Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2020 American Political Scene

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by tantalus View Post

    What do you mean by pack the court?
    A Democrat-controlled Senate could vote to enlarge the Supreme Court beyond the current 9 justices and then fill those extra numbers with liberal justices, and the GOP would be unable to do anything about it....until they control the Senate. This of course would vastly dilute the power and prestige of the Supreme Court.

    See, the Republicans ramrodding a new justice into the Supreme Court mere weeks before the election, despite blocking Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland months before an election, would be more than merely their usual hypocrisy. Because what people like surfgun can't seem to comprehend is anything that the GOP does while it controls the presidency and Senate, is merely setting a precedent for the Democrats to do when the shoe is on the other foot.

    Which is odd, given surfgun's love of precedents.
    Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

    Comment


    • Trump calls on Senate Republicans to act 'without delay' on SCOTUS pick

      President Donald Trump on Saturday morning, just hours after the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, tweeted Senate Republicans have an "obligation, without delay" to act on his nominee to the Supreme Court, presumably before November's presidential election.

      “We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us, the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices,” Trump tweeted. "We have this obligation, without delay!"

      Trump has yet to indicate whom he might pick and when, and despite his call for Senate Republicans to act "without delay," just how quickly the process will move on the Capital Hill is still very much an open question with the election just over six weeks away.

      Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, whose legacy is tied to the vast number of judicial nominees he's gotten through the Senate, has vowed that Trump’s Supreme Court nominee will get a vote, but he did not say when that vote would be held.

      “Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary,” McConnell said in a statement Friday night.

      “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate,” he said, without mentioning specific timing.

      Some Republicans seem to be answering Trump's call. Sen. Thom Tillis, a longtime Trump ally who currently is in a tough reelection slog against Democrat Cal Cunningham, made it clear he’ll support a Trump nominee.

      "There is a clear choice on the future of the Supreme Court between the well-qualified and conservative jurist President Trump will nominate and I will support, and the liberal activist Joe Biden will nominate and Cal Cunningham will support, who will legislate radical, left wing policies from the bench," Tillis said in a statement.

      Multiple sources familiar with the President Trump’s thinking and that of his advisers see a short list of potential nominees.

      The sources describe that list, as of now, including federal appeals court judges Amy Coney Barrett, Barbara Lagoa, Allison Jones Rushing and Amul Thapar, with the sources all describing Coney Barrett as the leading contender at this point.

      The sources caution the process is still in its early stages and the president is expected to speak to those on the short list before making any announcement in the coming days.

      Ginsburg's death certainly sets the stage for a titanic political showdown that complicates an already bitter presidential election. Not even 24 hours after news broke of Ginsburg's death, the White House and Trump campaign leaned into the new political reality by urging former Vice President Joe Biden to release his list of possible Supreme Court picks as Trump did last week.

      "He needs to tell voters where he stands," White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany told Fox News Saturday morning.

      "We don't know whose on his Supreme Court list. We don't know what kind of justices he would nominate. We know very squarely this president has been very transparent putting forward two lists as to exactly not just what his justices would look like but what their names be. This is paramount importance to the American voters," she said.

      Trump appeared to be caught off guard Friday evening when a reporter asked him about Ginsburg's death and said that he was "saddened" to hear the news.

      “She just died? Wow, I didn't know that — I just, uh, you’re telling me now for the first time,” Trump said. "“She led an amazing life. What else can you say? She was an amazing woman, whether you agreed or not, she was an amazing woman who led an amazing life. I'm, actually saddened to hear. I am saddened to hear that.”

      The sense of urgency Trump tweeted Saturday morning is in sharp contrast to how he reacted after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia four years ago while President Barack Obama was in his last year in office.

      "I think that the next president should make the pick," Trump said on CNN at the time. "We don't have a very long distance to wait. Certainly, they could wait it out very easily. But I think the next president should make the pick. I would be not in favor of going forward."


      Trump, who brings up conservative control of the Supreme Court as a key election issue at almost all his campaign rallies, is likely to say more about the court at a campaign event Saturday evening in North Carolina.

      NPR reported that just days before her death, Ginsburg dictated this statement to her granddaughter Clara Spera: "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."
      _________

      Trump, true to his sociopathic core, didn't even wait until she was in the ground to hypocritically demand a Senate vote. Apparently this is different from when Scalia passed away.
      Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

      Comment


      • If the Dems threaten the packing of the court to previously mentioned figure by them (of 15), what would prevent the Republicans from pre packing it with an expanded number of justices before the Dems would even have the opportunity?
        Threats can lead to unintended consequences.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by surfgun View Post
          If the Dems threaten the packing of the court to previously mentioned figure by them (of 15), what would prevent the Republicans from pre packing it with an expanded number of justices before the Dems would even have the opportunity?
          Threats can lead to unintended consequences.
          Covered that already:

          Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
          A Democrat-controlled Senate could vote to enlarge the Supreme Court beyond the current 9 justices and then fill those extra numbers with liberal justices, and the GOP would be unable to do anything about it....until they control the Senate. This of course would vastly dilute the power and prestige of the Supreme Court.
          Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

          Comment


          • surfgun,

            If the Dems threaten the packing of the court to previously mentioned figure by them (of 15), what would prevent the Republicans from pre packing it with an expanded number of justices before the Dems would even have the opportunity?
            Threats can lead to unintended consequences.
            then Mitch McConnell would need to blow up the legislative filibuster a few months before a set of elections where Democrats are favored to take the Presidency and the Senate.

            and if that comes to pass, then the GOP packed court would not have the chance to do anything before the Democrats pack it even more.

            so, not a credible threat.



            There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

            Comment


            • Inexile,

              The Dems would have a great opportunity to pass some of their agenda with unified control of the Government; a conservative majority on the Supreme court doesn't necessarily prevent that. Several conservative judges especially John Roberts are concerned with upholding the legitimacy of the court and might be wary of revisiting divisive issues like Roe vs Wade. And if they do, that might be a better time to threaten to pack the court rather than right before an election
              maybe, we'll see how well Trump manages to use this to get his base going.

              I would probably agree with you outright if the Court were currently evenly divided, and the GOP had picked someone like John Roberts as a RBG replacement.

              but, the Court is no longer evenly divided and the frontrunner that people are discussing-- Amy Barrett-- is essentially a Scalia conservative (she was his clerk). in this scenario, Roberts is no longer going to be the tie-breaker and the median.

              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

              Comment


              • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post

                A Democrat-controlled Senate could vote to enlarge the Supreme Court beyond the current 9 justices and then fill those extra numbers with liberal justices, and the GOP would be unable to do anything about it....until they control the Senate. This of course would vastly dilute the power and prestige of the Supreme Court.

                See, the Republicans ramrodding a new justice into the Supreme Court mere weeks before the election, despite blocking Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland months before an election, would be more than merely their usual hypocrisy. Because what people like surfgun can't seem to comprehend is anything that the GOP does while it controls the presidency and Senate, is merely setting a precedent for the Democrats to do when the shoe is on the other foot.

                Which is odd, given surfgun's love of precedents.
                Ok thanks.

                Iam curious. Lets imagine they ram through a nominee. Do you think there is any chance the dems would do that? It seems that would be the equivalent of setting a bomb off. Also it doesn't seem like biden's style.

                It sounds like a threat everyone realises is an unloaded gun and if the election comes and goes with democratic domination secured they will get on with running the country and let this slide away in the rear view memory. If the repulbicans don't push ahead, iam struggling to see how that will be the reason that compelled them...?

                That said, it sounds like there will be enough republicans of integrity to sink this and as they already have a majority they can afford to lose this one.

                Comment


                • That said, it sounds like there will be enough republicans of integrity to sink this and as they already have a majority they can afford to lose this one.
                  that's actually fairly low probability.

                  if Mitch McConnell didn't press the advantage, the GOP base would explode in rage at the prospect of "giving" a Supreme Court seat to Biden.

                  even the scenario I outlined -- where Democrats try to deter McConnell by letting him know what exactly will happen if he does this -- the deterrence is fairly weak, because it would require McConnell to 1.) believe that Democrats will actually take those steps post-election, and 2.) care about what happens in the long-term.

                  which he doesn't. for either.

                  There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                  Comment


                  • So far it looks like Collins and Murkowski are both "No" votes, unless they can be strong-armed by McConnell into changing their minds.

                    Graham of course has once again twisted his whole body straight up Trump's ass and pulled a 180, insisting that circumstances are different.

                    That leaves Grassley and perhaps Romney.

                    And of course Kelly, assuming he wins and is seated prior to a Senate vote.
                    Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by astralis View Post

                      that's actually fairly low probability.

                      if Mitch McConnell didn't press the advantage, the GOP base would explode in rage at the prospect of "giving" a Supreme Court seat to Biden.

                      ok noted
                      Originally posted by astralis View Post


                      even the scenario I outlined -- where Democrats try to deter McConnell by letting him know what exactly will happen if he does this -- the deterrence is fairly weak, because it would require McConnell to 1.) believe that Democrats will actually take those steps post-election, and 2.) care about what happens in the long-term.

                      which he doesn't. for either.
                      this makes sense

                      Comment


                      • Democrats have to win the Senate too which is far more unlikely than winning the White House. 538 has them as slight favorites to take the Senate, but I don't see them winning it.

                        Comment


                        • Democratic 'court packing' would prompt a gloves-off political fight

                          By Andrew Chung

                          NEW YORK (Reuters) - The vow by Republican President Donald Trump and the Republicans to quickly fill U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat despite a looming election has revived talk among some Democrats of expanding the number of justices on the court.

                          These Democrats, along with progressive activists, say all options must be considered to counter what would become an entrenched 6-3 conservative majority that could threaten access to healthcare, abortion, and civil rights.

                          A plan to expand the court would likely lead to a bare-knuckles political fight with unpredictable consequences for both parties. Here are a few things to consider about "court packing."

                          SIZE OF THE COURT

                          The number of justices on the high court has remained at nine since 1869, but Congress has the power to change the size of the bench and did so several times before that.

                          LAST PACKING PLAN FAILED

                          In 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt, facing a court that repeatedly struck down his New Deal legislation, proposed adding up to six justices, one for each member of the court over the age of 70. The plan faced considerable opposition, including in Roosevelt's own Democratic party, and was never enacted.

                          ABOLISHING THE FILIBUSTER

                          It is not clear Democrats would pursue a court packing plan. Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer told fellow Democrats on Saturday that "nothing is off the table for next year" if Republicans move forward with Trump's nominee.

                          But expanding the court would require Democrats to control Congress and the White House. They would need to ditch a longstanding procedural rule in the Senate requiring 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, a tactic frequently used by the minority party to hold up legislation.

                          DIVIDED DEMOCRATS

                          Democratic Senator Ed Markey wrote on Twitter on Friday that if Republicans seat a new justice during an election year, after refusing to give former President Barack Obama's nominee Merrick Garland a hearing in 2016, "when Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress, we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court."

                          The party's presidential nominee Joe Biden has opposed the idea in the past. "I'm not prepared to go on and try to pack the court, because we'll live to rue that day," he told the Iowa Starting Line in 2019. His running mate, Kamala Harris, however, told Politico last year that she was open to court packing.

                          THE COURT'S LEGITIMACY

                          In an era of hyper partisanship, the high court's legitimacy has been increasingly called into question, particularly since the fight over Garland's nomination. Packing the court could prompt future Republicans to further expand the institution and could strengthen the view that the court is purely partisan and renders decisions based on politics rather than the law.

                          OTHER OPTIONS

                          Besides packing the court, activist groups and Democrats have broached the idea of imposing term limits for justices. This would likely require a constitutional amendment, though some scholars have proposed ways to accomplish term limits by statute.
                          ___________

                          Personally I don't think court packing is a good idea, at all. The legitimacy of the court would suffer badly. As Biden said: "We'll live to rue that day"

                          Also, the Democrats simply don't have the balls or the unity that such a bare-knuckle brawl would require.

                          As I've often said, the Dems could f--k up a wet dream.



                          Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

                          Comment


                          • joe,

                            Personally I don't think court packing is a good idea, at all. The legitimacy of the court would suffer badly. As Biden said: "We'll live to rue that day".
                            what happened with Scalia and now RBG's vacancy is essentially court-packing. it's all connected; had McConnell accepted Garland, then the most likely probability is that the Dems would very grudgingly accept a center-right pick to replace RBG.

                            the irony is such a trade would -still- leave the Court with a conservative bent.

                            but, as it is, the legitimacy of the Court is already suffering, right now.

                            Roberts is doing his best to keep that legitimacy, but ironically his attempts to keep rulings as specific as possible, without implying broad precedents, is just pissing off the right. there's no winning here.

                            Also, the Democrats simply don't have the balls or the unity that such a bare-knuckle brawl would require.
                            that is exactly what Mitch McConnell is counting on: the coalition nature of the Democratic Party breaking apart at the prospect of a brutal political power-play.

                            but, I think he's playing with fire here. this feels like a "Pearl Harbor" situation to me; this has the chance of enraging Democrats to the point where they push the button. if a 6-3 conservative majority does strike down Roe v Wade, it will be a certainty.
                            Last edited by astralis; 21 Sep 20,, 18:10.
                            There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                              what happened with Scalia and now RBG's vacancy is essentially court-packing. it's all connected; had McConnell accepted Garland, then the most likely probability is that the Dems would very grudgingly accept a center-right pick to replace RBG.
                              Court-packing definitely. But adding to the number of justices is a whole other kettle of hasenpfeffer altogether..

                              Originally posted by astralis View Post
                              Roberts is doing his best to keep that legitimacy, but ironically his attempts to keep rulings as specific as possible, without implying broad precedents, is just pissing off the right. there's no winning here.
                              I think he's going to regret a lot of the choices he's made. In fact he's probably regretting them right now.

                              Originally posted by astralis View Post
                              that is exactly what Mitch McConnell is counting on: the coalition nature of the Democratic Party breaking apart at the prospect of a brutal political power-play.

                              but, I think he's playing with fire here. this feels like a "Pearl Harbor" situation to me; this has the chance of enraging Democrats to the point where they push the button. if a 6-3 conservative majority does strike down Roe v Wade, it will be a certainty.
                              I think you're absolutely right. If Roe v Wade goes down, the nuclear button gets pushed.
                              Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

                              Comment


                              • I think it really says something about the state of American politics when the Democratic leaders are pleading for the GOP not to escalate, while the GOP leaders gleefully slam on the big red button.

                                Nancy Pelosi all but screamed to the administration and the GOP, "don't push me into impeachment" because she -really- didn't want to go there.

                                Joe Biden just asked the GOP Senate to "follow your conscience", begging them to cool things down and prevent escalation.

                                Asked about the overtures to Republicans from the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Republican strategist Scott Jennings shot back, “lol.”
                                if this type of thing continues, one day the GOP will find that they face a Democratic Party leadership just as willing and eager to play pure power politics as they do; given the existing demographic trends, I don't think they will like that very much.
                                There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X