Should SCOTUS appointment vote threshold be moved to 60?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

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.

As a law student, I can say that I would be terrified of jumping into the political arena down the road. My concerns are shared by many. I do not have "serious" skeletons in my closet, but good grief, seems now-a-days the opposition (whomever it might be) seeks to uproot one's life. They will dig to find something, manipulate it, and attack you relentlessly. Moreover, the opposition doesn't stop with you - they go after your spouse, your children, and every other meaningful facet of one's life. Can you blame young people for possessing such concerns?   

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

As a law student, I can say that I would be terrified of jumping into the political arena down the road. My concerns are shared by many. I do not have "serious" skeletons in my closet, but good grief, seems now-a-days the opposition (whomever it might be) seeks to uproot one's life. They will dig to find something, manipulate it, and attack you relentlessly. Moreover, the opposition doesn't stop with you - they go after your spouse, your children, and every other meaningful facet of one's life. Can you blame young people for possessing such concerns?   

Oh not at all.  And it's largely being perpetuated by people who only have self interests at heart and who, in my opinion, are leaving our generation a worse country than the one they inherited.  Huge debts and a broken system that we get to deal with long after they're gone.  It's why I get so pissed when I hear people complain about Millenials or younger voters, because it shows a blindness to the crap we are being left.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

If everyone who ever did something stupid in HS or college was banned from holding office, Washington DC would be a ghost town.

[TexasTiger 13,019]

3 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

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. 

But— Kavanaugh was a longtime political operative. A history of partisanship. There are many conservatives on Trump’s list without that background.

Now that they have their 5-4 they could go a long way toward hitting the reset by nominating Garland for the next seat and reinstating the 60 vote requirement. Garland is in his mid-60s and voted with a Kavanaugh 90% of the time. Replacing the next liberal with a moderate like Garland would go a long way toward defusing the process. Orin Hatch claimed he was acceptable before.

[TexasTiger 13,019]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

As a law student, I can say that I would be terrified of jumping into the political arena down the road. My concerns are shared by many. I do not have "serious" skeletons in my closet, but good grief, seems now-a-days the opposition (whomever it might be) seeks to uproot one's life. They will dig to find something, manipulate it, and attack you relentlessly. Moreover, the opposition doesn't stop with you - they go after your spouse, your children, and every other meaningful facet of one's life. Can you blame young people for possessing such concerns?   

Didn’t happen to Gorsuch.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

5 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

But— Kavanaugh was a longtime political operative. A history of partisanship. There are many conservatives on Trump’s list without that background.

Now that they have their 5-4 they could go a long way toward hitting the reset by nominating Garland for the next seat and reinstating the 60 vote requirement. Garland is in his mid-60s and voted with a Kavanaugh 90% of the time. Replacing the next liberal with a moderate like Garland would go a long way toward defusing the process. Orin Hatch claimed he was acceptable before.

I've always thought a perfect court looked like this:

1 reliably conservative voice

1 reliably liberal voice

7 moderates who would all be considered swing votes

It will never happen, but one can dream.

[TexasTiger 13,019]

1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said:

I've always thought a perfect court looked like this:

1 reliably conservative voice

1 reliably liberal voice

7 moderates who would all be considered swing votes

It will never happen, but one can dream.

Even 2, 2 and 5.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

@Proud Tiger @NolaAuTiger @TexasTiger

Really good read about millenials and their views on politics/what drives them here.  Gets to the points I was driving at earlier.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/10/07/politics/how-millennials-could-kill-politics-as-we-know-it/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

[TexasTiger 13,019]

2 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

@Proud Tiger @NolaAuTiger @TexasTiger

Really good read about millenials and their views on politics/what drives them here.  Gets to the points I was driving at earlier.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/10/07/politics/how-millennials-could-kill-politics-as-we-know-it/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

Older generations have no business condescending to millennials. They didn’t create this mess. I think they might improve things. 

[TexasTiger 13,019]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/opinions/wp/2018/10/08/justice-kagan-is-warning-us-and-her-colleagues/?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.1666a0b5a1ea&__twitter_impression=true

[homersapien 11,447]

18 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

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. 

I think you are correct and for that reason alone we should go back to a super majority for the SCOTUS.

I am not so sure about district judges.  McConnell deliberately obstructed Obama's district court nominees for purely partisan reasons.  I thought it was irresponsible.  Bottom line is how do we deal with institutional abuses of power by one party when it comes to the judiciary?

 

[homersapien 11,447]

12 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

@Proud Tiger @NolaAuTiger @TexasTiger

Really good read about millenials and their views on politics/what drives them here.  Gets to the points I was driving at earlier.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/10/07/politics/how-millennials-could-kill-politics-as-we-know-it/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

One can only hope, and the millennials are one of the few reasons for optimism.

But I had similar hopes for my generation (baby boomers) and here we are in 2018 with a POTUS that simply denies AGW as a fraud and has declared war on environmental science.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

18 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Didn’t happen to Gorsuch.

And it didn’t happen to others as well. I don’t think that misplaces the reasonable concern though.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

18 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

But— Kavanaugh was a longtime political operative. A history of partisanship. There are many conservatives on Trump’s list without that background.

Now that they have their 5-4 they could go a long way toward hitting the reset by nominating Garland for the next seat and reinstating the 60 vote requirement. Garland is in his mid-60s and voted with a Kavanaugh 90% of the time. Replacing the next liberal with a moderate like Garland would go a long way toward defusing the process. Orin Hatch claimed he was acceptable before.

Wouldn’t it be great if we were primarily concentrating on their judicial philosophy first and foremost (I.e. their principle interpretive methodology, their descriptions of judicial precedent, the opinions they drafted/concurrences/dissents, etc.)? Sure, external considerations certainly might be informative, but I definitely wish the emphasis would shift to one’s “application of the law.” Not just the “politically hot” cases, but also the type of cases SCOTUS confronts regularly. You know, the “boring” ones. 

My main hope: we do not “lose” the court in this circus political arena.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

Bottom line is how do we deal with institutional abuses of power by one party when it comes to the judiciary?

We start by conceding that there is a problem in the first place. We look back to the days where, for example, Ginsburg received 96 votes, and seriously try to figure out what underpinnings have evaporated. What is even more striking to me is that many in Congress were around when things were “good” - which means the people themselves have changed to an extent also.

[homersapien 11,447]

32 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

We start by conceding that there is a problem in the first place. We look back to the days where, for example, Ginsburg received 96 votes, and seriously try to figure out what underpinnings have evaporated. What is even more striking to me is that many in Congress were around when things were “good” - which means the people themselves have changed to an extent also.

Well, one foundational change has been the "me too" movement.  That's a societal change to which our political system has yet to adjust.

Another was the election of a black POTUS, which created a backlash in extreme conservative partisanship - as evidenced by McConnell's "Garland strategy".

I would also put blame on the emergence and evolution of new mass media outlets like cable TV and the internet which have greatly empowered the influence of  "direct democracy" in our politics, for better or (mostly) worse.

Then there is the effect of money in the election process, which means legislators no longer have the time to spend to get to know and appreciate members of the opposing party.  Money raising has become as much of their job as legislating, which requires compromise.  Compromise is difficult if you don't understand the opposition.

Gerrymandering has insulated and isolated politicians from perspectives of the political opposition.

That's just off the top of my head.

 

[homersapien 11,447]

27 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Wouldn’t it be great if we were primarily concentrating on their judicial philosophy first and foremost (I.e. their principle interpretive methodology, their descriptions of judicial precedent, the opinions they drafted/concurrences/dissents, etc.)? Sure, external considerations certainly might be informative, but I definitely wish the emphasis would shift to one’s “application of the law.” Not just the “politically hot” cases, but also the type of cases SCOTUS confronts regularly. You know, the “boring” ones. 

My main hope: we do not “lose” the court in this circus political arena.

Just an observation but differences in judicial philosophy probably do fall into roughly "conservative" and "liberal" categories from a psychological standpoint. But I do get your point and agree that is the correct basis for evaluation.  We need to get away from the "team red" and "team blue" mindset.

This is one of the things about Kavanaugh that really concerns me. His comments regarding the Clinton revenge conspiracy was enough to eliminate him. 

I realize there are those on this forum who think such a claim is entirely possible if not probable,  but that just reflects the exact sort of extreme partisanship we need to keep off the SCOTUS.

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

33 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Another was the election of a black POTUS, which created a backlash in extreme conservative partisanship - as evidenced by McConnell's "Garland strategy".

I am not entirely sold on this point. Can you expound? If Obama was white, what would have been different and why - in your opinion? 

(Staying in the focus of judicial appointments, obviously)

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

44 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Just an observation but differences in judicial philosophy probably do fall into roughly "conservative" and "liberal" categories from a psychological standpoint. But I do get your point and agree that is the correct basis for evaluation.  We need to get away from the "team red" and "team blue" mindset.

 

I think the "liberal or conservative" element doesn't even comprise a tenth of a judge's judicial philosophy. I think a simple overview of the SCOTUS docket lends support. Just look at the current Argument Calendar. Certainly, when certain issues are at hand, then sure, one can confidently predict when a certain judge's philosophy might help them tilt left or right, but I don't think the philosophies fall into conservative or liberal categories.  

Moreover, those lines are often too blurred to identify. SCOTUS cases usually do not divide on the basis of partisanship. Look at the philosophy of SCOTUS Justices in the past - Hugo Black was a liberal, but at the same time an originalist. Or, look at Justice Kagan. I would argue that she possesses a textualist philosophy, but she is also tilts "left." While Justice Scalia, on the other hand, undoubtedly a textualist and originalist, was a conservative justice. 

Does that make sense?

With peace and love... 

[homersapien 11,447]

3 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I am not entirely sold on this point. Can you expound? If Obama was white, what would have been different and why - in your opinion? 

(Staying in the focus of judicial appointments, obviously)

I think that's obvious.  Racism is endemic to the United States.  It's baked into our history and heritage.

I am not saying racism was the primary factor that drove the opposition - any progressive thinking president, race aside,  would have generated opposition.  But his race certainly accentuated the political division. (And Obama really wasn't all that liberal to start with.)

He provided the (black) face to one side of the political divide.   Ask Trump.  He knew what he was doing when he went after Obama.

Anyway, I think extreme political polarity is the root cause of what we are talking about.  That's the underlying driver in  threatening the perceived objectivity of the supreme court.

 

[homersapien 11,447]

4 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I think the "liberal or conservative" element doesn't even comprise a tenth of a judge's judicial philosophy. I think a simple overview of the SCOTUS docket lends support. Just look at the current Argument Calendar. Certainly, when certain issues are at hand, then sure, one can confidently predict when a certain judge's philosophy might help them tilt left or right, but I don't think the philosophies fall into conservative or liberal categories.  

Moreover, those lines are often too blurred to identify. SCOTUS cases usually do not divide on the basis of partisanship. Look at the philosophy of SCOTUS Justices in the past - Hugo Black was a liberal, but at the same time an originalist. Or, look at Justice Kagan. I would argue that she possesses a textualist philosophy, but she is also tilts "left." While Justice Scalia, on the other hand, undoubtedly a textualist and originalist, was a conservative justice. 

Does that make sense?

With peace and love... 

No, I failed to make my point.  I was looking at it academically.  Anyone who's constitutional view prioritizes tradition and continuity and inclined to strict and limited interpretation are (psychologically) conservative by definition.

On the other hand, anyone who's constitutional view is more flexible and is willing to apply the constitution - as written - in a more flexible way, to allow for changes in our reality are pretty much (psychologically) liberal.

I am speaking very generally. Theoretically even.   And I am not suggesting that political philosophy - liberal, conservative, Republican, Democrat or whatever  - are conscience factors in  the decisions of any justice.  (At least that's what I would like to believe.)

I am just making a comment on differences in the ways liberals and conservatives differ in worldview and how they think.  It's who they are.  (Not to say the line between the two terms is not "fuzzy", it's extremely complex.)

I don't want to hijack your SCOTUS thread by pursuing this subject now but I'll bring it up in the future (When I finish my book on the subject. )

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

No, I failed to make my point.  I was looking at it academically.  Anyone who's constitutional view prioritizes tradition and continuity are  inclined to strict and limited interpretation - by definition - (psychologically) conservative.

Anyone who's constitutional view is more flexible - sometimes referred to as a "living document" - are willing to apply the constitution - as written - in a more flexible way to allow for changes in reality - are by definition - (psychological) liberal.

I am speaking very generally.  I don't want to suggest that political philosophy - liberal, conservative, Republican, Democrat - factors in to the decisions of any justice.  (At least that's what I would like to believe.)

I am just making a comment on differences in the ways liberals and conservatives worldview and the differences in how they think.  It's who they are.  Who you are factors in all decisions, by definition.

I don't want to hijack your SCOTUS thread by pursuing this subject now but I'll bring it up in the future (When I finish my book on the subject. )

 

Makes sense. Black and Kagan were/are certainly exceptions to the norm. Take Breyer, for example. Both “liberal.” He and Kagan likely arrived at the same destination more times than not, but took extremely different paths. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

22 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

But— Kavanaugh was a longtime political operative. A history of partisanship.

Also, that’s nothing new for a Justice serving on Supreme Court. Kegan was associate counsel for Bill Clinton, later to be appointed by Obama. 

[TexasTiger 13,019]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Also, that’s nothing new for a Justice serving on Supreme Court. Kegan was associate counsel for Bill Clinton, later to be appointed by Obama. 

Counsel. Not a hack.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

20 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Counsel. Not a hack.

So “clever.” My affiliation with the cult has blinded me.