Should SCOTUS appointment vote threshold be moved to 60?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Thoughts? I see a 51-49 vote being the new norm unless things change.

[SaltyTiger 7,863]

4 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Thoughts? I see a 51-49 vote being the new norm unless things change.

Why is 51-49 a new norm? 

[AUDub 11,184]

20 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Thoughts? I see a 51-49 vote being the new norm unless things change.

I think so. 60 at least implies some cross party appeal.

That is, until you get someone like McConnell, who makes it clear that he’s going to stonewall you all the way. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

19 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Why is 51-49 a new norm? 

Why isn’t it? Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad Kav got confirmed. But I don’t want to see our most important branch of government politicized to the extent of the other two branches of government.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

10 minutes ago, AUDub said:

I think so. 60 at least implies some cross party appeal.

That is, until you get someone like McConnell, who makes it clear that he’s going to stonewall you all the way. 

I salute Mitch for getting this done, obviously. With that said, I don’t want to see our judicial branch politicized to the extent of the two other branches that are so screwed up. 

[around4ever 4,139]

In today's senate environment of toeing the party lines, 60 would never be achieved.  Heck, 51 will very seldom be achieved on any vote.  

[HVAU 673]

52 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Thoughts? I see a 51-49 vote being the new norm unless things change.

I agree with you on this.  If I'm not mistaken, there are procedures in the legislative system that were installed to slow the pace of change, i.e. create gridlock, forcing bipartisanship agreements to achieve legislative goals.  Both the democrats and republicans have seriously chipped away at those procedures, and it appears to be furthering political division.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

It should have never been moved off of 60 in the first place.  But it's never going back.  That genie is out of the bottle and neither party will give that up now.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

9 hours ago, HVAU said:

I agree with you on this.  If I'm not mistaken, there are procedures in the legislative system that were installed to slow the pace of change, i.e. create gridlock, forcing bipartisanship agreements to achieve legislative goals.  Both the democrats and republicans have seriously chipped away at those procedures, and it appears to be furthering political division.

 

9 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

It should have never been moved off of 60 in the first place.  But it's never going back.  That genie is out of the bottle and neither party will give that up now.

I hate to say it, but I think we’re in the minority on this. Moving forward, the integrity of the federal judiciary must be protected. Y’all know I’m glad Kav got through, but I’m genuinely worried about future appointments. I can’t see Republicans jumping on board with Democrat appointments and vice versa.

[homersapien 11,449]

10 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Why isn’t it? Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad Kav got confirmed. But I don’t want to see our most important branch of government politicized to the extent of the other two branches of government.

Too late.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Have Dems forgot that Harry Reid is the one who changed the requirement to a simple majority?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

27 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Have Dems forgot that Harry Reid is the one who changed the requirement to a simple majority?

Not for SCOTUS he didn't.  Get your facts straight.  His change was for other Federal bench appointments and he's on record at the time as purposely saying that SCOTUS needed to stay at 60.

[TexasTiger 13,023]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

Not for SCOTUS he didn't.  Get your facts straight.  His change was for other Federal bench appointments and he's on record at the time as purposely saying that SCOTUS needed to stay at 60.

And he did that because Mitch said he would not allow anyone to be approved. It was a total breakdown of our system as was the unwillingness to even consider Garland.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

19 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

And he did that because Mitch said he would not allow anyone to be approved. It was a total breakdown of our system as was the unwillingness to even consider Garland.

But he did it, right? And I would note that Schumer said minutes after Kavanaugh was nominated the Dems would do everything possible to block it and they sure tried.

[TexasTiger 13,023]

3 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

But he did it, right? And I would note that Schumer said minutes after Kavanaugh was nominated the Dems would do everything possible to block it and they sure tried.

McConnell was forcing judgeships to go unfilled . It was totally unprecedented.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

4 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

But he did it, right? And I would note that Schumer said minutes after Kavanaugh was nominated the Dems would do everything possible to block it and they sure tried.

He did it for lower courts, not SCOTUS.  This thread is about the 60 vote threshold for SCOTUS, which is something McConnell changed.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

7 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

He did it for lower courts, not SCOTUS.  This thread is about the 60 vote threshold for SCOTUS, which is something McConnell changed.

I understand. Maybe I'm wrong but it was for Federal courts and appears to have just been carried over to SCOTUS. If that's not the case when did McConnell change for SCOTUS approval to a simple majority? Link?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

18 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

I understand. Maybe I'm wrong but it was for Federal courts and appears to have just been carried over to SCOTUS. If that's not the case when did McConnell change for SCOTUS approval to a simple majority? Link?

Yes, you're wrong.  Here's a link from CBS News with a history of the nuclear option and how it was used.  McConnell and Rs changed rules to make SCOTUS justices a simple majority prior to Gorsuch's appointment.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nuclear-option-why-trumps-supreme-court-pick-needs-only-51-votes-in-the-senate/

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

OK.  Now tell me...why is it OK for Reid/Dems to change the rules when it suits them but not McConnell/GOP?

[DKW 86 7,440]

14 hours ago, around4ever said:

In today's senate environment of toeing the party lines, 60 would never be achieved.  Heck, 51 will very seldom be achieved on any vote.  

Plus 1

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

4 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

OK.  Now tell me...why is it OK for Reid/Dems to change the rules when it suits them but not McConnell/GOP?

McConnell refused to appoint any justices at any level while Obama was in office.  That's a breach of norms that hyper-politicized the one branch of our system that's not supposed to be political.  That decision has directly led to division we have now over justices at every level.  And even if could have suited them, the Dems went hands off on the Supreme Court. I don't think we really need to debate the power/influence here of a lower court judge vs a SCOTUS justice.

Bottom line: our old ass political leaders have entirely screwed up the system and its gonna be up to my generation to fix it.  Thanks geezers.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

14 hours ago, around4ever said:

In today's senate environment of toeing the party lines, 60 would never be achieved.  Heck, 51 will very seldom be achieved on any vote.  

Disagree here.  The whole point of 60 was to force a compromise candidate.  Neither party has the incentive to do that now.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

11 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

McConnell refused to appoint any justices at any level while Obama was in office.  That's a breach of norms that hyper-politicized the one branch of our system that's not supposed to be political.  That decision has directly led to division we have now over justices at every level.  And even if could have suited them, the Dems went hands off on the Supreme Court. I don't think we really need to debate the power/influence here of a lower court judge vs a SCOTUS justice.

Bottom line: our old ass political leaders have entirely screwed up the system and its gonna be up to my generation to fix it.  Thanks geezers.

On that we agree, just not that it's one sided. But I'm not optimistic it's going to change any time soon. They, us, and the country are too polarized.

[AU64 10,122]

When the SCOTUS and appeals courts did traditional judicial work the partisanship was less noticeable.  But now that SCOTUS and many other higher level judges have a political "agenda" I see no way for things to change  now that the courts are essentially making "law" over issues that Congress does not have the guts or votes to pass in the more Constitutional manner. I guess you can go back to FDR to see the start of this trend. .       

Starting some years ago it became necessary for a judicial candidate to have a track record that was favored by various important pressure groups to gain their support, and therefore the support of Senators who were favored by them.     One ruling by a judge that was perceived as anti-abortion was enough to have the judge permanently placed on an "unacceptable" list....or on the other side, a ruling that seemed to come down in favor of gun control was enough to get that judicial candidate on the other party's "unacceptable list". 

Can't see that changing...JMO

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

It's easy for Dems to blame Repubs and vice versa. Can we at least acknowledge that there is an immense danger when SCOTUS Justices are no longer "seen" as adjudicators in black robes, but instead red and blue ones? I am not saying that a judge's conservatism or liberalism is a new consideration, but we are track to kiss the "80+ yes vote" days goodbye. There must be a change if we are to protect the one institution that is suppose to be separate and distinct when it comes to partisan. 

Does this make any sense? Help me out if you follow this train of thought.