Ruth Bader-Ginsburg has died

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

6 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

So you're misinterpreting what I'm saying.  I don't favor court packing at all.  But right now, it's a political nuclear bomb that Schumer should threaten to use in a closed door setting.  He has also to be willing to do it, but the hope would be is that this would be a deterrent to having this nomination process before the new Senate and President are installed.

You've made it abundantly clear what your point is; and with all due respect, it is a foolish one in my meaningless opinion. 

[homersapien 11,354]

41 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

(And @Brad_ATX) I think you will appreciate some points contained in the below link:

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/case-against-court-packing 

“The principled argument against 21st-century court packing is that it is dangerous to tamper with the mechanisms of democracy to thwart a single political figure — in this case, McConnell. For times change while power eventually ebbs. But restructuring the Supreme Court could have lasting repercussions long after the current crisis is as forgotten as the mid-1930s conservative decisions that jeopardized the New Deal.“

McConnell's  M.O. is essentially court packing - at all levels of the judiciary system.

Like I said, I understand and appreciate your point.  But frankly - considering the behavior of the Republican party's efforts to restrict democratic participation in gaming the system, combined with impending, existential problems like AGW,  I'm thinking more and more that such a political "re-set" would be worth such a risk.  I think we have already have a  failed political system and our time is running out. 

What would you think about Democrats adding states by subdividing CA and granting DC statehood?

[homersapien 11,354]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You've made it abundantly clear what your point is; and with all due respect, it is a foolish one in my meaningless opinion. 

Democrats shouldn't get to play hard ball like Republicans? 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

What would you think about Democrats adding states by subdividing CA and granting DC statehood?

I have no worthwhile thoughts on it right now. 

[homersapien 11,354]

4 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I have no worthwhile thoughts on it right now. 

You should be ashamed for providing me with such a good set-up. 

(But I think I'll take the high road and not use it.)

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

14 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Democrats shouldn't get to play hard ball like Republicans? 

At least you, and those in agreement, are honest about the problematic premise.

Anyhow, there's also a good article that the Atlantic recently posted re Court-packing. Take a look if you're up for some more reading. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

44 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You've made it abundantly clear what your point is; and with all due respect, it is a foolish one in my meaningless opinion. 

Fair.  But I think you're looking at it from a legal, utopian view that still wants to believe the courts are independent.  They really aren't anymore and Republicans in particular are packing courts with nominees and then using those courts to try and overturn or weaken laws they don't like.

If there was ever a time to fight fire with fire, it's now.  You're literally asking the Democrats to bring a knife to a gunfight.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

35 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

But I think you're looking at it from a legal, utopian view that still wants to believe the courts are independent.  They really aren't anymore and Republicans in particular are packing courts with nominees and then using those courts to try and overturn or weaken laws they don't like

I am looking at it as someone who practices in those Courts and appears before both Trump and Obama-appointed judges on a regular basis. As you know, the great majority of cases on federal dockets do not touch upon politics. And even the ones that do are mostly disinteresting to lay people. Then you have the tiny percent of cases that politicians and media latch onto, and use as a portrait to paint this false narrative that our judiciary “has lost its independence.” The narrative does not comport with reality. 

To add, I think you’d actually be surprised by the number of cases at the federal level where judges “go against” the president that appointed them. A recent illustration of this is the  2-1 Fifth Circuit panel that issued the opinion related to Trump’s aqua-farming controversy. His appointees (one of which is on trump’s scotus list) issued the controlling opinion - which constituted a “loss” for “team Trump.” While the sole-dissent happened to be an Obama-appointee. This is not rare among the small number of cases that prompt a political intrigue.

Edit: Correction, Trump appointee issued opinion. Reagan appointee joined. Obama appointee dissent.

[homersapien 11,354]

The Top Contender for RBG’s Seat Has a Fundamentally Cruel Vision of the Law

Here’s what we can expect if Trump fills the late justice’s seat.

By Mark Joseph Stern

Sept 19, 2020

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death presents Donald Trump with an opportunity to transform the United States far beyond most Americans’ comprehension. Replacing the justice with a conservative would mark the single most consequential act of his presidency. It would doom policies and precedents that have come to form a cornerstone of American law. It’s not hard to foresee what the court could accomplish if Justice Brett Kavanaugh becomes the swing vote.

The consensus among legal and political analysts is that Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whom Trump placed on a federal appeals court in 2017, is the leading candidate to fill Ginsburg’s seat. Barrett gained fame during her confirmation hearing after Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein made inappropriate comments about the judge’s devout Catholic faith. She is a hardcore conservative, but that description doesn’t quite capture how radically her jurisprudence differs from Ginsburg’s. The justice viewed the Bill of Rights and civil rights acts as generous guarantees of human dignity that must be read expansively to achieve their purpose. By contrast, Barrett’s view of the law is fundamentally cruel. During her three years on the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett has either written or joined a remarkable number of opinions that harm unpopular and powerless individuals who rely on the judiciary to safeguard their rights.

Faced with two plausible readings of a law, fact, or precedent, Barrett always seems to choose the harsher, stingier interpretation. Can job applicants sue employers whose policies have a disproportionately deleterious impact on older people? Barrett said no. Should courts halt the deportation of an immigrant who faced torture at home? Barrett said no. Should they protect refugees denied asylum on the basis of xenophobic prejudice? Barrett said no. Should they shield prisoners from unjustified violence by correctional officers? Barrett said no. Should minors be allowed to terminate a pregnancy without telling their parents if a judge has found that they’re mature enough to make the decision? Barrett said no. Should women be permitted to obtain an abortion upon discovering a severe fetal abnormality? Barrett said no.

There is no question that, if confirmed, Barrett would cast the fifth vote to either hollow out Roe v. Wade or overturn it altogether. Similarly, there is no doubt that Barrett would dramatically expand the Second Amendment, invalidating gun control measures around the country. It’s quite possible, perhaps even likely, that within a year of her confirmation, Americans will be forbidden from terminating a pregnancy in 21 states—but permitted to purchase assault weapons and carry firearms in public in every state.

Abortion and guns, however, are just the beginning. Barrett’s confirmation would heighten the odds that the Supreme Court will eradicate the entire Affordable Care Act in 2021, stripping health insurance from more than 20 million people. Red states challenged the law after Congress zeroed out the penalty for those who forgo health insurance in 2017, a frivolous challenge that nonetheless found support among conservative judges in the lower courts. Chief Justice John Roberts, who twice saved the ACA, seems unlikely to kill it now. Barrett has criticized Roberts’ 2012 opinion saving the law, suggesting she would join the other four conservatives to destroy it root and branch. That decision would reverse Medicaid expansion, abolish the exchanges and federal subsidies for insurance, end protections for preexisting conditions, erase what’s left of the contraceptive mandate, allow insurers to kick young adults off their parents’ plans, and much more. All available data indicates that people will die as a result of such a ruling.

Barrett and her conservative colleagues would also take a machete to the thicket of laws that protect the health and safety of millions of Americans. The current conservative justices have already telegraphed their desire to invalidate federal statutes that direct executive agencies to limit pollution, guard against labor exploitation, monitor Wall Street, and protect consumers from predatory practices. Barrett’s confirmation would be a catastrophe for the climate: She may well overrule the landmark 5–4 decision, long despised by conservatives, that compels the federal government to regulate carbon emissions. Even if Congress passes new legislation to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the court’s conservative supermajority may strike it down, much as the Republican-appointed justices blocked the Clean Power Plan in 2016.

Many more precedents that have become ingrained in the fabric of American life would be thrown into peril upon Barrett’s confirmation. Affirmative action. Miranda rights. Marriage equality. DACA. Independent agencies. What remains of the Voting Rights Act. Ginsburg understood this—hence her deathbed plea to be replaced by “a new president.” McConnell understands this, too—hence his near-instant statement that he intended to help Trump install a new justice. In 2016, he justified blockading the nomination of Merrick Garland by insisting that “the American people” should decide. But McConnell knows that this opportunity is far too important to leave in the hands of the American people this time around.

Whether or not they admit it, every judge on Trump’s current Supreme Court short list must realize that accepting a nomination to fill Ginsburg’s seat before Jan. 20, 2021, would mean spitting on the late justice’s grave. In the late stages of metastatic pancreatic cancer, surely in severe pain, Ginsburg had one last wish: not just to spare her legacy, but to save the court from the politicization and delegitimization it will suffer if Trump replaces her. Should Barrett accept the nomination anyway, it will tell us everything we need to know about her character. And should the Senate confirm her, Democrats must honor Ginsburg’s entreaty by committing themselves to reversing the damage by any means necessary.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/amy-coney-barrett-ginsburg-scotus-future.html?via=taps_top

 

I can't help but wonder what the practical limits are to the court's power to circumvent the will of the people.   Common sense would suggest there is such a limit.

[jj3jordan 2,040]

5 hours ago, AUDub said:

Red rose brigade: "I can't vote for Hillary or Biden because they're not progressive enough!" 

Conservatives, now in power: "Cool! Let me introduce you to Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh,  Amy Coney Barrett and John T. McFederalist Society Jr!"

What’s the down side here?

[homersapien 11,354]

4 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

What’s the down side here?

Oligarchy

[jj3jordan 2,040]

Just now, homersapien said:

Oligarchy

And that’s different from now because we use the O word instead of rich people?

[jj3jordan 2,040]

4 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

The Top Contender for RBG’s Seat Has a Fundamentally Cruel Vision of the Law

Here’s what we can expect if Trump fills the late justice’s seat.

By Mark Joseph Stern

Sept 19, 2020

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death presents Donald Trump with an opportunity to transform the United States far beyond most Americans’ comprehension. Replacing the justice with a conservative would mark the single most consequential act of his presidency. It would doom policies and precedents that have come to form a cornerstone of American law. It’s not hard to foresee what the court could accomplish if Justice Brett Kavanaugh becomes the swing vote.

The consensus among legal and political analysts is that Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whom Trump placed on a federal appeals court in 2017, is the leading candidate to fill Ginsburg’s seat. Barrett gained fame during her confirmation hearing after Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein made inappropriate comments about the judge’s devout Catholic faith. She is a hardcore conservative, but that description doesn’t quite capture how radically her jurisprudence differs from Ginsburg’s. The justice viewed the Bill of Rights and civil rights acts as generous guarantees of human dignity that must be read expansively to achieve their purpose. By contrast, Barrett’s view of the law is fundamentally cruel. During her three years on the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett has either written or joined a remarkable number of opinions that harm unpopular and powerless individuals who rely on the judiciary to safeguard their rights.

Faced with two plausible readings of a law, fact, or precedent, Barrett always seems to choose the harsher, stingier interpretation. Can job applicants sue employers whose policies have a disproportionately deleterious impact on older people? Barrett said no. Should courts halt the deportation of an immigrant who faced torture at home? Barrett said no. Should they protect refugees denied asylum on the basis of xenophobic prejudice? Barrett said no. Should they shield prisoners from unjustified violence by correctional officers? Barrett said no. Should minors be allowed to terminate a pregnancy without telling their parents if a judge has found that they’re mature enough to make the decision? Barrett said no. Should women be permitted to obtain an abortion upon discovering a severe fetal abnormality? Barrett said no.

There is no question that, if confirmed, Barrett would cast the fifth vote to either hollow out Roe v. Wade or overturn it altogether. Similarly, there is no doubt that Barrett would dramatically expand the Second Amendment, invalidating gun control measures around the country. It’s quite possible, perhaps even likely, that within a year of her confirmation, Americans will be forbidden from terminating a pregnancy in 21 states—but permitted to purchase assault weapons and carry firearms in public in every state.

Abortion and guns, however, are just the beginning. Barrett’s confirmation would heighten the odds that the Supreme Court will eradicate the entire Affordable Care Act in 2021, stripping health insurance from more than 20 million people. Red states challenged the law after Congress zeroed out the penalty for those who forgo health insurance in 2017, a frivolous challenge that nonetheless found support among conservative judges in the lower courts. Chief Justice John Roberts, who twice saved the ACA, seems unlikely to kill it now. Barrett has criticized Roberts’ 2012 opinion saving the law, suggesting she would join the other four conservatives to destroy it root and branch. That decision would reverse Medicaid expansion, abolish the exchanges and federal subsidies for insurance, end protections for preexisting conditions, erase what’s left of the contraceptive mandate, allow insurers to kick young adults off their parents’ plans, and much more. All available data indicates that people will die as a result of such a ruling.

Barrett and her conservative colleagues would also take a machete to the thicket of laws that protect the health and safety of millions of Americans. The current conservative justices have already telegraphed their desire to invalidate federal statutes that direct executive agencies to limit pollution, guard against labor exploitation, monitor Wall Street, and protect consumers from predatory practices. Barrett’s confirmation would be a catastrophe for the climate: She may well overrule the landmark 5–4 decision, long despised by conservatives, that compels the federal government to regulate carbon emissions. Even if Congress passes new legislation to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the court’s conservative supermajority may strike it down, much as the Republican-appointed justices blocked the Clean Power Plan in 2016.

Many more precedents that have become ingrained in the fabric of American life would be thrown into peril upon Barrett’s confirmation. Affirmative action. Miranda rights. Marriage equality. DACA. Independent agencies. What remains of the Voting Rights Act. Ginsburg understood this—hence her deathbed plea to be replaced by “a new president.” McConnell understands this, too—hence his near-instant statement that he intended to help Trump install a new justice. In 2016, he justified blockading the nomination of Merrick Garland by insisting that “the American people” should decide. But McConnell knows that this opportunity is far too important to leave in the hands of the American people this time around.

Whether or not they admit it, every judge on Trump’s current Supreme Court short list must realize that accepting a nomination to fill Ginsburg’s seat before Jan. 20, 2021, would mean spitting on the late justice’s grave. In the late stages of metastatic pancreatic cancer, surely in severe pain, Ginsburg had one last wish: not just to spare her legacy, but to save the court from the politicization and delegitimization it will suffer if Trump replaces her. Should Barrett accept the nomination anyway, it will tell us everything we need to know about her character. And should the Senate confirm her, Democrats must honor Ginsburg’s entreaty by committing themselves to reversing the damage by any means necessary.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/amy-coney-barrett-ginsburg-scotus-future.html?via=taps_top

 

I can't help but wonder what the practical limits are to the court's power to circumvent the will of the people. 

Her deathbed request is irrelevant. She could have had it had she retired when Obama was president but no she was not through trashing the constitution and steering the country left thru her activism.  She threw all her eggs in Hillary’s basket and then when Trump won her plan was destroyed. Poor timing on her part. 

[homersapien 11,354]

1 minute ago, jj3jordan said:

And that’s different from now because we use the O word instead of rich people?

Depends on how you define "rich".

Regardless, I see no reason to celebrate or promote it with my politics (even as a person who is financially independent.)

[homersapien 11,354]

Just now, jj3jordan said:

 

Her deathbed request is irrelevant. She could have had it had she retired when Obama was president but no she was not through trashing the constitution and steering the country left thru her activism.  She threw all her eggs in Hillary’s basket and then when Trump won her plan was destroyed. Poor timing on her part. 

Not exactly the point of the article.

[jj3jordan 2,040]

Just now, homersapien said:

Not exactly the point of the article.

Yeah I know. The point of the article was to trash the potential nominee.  But that’s not all it said. 

[homersapien 11,354]

47 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Yeah I know. The point of the article was to trash the potential nominee.  But that’s not all it said. 

I fail to see how profiling her by reciting her record as "trashing", but I agree if the implication is that her record is shameful.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

50 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I fail to see how profiling her by reciting her record as "trashing", but I agree if the implication is that her record is shameful.

That “recital” of her record is hogwash, and it’s evident to anyone who actually reads any of the opinions it purports to rely on - including the ones Judge Barrett did not even write. Check out the en banc decision. Whoever authored the article is full of s***.

I imagine you did not vet the material.

[aubiefifty 16,709]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I am looking at it as someone who practices in those Courts and appears before both Trump and Obama-appointed judges on a regular basis. As you know, the great majority of cases on federal dockets do not touch upon politics. And even the ones that do are mostly disinteresting to lay people. Then you have the tiny percent of cases that politicians and media latch onto, and use as a portrait to paint this false narrative that our judiciary “has lost its independence.” The narrative does not comport with reality. 

To add, I think you’d actually be surprised by the number of cases at the federal level where judges “go against” the president that appointed them. A recent illustration of this is the  2-1 Fifth Circuit panel that issued the opinion related to Trump’s aqua-farming controversy. His appointees (one of which is on trump’s scotus list) issued the controlling opinion - which constituted a “loss” for “team Trump.” While the sole-dissent happened to be an Obama-appointee. This is not rare among the small number of cases that prompt a political intrigue.

Edit: Correction, Trump appointee issued opinion. Reagan appointee joined. Obama appointee dissent.

curious. what is your win loss record in protecting folks in court?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

3 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I am looking at it as someone who practices in those Courts and appears before both Trump and Obama-appointed judges on a regular basis. As you know, the great majority of cases on federal dockets do not touch upon politics. And even the ones that do are mostly disinteresting to lay people. Then you have the tiny percent of cases that politicians and media latch onto, and use as a portrait to paint this false narrative that our judiciary “has lost its independence.” The narrative does not comport with reality. 

To add, I think you’d actually be surprised by the number of cases at the federal level where judges “go against” the president that appointed them. A recent illustration of this is the  2-1 Fifth Circuit panel that issued the opinion related to Trump’s aqua-farming controversy. His appointees (one of which is on trump’s scotus list) issued the controlling opinion - which constituted a “loss” for “team Trump.” While the sole-dissent happened to be an Obama-appointee. This is not rare among the small number of cases that prompt a political intrigue.

Edit: Correction, Trump appointee issued opinion. Reagan appointee joined. Obama appointee dissent.

We're not talking about smaller courts and a bunch of cases that have little to no impact on the country though.  We're talking about the highest court in the land which has the ability to shape laws and legislation for decades or in some cases, centuries.  Sorry, but your comparison here doesn't work because there are much bigger stakes at play.

Ultimately, I just want what Murkowsky said, which is "fair is fair".  If Trump and a Republican Senate get re-elected, so be it.  But the argument four years ago while holding a seat open for nearly a year was "Let the people decide".  Stick to those principles and it's all good.  Problem is, I don't expect McConnell to do that because he's a snake.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

16 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

We're not talking about smaller courts and a bunch of cases that have little to no impact on the country though.  We're talking about the highest court in the land which has the ability to shape laws and legislation for decades or in some cases, centuries.  Sorry, but your comparison here doesn't work because there are much bigger stakes at play.

Ultimately, I just want what Murkowsky said, which is "fair is fair".  If Trump and a Republican Senate get re-elected, so be it.  But the argument four years ago while holding a seat open for nearly a year was "Let the people decide".  Stick to those principles and it's all good.  Problem is, I don't expect McConnell to do that because he's a snake.

You said they are packing “courts,” hence my comment. Regardless, I would say lower courts set far more precedents than the Supreme Court - SCOTUS simply gets involved with ones worthy of certiorari.

I’ll leave you with this: if you think McConnell will put SCOTUS on life support, packing it would pull the plug.

[homersapien 11,354]

14 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

That “recital” of her record is hogwash, and it’s evident to anyone who actually reads any of the opinions it purports to rely on - including the ones Judge Barrett did not even write. Check out the en banc decision. Whoever authored the article is full of s***.

I imagine you did not vet the material.

No, I didn't "vet" the material, it simply caught my eye.  The author covers courts and law for Slate but I know little about him.  And I certainly have not read any of the subject rulings (even though the links for each of the claims are provided).

Since you apparently know the history of this judge better than me  - which I don't doubt - can you please explain - briefly - which of those characterizations of her record is "hogwash" and why?  It shouldn't be too time consuming as - like I said - the references are provided in the article.

Otherwise, I can only assume your response is an unsupported "appeal to authority" which is an argument fallacy.

Thanks.

 

[homersapien 11,354]

Ginsburg’s passing may worsen the crisis of our democracy

Opinion by

Max Boot

Columnist

September 19, 2020

My heart is breaking today. Not just because of the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg — one of the great pioneers in American legal history — but also for what her death could portend: a further delegitimization of our already fragile political institutions. I hope against hope that the great justice’s passing does not worsen the crisis of our democracy. But I fear that it will.

The United States has grown more disunited for years, with less and less that Democrats and Republicans can agree on. Even basic facts are in dispute in the age of Facebook and Fox News, with roughly 40 percent of the population trapped in an alternative reality bubble where immigration is an existential threat but global warming isn’t. Conspiracy theories and “fake news” have proliferated — and millions and millions of Americans believe them.

President Trump has accelerated those terrible trends. He routinely accuses his political opponents of treason, calls the press the “enemy of the people,” says any election he does not win is fraudulent and claims the civil service is part of a “deep state” plotting against him. He does not even make any pretense of caring about states that didn’t support him. Defending his coronavirus record, he said: “If you take the blue states out, we’re at a level that I don’t think anybody in the world would be at.”

That kind of poisonous talk takes a toll. A Pew Research Center survey last year found that only 45 percent of Democrats and just 38 percent of Republicans say they share any “values and goals” with members of the other party. A new Pew Research Center poll finds that few Biden or Trump voters have friends who support the other candidate.

Serious scholars are worried that if present trends continue, we could see significant unrest and violence far beyond even today’s already alarming levels. Sociologist Jack A. Goldstone and scientist Peter Turchin developed a model tracking social unrest. They predicted a decade ago, based on growing levels of income inequality and self-interested behavior by American elites, that “the U.S. was heading toward the highest level of vulnerability to political crisis seen in this country in over a hundred years,” with those trends “set to peak in the years around 2020.”

What Goldstone and Turchin call the “Turbulent Twenties” are here with a vengeance. Now, they predict, the United States is “headed for still greater protests and violence”:

Inequality and polarization have not been this high since the nineteenth century. Democrats are certain that if Donald Trump is reelected, American democracy will not survive. Republicans are equally certain that if Trump loses, radical socialists will seize the wealth of elites and distribute it to undeserving poor and minorities, forever destroying the economy of the United States. Both sides are also convinced that the other side intends to change the democratic ‘rules of the game’ in ways that will make it impossible for them to compete effectively in future elections.

The Supreme Court has traditionally been the one institution that safeguards the Constitution and upholds neutral “rules of the game.” Its legitimacy, though battered by years of Republican efforts to stack the court to achieve the party’s desired political outcomes, remains intact largely because some Republican appointees such as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. have put principle above politics. Democrats are hardly blameless for the politicization of the court (Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) had to apologize for saying that Trump’s appointees would “pay the price” for voting against abortion rights), but their actions have been considerably less harmful than those of the other side.

Two acts, in particular, have done great damage to the court’s legitimacy. First was the 2000 Bush v. Gore ruling, on what amounted to a party-line vote, handing the disputed presidential election to George W. Bush. The second was Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (Ky.) refusal in 2016 to even give a hearing to a moderate judge, Merrick Garland, nominated by President Barack Obama. McConnell excused his obstructionism by inventing a rule that nominees should not be considered in an election year. He held the seat open until Trump could nominate Neil M. Gorsuch.

Imagine how much greater will be the damage if McConnell now flip-flops and tries to force through a replacement for Ginsburg either just before, or just after, an election that his party may well lose. Already two of the five conservative justices were nominated by a president who lost the popular vote. And George W. Bush, who lost the popular vote when he was elected to his first term, went on to nominate two more in his second. Imagine if a sixth conservative is nominated by a president who lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and confirmed by Republican senators who represent 15 million fewer Americans than their Democratic colleagues. Imagine further that this new justice is the deciding vote on abortion rights, the Affordable Care Act — and even the outcome of the presidential election.

The result would be a political crisis that will shake our institutions to their foundations and make our current predicament seem paradisal by comparison. Don’t go there, Sen. McConnell, if you care at all about the republic and not just the Republican Party.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/19/ginsburgs-passing-may-worsen-crisis-our-democracy/

 

I guess time will tell.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

55 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You said they are packing “courts,” hence my comment. Regardless, I would say lower courts set far more precedents than the Supreme Court - SCOTUS simply gets involved with ones worthy of certiorari.

I’ll leave you with this: if you think McConnell will put SCOTUS on life support, packing it would pull the plug.

I don't want the courts packed at all.  But if I'm Democratic leadership, I'm not playing nice right now.  It's callous, but this isn't about American idealism and the idea that the courts are independent.  It's a purely political conversation and has been for quite some time when it comes to major court appointments.