmed, amend by total replacement with a Spanish version.)
I can’t see Congress objecting, so long as English is one of the official languages — that is one of the languages the state government will publish documents in, accept documents in, etc. After all, Hawaiian is an official language in Hawai’i, Souix is an official language in South Dakota, and Alaska has a slew of native American languages that are official languages. Nobody elsewhere pays any attention. Note also that a lot of states, both blue (New York) and red (Louisiana), don’t have an offocial language specified at all.
Note, re Puerto Rico, that the last referendum asked what people would like, if the commonwealth option was not available. Statehood won overwhelmingly.
Note, re Puerto Rico, that the last referendum asked what people would like, if the commonwealth option was not available. Statehood won overwhelmingly.
what order people would put them in
for me, #1 is removing impediments to voting and all other forms of screwing with the electoral process.
fix that, most of the other stuff will take care of itself in a generation.
along those lines, HR 1 is fine with me.
what order people would put them in
for me, #1 is removing impediments to voting and all other forms of screwing with the electoral process.
fix that, most of the other stuff will take care of itself in a generation.
along those lines, HR 1 is fine with me.
taking that last option off the table right now is truly not so great bargaining strategy
basically, yes.
but the thing is, the (D)’s are *extremely* unlikely expand the SCOTUS, and pretty much everybody understands that. that kind of hardball is not really their style.
other kinds of hardball might be. that kind is not.
so as a threat, I’m not sure it has much weight. and threats that carry no weight are actually worse than no threat at all. and it’s totally moot in any case unless they get a solid majority in both houses of Congress.
a lot depends on who Trump nominates, whether that person passes the Senate, and what the situation in Congress looks like come January.
I’d love to be wrong, but my guess is that Trump’s nominee is going to be somebody ridiculous. in my perfect world, it will be somebody so absurd that even McConnell can’t muster 50 votes.
like, Harriet Miers absurd.
but more likely, it will be Amy Coney Barrett. red meat for the theocratic base, makes the liberals cry, but someone with an actual resume as a jurist.
we’ll see what things look like in January.
taking that last option off the table right now is truly not so great bargaining strategy
basically, yes.
but the thing is, the (D)’s are *extremely* unlikely expand the SCOTUS, and pretty much everybody understands that. that kind of hardball is not really their style.
other kinds of hardball might be. that kind is not.
so as a threat, I’m not sure it has much weight. and threats that carry no weight are actually worse than no threat at all. and it’s totally moot in any case unless they get a solid majority in both houses of Congress.
a lot depends on who Trump nominates, whether that person passes the Senate, and what the situation in Congress looks like come January.
I’d love to be wrong, but my guess is that Trump’s nominee is going to be somebody ridiculous. in my perfect world, it will be somebody so absurd that even McConnell can’t muster 50 votes.
like, Harriet Miers absurd.
but more likely, it will be Amy Coney Barrett. red meat for the theocratic base, makes the liberals cry, but someone with an actual resume as a jurist.
we’ll see what things look like in January.
It will be someone like Barrett, if only as they’ve already been vetted.
This article makes a forceful case for cleek’s position, and advances a partial alternative to expanding the court – jurisdiction stripping:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/supreme-court-packing-alternatives.html
It is of course true that any of this only works if Democrats keep winning elections.
It will be someone like Barrett, if only as they’ve already been vetted.
This article makes a forceful case for cleek’s position, and advances a partial alternative to expanding the court – jurisdiction stripping:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/supreme-court-packing-alternatives.html
It is of course true that any of this only works if Democrats keep winning elections.
Here’s the link to the paper:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3669954
Text in Article III of the U.S. Constitution appears to give to Congress authority to make incursions into judicial supremacy, by restricting (or, less neutrally, “stripping”) the jurisdiction of federal courts. Article III gives Congress authority to make “exceptions” to the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction. Article III also gives Congress discretion whether to “ordain and establish” lower federal courts. Congress’s power to create or abolish these courts would seem to include the power to create them but to limit their jurisdiction, and that has how the power has historically been understood.
Is Congress’s power to remove the jurisdiction of federal courts in effect a legislative power to choose the occasions on which federal courts may, and may not, have the final word on the meaning of the Constitution? That is a question on which Supreme Court has never spoken definitively.
In this Article, I argue that Congress’s Article III power can be understood as a means by which Congress may change the Constitution without amending it. I argue, further, that we should welcome it as such. Working through the ordinary legislative process, Congress may remove the jurisdiction of federal courts to hear cases involving most questions of federal law, including cases that raise questions under the federal Constitution. To be clear, I am not arguing that the Constitution unambiguously establishes this congressional power. As on so many important issues, the Constitution is indeterminate: Article III provides a textual foundation for the power, and neither history nor precedent rule it out. In this matter, however, what Congress does is more important than anything the Constitution says. The Constitution’s indeterminacy opens a space for Congress to reclaim authority, in particular cases, over constitutional interpretation. If a determined Congress acts to fill that space, courts will have little power to resist. Correction, if it comes at all, will come from voters….
Here’s the link to the paper:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3669954
Text in Article III of the U.S. Constitution appears to give to Congress authority to make incursions into judicial supremacy, by restricting (or, less neutrally, “stripping”) the jurisdiction of federal courts. Article III gives Congress authority to make “exceptions” to the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction. Article III also gives Congress discretion whether to “ordain and establish” lower federal courts. Congress’s power to create or abolish these courts would seem to include the power to create them but to limit their jurisdiction, and that has how the power has historically been understood.
Is Congress’s power to remove the jurisdiction of federal courts in effect a legislative power to choose the occasions on which federal courts may, and may not, have the final word on the meaning of the Constitution? That is a question on which Supreme Court has never spoken definitively.
In this Article, I argue that Congress’s Article III power can be understood as a means by which Congress may change the Constitution without amending it. I argue, further, that we should welcome it as such. Working through the ordinary legislative process, Congress may remove the jurisdiction of federal courts to hear cases involving most questions of federal law, including cases that raise questions under the federal Constitution. To be clear, I am not arguing that the Constitution unambiguously establishes this congressional power. As on so many important issues, the Constitution is indeterminate: Article III provides a textual foundation for the power, and neither history nor precedent rule it out. In this matter, however, what Congress does is more important than anything the Constitution says. The Constitution’s indeterminacy opens a space for Congress to reclaim authority, in particular cases, over constitutional interpretation. If a determined Congress acts to fill that space, courts will have little power to resist. Correction, if it comes at all, will come from voters….
There’s also term limits.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/08/experts-tout-proposals-for-supreme-court-term-limits/
The two techniques are, appropriately enough, conservative solutions (which tended to be RBG’s approach, too).
Win elections, and you can much reduce the reach and relevance of the conservative court.
There’s also term limits.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/08/experts-tout-proposals-for-supreme-court-term-limits/
The two techniques are, appropriately enough, conservative solutions (which tended to be RBG’s approach, too).
Win elections, and you can much reduce the reach and relevance of the conservative court.
Kill all theocracy:
https://digbysblog.net/2020/09/welcome-justice-serena-joy/
Wipe the Republican Party off the face of the Earth.
Kill all theocracy:
https://digbysblog.net/2020/09/welcome-justice-serena-joy/
Wipe the Republican Party off the face of the Earth.
Elect fucking hypocrites, not conservative republican traitorous vermin:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/putin-probably-orchestrating-anti-biden-disinformation-campaign-says-secret-cia-memo?via=newsletter&source=CSAMedition
Elect fucking hypocrites, not conservative republican traitorous vermin:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/putin-probably-orchestrating-anti-biden-disinformation-campaign-says-secret-cia-memo?via=newsletter&source=CSAMedition
Did someone already note this?
https://www.thedailybeast.com/redstate-covid-troll-streiff-is-actually-bill-crews-and-he-actually-works-for-dr-anthony-fauci
Chutzpah in its purest form.
Did someone already note this?
https://www.thedailybeast.com/redstate-covid-troll-streiff-is-actually-bill-crews-and-he-actually-works-for-dr-anthony-fauci
Chutzpah in its purest form.
FWIW, bobbyp’s 10.03 seems like a pretty sensible approach/strategy.
FWIW, bobbyp’s 10.03 seems like a pretty sensible approach/strategy.
but more likely, it will be Amy Coney Barrett. red meat for the theocratic base, makes the liberals cry, but someone with an actual resume as a jurist.
Her resume as a jurist began with Trump, just to be clear. Before that, she was a professor, someone who made good grades in school. That’s a plus, considering many of Trump’s other picks, but not exactly much of a resume as a jurist.
Nigel, that’s an excellent article. It’s true that court-packing is a last resort. It should be “on the table”, but the author of the article is right – it probably wouldn’t get Democratic support. Curtailing jurisdiction might be a good fix, although there are certainly many occasions when courts need to weigh in on statutory ambiguities and flaws. But, yes, definitely a first strike against Supreme Court abuse. Thanks!
but more likely, it will be Amy Coney Barrett. red meat for the theocratic base, makes the liberals cry, but someone with an actual resume as a jurist.
Her resume as a jurist began with Trump, just to be clear. Before that, she was a professor, someone who made good grades in school. That’s a plus, considering many of Trump’s other picks, but not exactly much of a resume as a jurist.
Nigel, that’s an excellent article. It’s true that court-packing is a last resort. It should be “on the table”, but the author of the article is right – it probably wouldn’t get Democratic support. Curtailing jurisdiction might be a good fix, although there are certainly many occasions when courts need to weigh in on statutory ambiguities and flaws. But, yes, definitely a first strike against Supreme Court abuse. Thanks!
I was going to note that the other day.
I didn’t know the individual mentioned in the original article was streiff, but anyone who spent time there among the subhumans quickly caught on that he was a vile hateful piece of government-hating republican conservative dogshit.
Here he is bragging about his interactions (izzat what they call it?) with OBWI personalities years ago.
https://www.redstate.com/diary/streiff/2014/07/11/first-decade-red-state/
Elsewhere, he attacked Gary Farber with utter poison.
There is some evidence that he threatened Fauci with violence in his blogging musings, while of course being employed as a high level public affairs specialist with Fauci’s agency.
He threatened his fucking boss. That’s what I call running the government like a private business!
I wonder if he ever threatened fake Christian Erik Erickson’s wife, who was the boss of that household with her rifle in the backroom that Erickson wanted to shoot Census workers with.
Let’s not insult the Yiddish language with the use of the word “chutzpah” for this piece of anti-American redstate dirt.
Fauci, A New York City kid, probably still has some connections with certain characters who would be happy to hunt streiff down and fuck him up with the semi-automatic weaponry the red state goon humps in his spare time.
TO review, he’s a career federal government bureaucrat, a six-figure, full bennie fuck with a glorious pension. A mouthpiece for an institution he despises and wants abolished.
In short, he is Marty’s Deep fucking vermin fascist State, all of whom will be executed.
It’s too bad his offices were not in the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City so that at least we could have has a head start on killing the right wing filth who invest my government, instead of the decent fed employees and children streiff’s accomplice Timothy McVeigh murdered.
Strip him of his pension and his retirement health benefits.
And then tax all his other income and assets at a 100% rate for the rest of his widow’s life.
Harass him to his grave.
I’ll say this for him .. like Hitler, and Pol Pot, he wasn’t a hypocrite, or rather, since hypocrisy seems to be the highest sin imaginable, he was an olympic free-style hypocrite of the sort only the subhuman, murderous conservative movement could birth.
If streiff was running for President against Biden, I’d vote for him on that sterling accomplishment alone, because we certainly can’t allow the small-time nickel and dime, one pant leg at a time dresser hypocrites, your small town just about average lawyers, which number ALL Americans among them, to govern us.
No, let’s get streiff or even Donald Trump (that could never happen) to fucking kill us with outright hatred.
I wanna be just like him.
I also want to meet him personally and fight him, the cuck.
I pity strieff’s subhuman children, if in fact his sperm was at any time operable during his barren pig life.
I was going to note that the other day.
I didn’t know the individual mentioned in the original article was streiff, but anyone who spent time there among the subhumans quickly caught on that he was a vile hateful piece of government-hating republican conservative dogshit.
Here he is bragging about his interactions (izzat what they call it?) with OBWI personalities years ago.
https://www.redstate.com/diary/streiff/2014/07/11/first-decade-red-state/
Elsewhere, he attacked Gary Farber with utter poison.
There is some evidence that he threatened Fauci with violence in his blogging musings, while of course being employed as a high level public affairs specialist with Fauci’s agency.
He threatened his fucking boss. That’s what I call running the government like a private business!
I wonder if he ever threatened fake Christian Erik Erickson’s wife, who was the boss of that household with her rifle in the backroom that Erickson wanted to shoot Census workers with.
Let’s not insult the Yiddish language with the use of the word “chutzpah” for this piece of anti-American redstate dirt.
Fauci, A New York City kid, probably still has some connections with certain characters who would be happy to hunt streiff down and fuck him up with the semi-automatic weaponry the red state goon humps in his spare time.
TO review, he’s a career federal government bureaucrat, a six-figure, full bennie fuck with a glorious pension. A mouthpiece for an institution he despises and wants abolished.
In short, he is Marty’s Deep fucking vermin fascist State, all of whom will be executed.
It’s too bad his offices were not in the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City so that at least we could have has a head start on killing the right wing filth who invest my government, instead of the decent fed employees and children streiff’s accomplice Timothy McVeigh murdered.
Strip him of his pension and his retirement health benefits.
And then tax all his other income and assets at a 100% rate for the rest of his widow’s life.
Harass him to his grave.
I’ll say this for him .. like Hitler, and Pol Pot, he wasn’t a hypocrite, or rather, since hypocrisy seems to be the highest sin imaginable, he was an olympic free-style hypocrite of the sort only the subhuman, murderous conservative movement could birth.
If streiff was running for President against Biden, I’d vote for him on that sterling accomplishment alone, because we certainly can’t allow the small-time nickel and dime, one pant leg at a time dresser hypocrites, your small town just about average lawyers, which number ALL Americans among them, to govern us.
No, let’s get streiff or even Donald Trump (that could never happen) to fucking kill us with outright hatred.
I wanna be just like him.
I also want to meet him personally and fight him, the cuck.
I pity strieff’s subhuman children, if in fact his sperm was at any time operable during his barren pig life.
I am completely in agreement that nothing should be off the table, but smart tactics are essential.
Interestingly Biden seems to recognise this when refusing to answer questions about what he might do in retaliation, saying, quite rightly, that to do so would be letting Trump off the hook for the decision he’s about to make.
As far as that goes, the judge from Florida has other, more transactional attractions than Barrett:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/barbara-lagoa-supreme-court-poll-tax.html
Which might well float Trump’s boat.
I am completely in agreement that nothing should be off the table, but smart tactics are essential.
Interestingly Biden seems to recognise this when refusing to answer questions about what he might do in retaliation, saying, quite rightly, that to do so would be letting Trump off the hook for the decision he’s about to make.
As far as that goes, the judge from Florida has other, more transactional attractions than Barrett:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/barbara-lagoa-supreme-court-poll-tax.html
Which might well float Trump’s boat.
Also note in the streiff article his absolutely vile hatred of Edward, an esteemed OBWI poster back in the day, a gentle man, and a gentleman.
Also note in the streiff article his absolutely vile hatred of Edward, an esteemed OBWI poster back in the day, a gentle man, and a gentleman.
Also, regarding potential conservative murderers being considered for the Supreme Court, the sort of nice, harmless ladies who waved to the Jews on the trains passing East.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2020/09/22/covid-pre-exisiting-conditions-and-post-facto-underwriting/
Genocide.
Not quite on the scale of Genghis Khan, which will make the killings acceptable to the superspreader, Covid-loving, death-addled, conservative movement, the latter the only pre-existing condition exempted from charges of hypocrisy.
Also, regarding potential conservative murderers being considered for the Supreme Court, the sort of nice, harmless ladies who waved to the Jews on the trains passing East.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2020/09/22/covid-pre-exisiting-conditions-and-post-facto-underwriting/
Genocide.
Not quite on the scale of Genghis Khan, which will make the killings acceptable to the superspreader, Covid-loving, death-addled, conservative movement, the latter the only pre-existing condition exempted from charges of hypocrisy.
Fuck Mitt Romney, hypocrisy’s maestro.
Fuck Mitt Romney, hypocrisy’s maestro.
Her resume as a jurist began with Trump, just to be clear.
I was not aware of that, thank you for bringing it to my attention.
There are worse people than Coney Barrett, and I’m not here to try to assassinate her character. She has religious affiliations that raise reasonable questions about her impartiality, full stop.
I’m not that interested in trying to read Trump’s mind, but the fact that all of that touches on some of the most divisive issues in the country today seems like it would appeal to him.
The man seems to love chaos.
Did someone already note this?
Oopsie!
I know Bill Crews very slightly. And yes, Bill Crews is streiff. When I hung out on RedState – before the Great Liberal Purge – I made a comment to the effect that people who work for a living ought to be able to live on it. I think it was in the context of a discussion about Walmart. The RedStaters loved them some Walmart, not least because at least one of them (Mike Krempasky) was on the payroll as an online “influencer”.
Crews followed up with by email to say he basically agreed with me. It wasn’t something he wanted to say on the board, because it wasn’t a conservative enough thought to have, I guess. We had a couple of email conversations, he invited me to get together if I was ever in DC. At the time I was in the DC area occasionally for work, but it never came together.
Crews is basically an Army guy – he really does love the Army as an institution and an organization – who apparently continued on into a career in the public sector. And, he is a hard-core committed conservative partisan. He’s also a guy who (at least at the time) was willing to reach out to somebody “on the other side”.
Or who knows, maybe it was a plot to capture me and throw me from a helicopter.
People have a lot of sides to them.
No question they should throw his ass out of the NIH, though. He’ll be fine, as JDT notes he’s got a federal pension and he likely has some income stream from RedState. Those guys always had their antennae out for the monetization possibilities of their blogging side hustle.
I have no great animus towards Crews, the opposite in fact, although I find a lot of the things he believes and says abhorrent. That said, you can’t bite the hand the feeds you.
No more tax dollars for Bill Crews, which is as it should be.
Her resume as a jurist began with Trump, just to be clear.
I was not aware of that, thank you for bringing it to my attention.
There are worse people than Coney Barrett, and I’m not here to try to assassinate her character. She has religious affiliations that raise reasonable questions about her impartiality, full stop.
I’m not that interested in trying to read Trump’s mind, but the fact that all of that touches on some of the most divisive issues in the country today seems like it would appeal to him.
The man seems to love chaos.
Did someone already note this?
Oopsie!
I know Bill Crews very slightly. And yes, Bill Crews is streiff. When I hung out on RedState – before the Great Liberal Purge – I made a comment to the effect that people who work for a living ought to be able to live on it. I think it was in the context of a discussion about Walmart. The RedStaters loved them some Walmart, not least because at least one of them (Mike Krempasky) was on the payroll as an online “influencer”.
Crews followed up with by email to say he basically agreed with me. It wasn’t something he wanted to say on the board, because it wasn’t a conservative enough thought to have, I guess. We had a couple of email conversations, he invited me to get together if I was ever in DC. At the time I was in the DC area occasionally for work, but it never came together.
Crews is basically an Army guy – he really does love the Army as an institution and an organization – who apparently continued on into a career in the public sector. And, he is a hard-core committed conservative partisan. He’s also a guy who (at least at the time) was willing to reach out to somebody “on the other side”.
Or who knows, maybe it was a plot to capture me and throw me from a helicopter.
People have a lot of sides to them.
No question they should throw his ass out of the NIH, though. He’ll be fine, as JDT notes he’s got a federal pension and he likely has some income stream from RedState. Those guys always had their antennae out for the monetization possibilities of their blogging side hustle.
I have no great animus towards Crews, the opposite in fact, although I find a lot of the things he believes and says abhorrent. That said, you can’t bite the hand the feeds you.
No more tax dollars for Bill Crews, which is as it should be.
https://digbysblog.net/2020/09/are-you-built-for-this/
https://digbysblog.net/2020/09/are-you-built-for-this/
The dead are virtual nobodies.
The CCP?
No, subhuman conservative vermin:
https://digbysblog.net/2020/09/donalds-virtual-nobodies/
Here’s one:
https://www.bing.com/search?q=Adeline+Fagan+COVID-19&filters=tnTID%3a%22CD33D3AA-6FD3-4043-A2BD-73B55359FA93%22+tnVersion%3a%223712798%22+Segment%3a%22popularnow.carousel%22+tnCol%3a%224%22+tnOrder%3a%224adae6e2-4c78-425e-855c-2fde78abfa52%22&efirst=4&form=HPNN01
Too bad she didn’t live so she could help to kill the Republican Party.
Here’s another nobody:
https://people.com/health/former-nashville-council-member-skeptical-of-coronavirus-dies-of-covid-19/
As with Herman Cain, another bullet saved for the truly deserving.
The dead are virtual nobodies.
The CCP?
No, subhuman conservative vermin:
https://digbysblog.net/2020/09/donalds-virtual-nobodies/
Here’s one:
https://www.bing.com/search?q=Adeline+Fagan+COVID-19&filters=tnTID%3a%22CD33D3AA-6FD3-4043-A2BD-73B55359FA93%22+tnVersion%3a%223712798%22+Segment%3a%22popularnow.carousel%22+tnCol%3a%224%22+tnOrder%3a%224adae6e2-4c78-425e-855c-2fde78abfa52%22&efirst=4&form=HPNN01
Too bad she didn’t live so she could help to kill the Republican Party.
Here’s another nobody:
https://people.com/health/former-nashville-council-member-skeptical-of-coronavirus-dies-of-covid-19/
As with Herman Cain, another bullet saved for the truly deserving.
I don’t believe we have an active open thread at the moment, so I hope you will forgive me if I link some (semi) light relief.
It’s the marvellous Marina Hyde at the Guardian again, exercising her superlative skill for insult (e.g. about BoJo his emotional support psycho, Dominic Cummings). BoJo, incidentally, becoming more Trumpian by the hour – when questioned in the House about why our test and trace system (it was going to be “world-beating”) is buckling under the strain, unlike those of Germany and Italy, he mentioned that we are “a freedom-loving people”. Hmmm.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/22/boris-johnson-westminster-thames?CMP=share_btn_tw
I don’t believe we have an active open thread at the moment, so I hope you will forgive me if I link some (semi) light relief.
It’s the marvellous Marina Hyde at the Guardian again, exercising her superlative skill for insult (e.g. about BoJo his emotional support psycho, Dominic Cummings). BoJo, incidentally, becoming more Trumpian by the hour – when questioned in the House about why our test and trace system (it was going to be “world-beating”) is buckling under the strain, unlike those of Germany and Italy, he mentioned that we are “a freedom-loving people”. Hmmm.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/22/boris-johnson-westminster-thames?CMP=share_btn_tw
. That said, you can’t bite the hand the feeds you.
awaiting cries of “cancel culture!”
Romney says he’s voting for RBG’s replacement.
. That said, you can’t bite the hand the feeds you.
awaiting cries of “cancel culture!”
Romney says he’s voting for RBG’s replacement.
Romney: FFS, but I guess not really a surprise.
For your delectation, a further note on my reference to Marina Hyde’s talent at insults, a few days ago she referred to Dido Harding, the current head of the NHS Test and Trace Program, as “Dido Queen of Carnage”. I do love invective coupled with wit.
Romney: FFS, but I guess not really a surprise.
For your delectation, a further note on my reference to Marina Hyde’s talent at insults, a few days ago she referred to Dido Harding, the current head of the NHS Test and Trace Program, as “Dido Queen of Carnage”. I do love invective coupled with wit.
BoJo, incidentally, becoming more Trumpian by the hour – when questioned in the House about why our test and trace system (it was going to be “world-beating”) is buckling under the strain, unlike those of Germany and Italy, he mentioned that we are “a freedom-loving people”.
The US has now edged the UK out of 10th place in COVID deaths per million.
It appears we love freedom more than you all do.
Romney says he’s voting for RBG’s replacement.
Probably gonna be a 6-3 court, then.
TBH I don’t much care what response the (D)’s make to all of this. They just need to make a response, and a response that consists of more than Strongly Worded Statements.
Trump is a criminal. He may be a traitor, wittingly or not. He may even be insane. Check out his latest campaign blatherings about “good genes” and using the courts to make sure the “rigged election” isn’t “stolen” from him. The man is a menace.
The (R)’s are governing as if they had an overwhelming popular mandate. They have no such mandate.
It’s time to stop letting these assholes steal everybody else’s lunch.
I want (D)’s who know how to kick ass. Biden’s great, and it’s probably not a good idea for a candidate for POTUS to take a hard line.
Schumer, Pelosi, and the rank and file need to level up their game. Kick ass and take names. Tell the truth about WTF is going on. Stop being polite, stop trying to act like “civility” is even an option at this point.
Harris seems like she has the gumption. Give her a platform and let her run with it.
Use every available lever to obstruct these jerks.
That’s what I’m looking for.
BoJo, incidentally, becoming more Trumpian by the hour – when questioned in the House about why our test and trace system (it was going to be “world-beating”) is buckling under the strain, unlike those of Germany and Italy, he mentioned that we are “a freedom-loving people”.
The US has now edged the UK out of 10th place in COVID deaths per million.
It appears we love freedom more than you all do.
Romney says he’s voting for RBG’s replacement.
Probably gonna be a 6-3 court, then.
TBH I don’t much care what response the (D)’s make to all of this. They just need to make a response, and a response that consists of more than Strongly Worded Statements.
Trump is a criminal. He may be a traitor, wittingly or not. He may even be insane. Check out his latest campaign blatherings about “good genes” and using the courts to make sure the “rigged election” isn’t “stolen” from him. The man is a menace.
The (R)’s are governing as if they had an overwhelming popular mandate. They have no such mandate.
It’s time to stop letting these assholes steal everybody else’s lunch.
I want (D)’s who know how to kick ass. Biden’s great, and it’s probably not a good idea for a candidate for POTUS to take a hard line.
Schumer, Pelosi, and the rank and file need to level up their game. Kick ass and take names. Tell the truth about WTF is going on. Stop being polite, stop trying to act like “civility” is even an option at this point.
Harris seems like she has the gumption. Give her a platform and let her run with it.
Use every available lever to obstruct these jerks.
That’s what I’m looking for.
“That said, you can’t bite the hand the feeds you.”
Yes, you can. Biting the hand that feeds you is as pettifogging American as apple pie baked using hands as an ingredient rather than apples.
Every hand in America that feeds republican and conservative cannibals has been bitten by these filth with impunity.
“That said, you can’t bite the hand the feeds you.”
Yes, you can. Biting the hand that feeds you is as pettifogging American as apple pie baked using hands as an ingredient rather than apples.
Every hand in America that feeds republican and conservative cannibals has been bitten by these filth with impunity.
Use every available lever to obstruct these jerks.
That’s what I’m looking for.
Quite right.
Use every available lever to obstruct these jerks.
That’s what I’m looking for.
Quite right.
Chaos and violence will replace the bog standard hypocrisy some mewl about:
https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/election-2020-nightmare-094500888.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=2_15
Chaos and violence will replace the bog standard hypocrisy some mewl about:
https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/election-2020-nightmare-094500888.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=2_15
If we’re betting now, I’ll take Lagoa. Confirmed recently enough to give Graham and McConnell nominal cover for not having hearings for her again. Cuban-American and from Florida, which even Trump must realize he has to win in November.
If we’re betting now, I’ll take Lagoa. Confirmed recently enough to give Graham and McConnell nominal cover for not having hearings for her again. Cuban-American and from Florida, which even Trump must realize he has to win in November.
And a history of effing with the qualification to vote – while dancing around judicial ethics.
Definitely a contender.
And a history of effing with the qualification to vote – while dancing around judicial ethics.
Definitely a contender.
The more I look at it, the more I like term limits (assuming a Democratic president and Senate next year).
It completely sidesteps the whole tit for tat retaliation thing.
A twenty year maximum term would see Thomas and Breyer retire. It would leave a 5-4 Republican court, which would restore the status quo had the Garland cheat not happened. And leave Roberts as the swing vote.
And everything up for grabs in 2024.
The more I look at it, the more I like term limits (assuming a Democratic president and Senate next year).
It completely sidesteps the whole tit for tat retaliation thing.
A twenty year maximum term would see Thomas and Breyer retire. It would leave a 5-4 Republican court, which would restore the status quo had the Garland cheat not happened. And leave Roberts as the swing vote.
And everything up for grabs in 2024.
The only problem with term limits is that it requires either (a) some sort of unprecedented trickery to remove judges by some means other than retirement, death, or impeachment; or (b) getting 38 state legislatures to approve an amendment.
I don’t believe there will be any amendments proposed in my lifetime that 38 state legislatures will pass.
The only problem with term limits is that it requires either (a) some sort of unprecedented trickery to remove judges by some means other than retirement, death, or impeachment; or (b) getting 38 state legislatures to approve an amendment.
I don’t believe there will be any amendments proposed in my lifetime that 38 state legislatures will pass.
Why would term limits for the SC require any amendment or trickery? Judgeships are lifetime appointments, but IIRC nothing says that once you get to the supreme court you stay there for the rest of your career. Just thank them for their service and send them back down a level as a federal judge.
Why would term limits for the SC require any amendment or trickery? Judgeships are lifetime appointments, but IIRC nothing says that once you get to the supreme court you stay there for the rest of your career. Just thank them for their service and send them back down a level as a federal judge.
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
That’s what the Constitution says. I think the Supreme Court would probably interpret “hold their Offices” as being to hold the particular office for which they were confirmed. Even if it could be interpreted differently, they’re the ones who would decide.
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
That’s what the Constitution says. I think the Supreme Court would probably interpret “hold their Offices” as being to hold the particular office for which they were confirmed. Even if it could be interpreted differently, they’re the ones who would decide.
the Constitution doesn’t actually say “for life” anywhere (it’s only implied). but it does say you can’t diminish their compensation. and since there are different salary levels for Supreme vs Appeals justices, there would need to be some adjustments around that too.
the Constitution doesn’t actually say “for life” anywhere (it’s only implied). but it does say you can’t diminish their compensation. and since there are different salary levels for Supreme vs Appeals justices, there would need to be some adjustments around that too.
I don’t believe there will be any amendments proposed in my lifetime that 38 state legislatures will pass.
Not even for free beer? I am disdraught.
I don’t believe there will be any amendments proposed in my lifetime that 38 state legislatures will pass.
Not even for free beer? I am disdraught.
it might be too early to start laying out the Dems’ agenda, however.
it might be too early to start laying out the Dems’ agenda, however.
What cleek said. The “lifetime tenure” is not explicit. It just says that they shall not be removed during their continuance. If Congress passed a law delineating what that continuance consists of, then we’d have to see where that landed.
What cleek said. The “lifetime tenure” is not explicit. It just says that they shall not be removed during their continuance. If Congress passed a law delineating what that continuance consists of, then we’d have to see where that landed.
What the Constitution actually says is “good behavior.” For the SC, everyone assumes that Congress uses its impeachment power to decide whether the behavior is good or bad on a case by case basis. To date, only one justice has been impeached and he was acquitted on all charges.
What the Constitution actually says is “good behavior.” For the SC, everyone assumes that Congress uses its impeachment power to decide whether the behavior is good or bad on a case by case basis. To date, only one justice has been impeached and he was acquitted on all charges.
Agreed, Michael Cain, if you are looking at grounds for removal. We are just noting that “Continuance in Office” is not explicitly delineated, which would seem to open the possibility of legislating what that “Continuance of Office” consists of and limiting it in a way that does not threaten impartiality. A longer, staggered term might ensure that. Some discussion of the limits side.
https://hbr.org/2018/07/the-supreme-court-has-a-longevity-problem-but-term-limits-on-justices-wont-solve-it
I’ve dealt with enough contract disputes in union grievances to spot the ambiguity in the phrase “Continuance of Office.” May as well test that and see what happens.
Agreed, Michael Cain, if you are looking at grounds for removal. We are just noting that “Continuance in Office” is not explicitly delineated, which would seem to open the possibility of legislating what that “Continuance of Office” consists of and limiting it in a way that does not threaten impartiality. A longer, staggered term might ensure that. Some discussion of the limits side.
https://hbr.org/2018/07/the-supreme-court-has-a-longevity-problem-but-term-limits-on-justices-wont-solve-it
I’ve dealt with enough contract disputes in union grievances to spot the ambiguity in the phrase “Continuance of Office.” May as well test that and see what happens.
Several Justices, including Roberts, have spoken in favour of term limits before.
And they might in any event see them as eminently preferable to court expansion – which they are powerless to prevent.
Several Justices, including Roberts, have spoken in favour of term limits before.
And they might in any event see them as eminently preferable to court expansion – which they are powerless to prevent.
the problem with all of this is that judges are appointed by politicians, so partisan concerns will always be part of the process.
maybe we should just have direct election of SCOTUS justices, the way many states do it.
the problem with all of this is that judges are appointed by politicians, so partisan concerns will always be part of the process.
maybe we should just have direct election of SCOTUS justices, the way many states do it.
Christians who are willing to goddamned fight the Evil:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/reverends-ask-team-biden-when-they-will-learn-how-to-fight?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning
Christians who are willing to goddamned fight the Evil:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/reverends-ask-team-biden-when-they-will-learn-how-to-fight?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning
Direct election doesn’t seem like an improvement to me, especially when we have a system where the courts are allowing gerrymandering and other election manipulation to go forward. Seems that would just put more pressure on to rig the vote in your favor.
Term limits would at least reduce the power and influence of the appointment and introduce a corrective feedback loop into the judicial process.
Direct election doesn’t seem like an improvement to me, especially when we have a system where the courts are allowing gerrymandering and other election manipulation to go forward. Seems that would just put more pressure on to rig the vote in your favor.
Term limits would at least reduce the power and influence of the appointment and introduce a corrective feedback loop into the judicial process.
i was thinking an actual national vote, not some EC-esque crapfest.
seat comes open, parties nominate their judges, all voters vote.
i was thinking an actual national vote, not some EC-esque crapfest.
seat comes open, parties nominate their judges, all voters vote.
maybe we should just have direct election of SCOTUS justices, the way many states do it.
The GOP, knowing it is at a disadvantage being able to run up a national popular vote majority, most likely would never go for it.
Wouldn’t this require a Constitutional Amendment?
Would the Green Party be allowed to run a slate of judges also?
maybe we should just have direct election of SCOTUS justices, the way many states do it.
The GOP, knowing it is at a disadvantage being able to run up a national popular vote majority, most likely would never go for it.
Wouldn’t this require a Constitutional Amendment?
Would the Green Party be allowed to run a slate of judges also?
Every 4 years the national party ticket includes somebody nominated by them to be Chief Justice. If the ticket wins, he/she gets the job. The balance of the Court is made up of alternating nominees chosen by the political parties on a 4 year alternating basis. No more nasty hearings! If they do a good job, they keep getting renominated. No term limits.
Every 4 years the national party ticket includes somebody nominated by them to be Chief Justice. If the ticket wins, he/she gets the job. The balance of the Court is made up of alternating nominees chosen by the political parties on a 4 year alternating basis. No more nasty hearings! If they do a good job, they keep getting renominated. No term limits.
I was reading an article about SC possible nominees at nbc news and this paragraph was in it. Which I thought was interesting because they counted Roberts, I guess, as a liberal.
“The court, currently split at 4-4 between conservatives and liberals after Ginsburg’s death, will weigh in on such a case in the fall. In Fulton v. the City of Philadelphia, the court will decide whether faith-based child welfare organizations can reject same-sex couples and others whom they consider to be in violation of their religious beliefs.”
I was reading an article about SC possible nominees at nbc news and this paragraph was in it. Which I thought was interesting because they counted Roberts, I guess, as a liberal.
“The court, currently split at 4-4 between conservatives and liberals after Ginsburg’s death, will weigh in on such a case in the fall. In Fulton v. the City of Philadelphia, the court will decide whether faith-based child welfare organizations can reject same-sex couples and others whom they consider to be in violation of their religious beliefs.”
maybe Roberts get counted as a liberal because he’s expressed occasional concern about the Court’s future legitimacy.
maybe Roberts get counted as a liberal because he’s expressed occasional concern about the Court’s future legitimacy.
Roberts frequently acts as a swing vote.
In the case you mention, he is less likely to do so, I think.
Roberts frequently acts as a swing vote.
In the case you mention, he is less likely to do so, I think.
Bouie weighs in. Good read.
Bouie weighs in. Good read.
Fine article.
Fine article.
Romney has always been a rather devous character
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-183291/
Romney has always been a rather devous character
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-183291/
Think I finally managed to put my current state of political mind into words:
“We are in a time where the choices seem to be winning enough to achieve a little bit, but not as much as the times demand of us to meet our challenges, or to try to respond as the times demand, and lose
Both feel like a defeat.”
Think I finally managed to put my current state of political mind into words:
“We are in a time where the choices seem to be winning enough to achieve a little bit, but not as much as the times demand of us to meet our challenges, or to try to respond as the times demand, and lose
Both feel like a defeat.”
This is quite the bracing analysis of our moment:
https://columbialawreview.org/content/asymmetric-constitutional-hardball/
Not an enjoyable read.
This is quite the bracing analysis of our moment:
https://columbialawreview.org/content/asymmetric-constitutional-hardball/
Not an enjoyable read.
try this one, nous….
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/liberal-reckoning-courts/616425/
try this one, nous….
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/liberal-reckoning-courts/616425/
This is my analysis of the American status quo:
The country is full of frightened angry white people who think everybody else is picking on them. And they’re FUBARing everything they can get control over.
IMO the solution here is for the (D)’s to get their asses out into every damned corner of the country and make their case. They have about a million solid selling points, for pretty much every demographic other than seven-figure types and Nazis.
They need to get their asses in gear and sell it. Everywhere. Run candidates for everything – mayor, selectmen, county offices, state offices.
That was Howard Dean’s pitch when he was chair of the DNC, and it was the right play. It appears to have be de-emphasized, I don’t know why.
It will take 10-20 years. But then we’ll have a country worth living in again.
This is my analysis of the American status quo:
The country is full of frightened angry white people who think everybody else is picking on them. And they’re FUBARing everything they can get control over.
IMO the solution here is for the (D)’s to get their asses out into every damned corner of the country and make their case. They have about a million solid selling points, for pretty much every demographic other than seven-figure types and Nazis.
They need to get their asses in gear and sell it. Everywhere. Run candidates for everything – mayor, selectmen, county offices, state offices.
That was Howard Dean’s pitch when he was chair of the DNC, and it was the right play. It appears to have be de-emphasized, I don’t know why.
It will take 10-20 years. But then we’ll have a country worth living in again.
I like this conversation:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/ruth-bader-ginsburg-jurist-evolution.html
I like this conversation:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/ruth-bader-ginsburg-jurist-evolution.html