Amy Coney Barrett conformed to the SCOTUS

[TitanTiger 20,479]

7 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I think he already anticipates losing both and knows there would be even more pressure to not vote after a loss. He took the bird in the hand.

That's what I think.

I also think Trump believes voters will "thank" him for getting ACB in to replace RGB.  I think a decent portion of them will instead say, "look, we got three SCOTUS judges out of it and I'm good" and not be as motivated to show up and vote for him.

[I_M4_AU 7,810]

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I'm open to putting in some rules to prevent this sort of thing from happening again in the future.

Didn’t we have a rule that prevented this sort of thing not long ago?  

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/21/harry-reid-senate-rules-republican-filibusters-nominations

[TexasTiger 12,848]

24 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

That's what I think.

I also think Trump believes voters will "thank" him for getting ACB in to replace RGB.  I think a decent portion of them will instead say, "look, we got three SCOTUS judges out of it and I'm good" and not be as motivated to show up and vote for him.

Yeah, I think whatever power the Court has to push voters they are either solidly on board for that reason, or now feel less compelled to vote for a man they don’t like. I think the latter group is small, but perhaps significant in states like NC and TX.

[kennypowers 1,431]

trump has driven this country into an abyss only comparable to nazi germany.

[DKW 86 7,419]

1 hour ago, kennypowers said:

trump has driven this country into an abyss only comparable to nazi germany.

Back to Packing the court. just know this. I do not like it one bit. Merrick Garland should have gotten the vote. But...packing the court plays right into their hands long term.. They will pack it as soon as they get power back and that will happen. You ready to see the never ending war for SCOTUS.

[DKW 86 7,419]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

That's what I think.

I also think Trump believes voters will "thank" him for getting ACB in to replace RGB.  I think a decent portion of them will instead say, "look, we got three SCOTUS judges out of it and I'm good" and not be as motivated to show up and vote for him.

I agree. They never expected three SCOTUS picks. This has changed the court for years if not decades.

[TitanTiger 20,479]

27 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Back to Packing the court. just know this. I do not like it one bit. Merrick Garland should have gotten the vote. But...packing the court plays right into their hands long term.. They will pack it as soon as they get power back and that will happen. You ready to see the never ending war for SCOTUS.

"It's the 2056 Presidential election and the race is on to see whether the Republican nominee will win and expand the court to 57 members, or if the Democrats can win and keep it at 53."

[1716AU 728]

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

You're still hung up on revenge.  I'm talking about something else.  

I'm saying, McConnell made a calculated choice here and it was one that he knew would further his own aims but would not be the best one for reelecting Trump or taking back the Senate.  And he chose it anyway.  I find that ver interesting.

No, I am not.  But unfortunately, it's coming.  I'm trying to explain to you what I see coming, but, hey, do with it what you want. 

Revenge is a huge part of politics, just ask any ancient Roman Senator to any British MP.  Especially when your counterpart has gone scorched earth upon you for six years.

[RunInRed 16,407]

5 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I mean, isn't that what everyone has to do when the President of the other party is able to swing the court in a particular direction for a while?  Think how different the SCOTUS looked after FDR, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson held the White House for 28 of 36 years.  And while you don't have to like the results, the SCOTUS hasn't been "jerry rigged."  Hypocrisies aside (and I've made my position on how this stuff was handled well known), the President nominates and the Senate either confirms or doesn't confirm.  Many times in our history if the Senate was of a different party than the President, their nominee didn't get confirmed in an election year.  That's the way it works.  

Right now it has a heavy GOP tilt (though as Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter show, that doesn't necessarily guarantee anything).  As homer's article stated, most of that is just the luck of the draw.  You can't help that Nixon got 4 openings to work with and Carter got none.  Or that even though Clinton served 8 years and GHW Bush only 4, they both got to nominate two SCOTUS judges. If what I sense is the case happens, we're about to see it swing the other way over the next 2 to 3 presidential terms.

 

In my view, and it isn't just because "my party didn't win" ... it's that the Trump appointees and GOP led Senate Judiciary have become overwhelmingly partisan.  The third branch of government is supposed to be fiercely independent, yet, the litmus test for many of these appointees were whether they towed hard ideological lines.  That's what I mean by our system has become out of whack ...

Consider, the confirmation votes of the Trump SCOTUS appointees:

• Gorsuch: 54-45
• Kavanaugh: 50-48
• ACB: 52-48

That's overwhelmingly partisan by any measure.  Compare to previous administrations:

• Kagan: 63-37
• Sotomayor: 68-31
• Alito: 58-42
• Roberts: 78-22
• Breyer: 87-9
• Ginsberg: 96-3

I could go on and on but you get the point.  Again, the SCOTUS was never meant to be a political football, which is what it essentially has become, IMO.

[RunInRed 16,407]

BTW, I'm not suggesting expanding the courts, however, there's some interesting arguments on rotating justices, jurisdiction, etc.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

18 hours ago, RunInRed said:

The GOP has politicized the courts.  Reform is now needed.  

 

17 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Reform by dominating the Senate for years to come.  Two conservative justices are over 70.  Start thinking long term and not reactionary.

 

16 hours ago, 1716AU said:

Republicans have signed their death warrant,  Texas may just go Blue this year, but definitely will in 2022.  They will be destroyed in Senate and House races in that election. If you're my age, 55, you are about to witness something magical, I think.  

 

It seems to me that your anger should be directed at the woman who thought she was a cat with 9 lives.  Thank you RBG !  

[1716AU 728]

1 minute ago, Elephant Tipper said:

 

 

It seems to me that your anger should be directed at the woman who thought she was a cat with 9 lives.  Thank you RBG !  

Not angry at all. But i'm afraid you will be.

[TitanTiger 20,479]

10 minutes ago, Elephant Tipper said:

It seems to me that your anger should be directed at the woman who thought she was a cat with 9 lives.  Thank you RBG !  

First, that's a little crass.  But I do agree, she didn't plan that one out well.   In hindsight, she should have retired in 2012 or 2013 when Obama was in office with a Democratically controlled Senate.  I think that once the GOP took over the Senate in 2014, she thought perhaps she should wait until 2016.  Then it looks like the GOP has shot itself in the foot nominating a carnival barker like Trump and Clinton is almost certain to win, so perhaps after she's in office she'll step down.  We know what happens there so now she's trying to wait it out to 2020 and doesn't quite make it.

The time to make a move was 2012-13, and given her health history, she made a poor calculation.  I know no one wants to leave a job they love and feel they're good at.  But you have to be smart.  It's why barring death, I don't see Thomas or Alito stepping down before 2022 in hopes that the GOP will retake the Senate (which they're almost certain to lose in 2020).  They'll assess from there whether they think a GOP nominee has a chance to take down Biden in 2024 but if things don't look good and the GOP has the Senate, probably best for them to resign before 2024 and let Biden and a GOP Senate duke it out then rather than risk it swinging back to the Dems and getting a very liberal judge.

[I_M4_AU 7,810]

32 minutes ago, RunInRed said:

Consider, the confirmation votes of the Trump SCOTUS appointees:

• Gorsuch: 54-45
• Kavanaugh: 50-48
• ACB: 52-48

That's overwhelmingly partisan by any measure.  Compare to previous administrations:

• Kagan: 63-37
• Sotomayor: 68-31
• Alito: 58-42
• Roberts: 78-22
• Breyer: 87-9
• Ginsberg: 96-3

I could go on and on but you get the point.  Again, the SCOTUS was never meant to be a political football, which is what it essentially has become, IMO.

Contrary to popular believe, Trump did not create this mess.  In 2013 the Democratic senate killed the judicial filibuster that was objected to by the Republicans at the time. What did this do?  Any justice could now be approved by a simple majority.  What did this mean?  Whom ever was in control of the Senate could put up the most extreme justice they wanted with only considering the thoughts of the Senate majority; hence you got Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and ACB.

These were the rules laid down by the Democrats and, somehow, it’s not their fault.  The Democrats also invented Borking;  Bork's name became a symbol of conservative grievance, and a new verb — to "bork" — was born, defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "to defame or vilify a person systematically."

https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2012/12/19/167645600/robert-borks-supreme-court-nomination-changed-everything-maybe-forever

They attempted this with Thomas and Kavanaugh and it was real ugly. These seem to be the rules we play by now.  The Dems are trying to politicize the SCOTUS to write legislation they fail to write into law.  This is not what the SCOTUS is for.

Grin and Barrett.

 

Edited October 27, 2020 by I_M4_AU
Added ref link

[Elephant Tipper 430]

17 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

First, that's a little crass.

Of everyone on this forum you are the one to know crass and everything else too.  

Btw, you still write too much.

[TitanTiger 20,479]

19 minutes ago, Elephant Tipper said:

Of everyone on this forum you are the one to know crass and everything else too.  

Btw, you still write too much.

No one's got a gun to your head making you be here or read anything I post.  If you don't like what I say or how I say it, the exit is clear.

[AUDub 11,147]

39 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

First, that's a little crass.  But I do agree, she didn't plan that one out well.   In hindsight, she should have retired in 2012 or 2013 when Obama was in office with a Democratically controlled Senate.  I think that once the GOP took over the Senate in 2014, she thought perhaps she should wait until 2016.  Then it looks like the GOP has shot itself in the foot nominating a carnival barker like Trump and Clinton is almost certain to win, so perhaps after she's in office she'll step down.  We know what happens there so now she's trying to wait it out to 2020 and doesn't quite make it.

The time to make a move was 2012-13, and given her health history, she made a poor calculation.  I know no one wants to leave a job they love and feel they're good at.  But you have to be smart.  It's why barring death, I don't see Thomas or Alito stepping down before 2022 in hopes that the GOP will retake the Senate (which they're almost certain to lose in 2020).  They'll assess from there whether they think a GOP nominee has a chance to take down Biden in 2024 but if things don't look good and the GOP has the Senate, probably best for them to resign before 2024 and let Biden and a GOP Senate duke it out then rather than risk it swinging back to the Dems and getting a very liberal judge.

Dems would have had to nuke the filibuster for SCOTUS. Don't think they had the will to do that. 

[AUFAN78 3,894]

19 hours ago, AUDub said:

We're expanding the court. Get ready. 

Let's hope not. Sad day for our country if it happens. 

[AUDub 11,147]

1 minute ago, AUFAN78 said:

Let's hope not. Sad day for our country if it happens. 

Why is that? SCOTUS has no legitimacy left. At this point we're just flogging a corpse. 

[AUFAN78 3,894]

17 hours ago, 1716AU said:

Democrats are incredibly energized now, and will be for years to come. Why, they are younger, and they are pissed at the Establishment, especially Republicans.  And they really are more well educated. They are going to make you pay.  And it will hurt. 

Same snotty nosed kids whose moms demanded participation trophies. Whine, bitch and moan until they get their way. Time to spank that a$$ and forget timeout. And no, they are definitely not more educated. Just whinier. 

[AUFAN78 3,894]

9 hours ago, RunInRed said:

A politicized 6-3 Supreme Court isn’t reflective of a “split down the middle” ... not too mention what’s happened with the lower courts. That’s the problem.

When you look at some of the latest rulings, it does not appear to be a politicized problem. 

[AUDub 11,147]

Just now, AUFAN78 said:

When you look at some of the latest rulings, it does not appear to be a politicized problem. 

Uh did you see the Kavanaugh opinion last night?

[AUFAN78 3,894]

16 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Why is that? SCOTUS has no legitimacy left. At this point we're just flogging a corpse. 

As others have already pointed out, it will never end. Not how this was intended.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

9 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Uh did you see the Kavanaugh opinion last night?

I did not.

[AUDub 11,147]

2 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

As others have already pointed out, it will never end. Not how this was intended.

Yeah **** that noise. McConnell and the GOP always hit the Dems with bare knuckle sucker punches and Dems smack back wearing an oven mitt.

Enough already. Let's play the game on their terms.