Amy Coney Barrett conformed to the SCOTUS

[TitanTiger 20,499]

...predictably along party lines, except for Susan Collins (R-Maine), who voted "no."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/amy-coney-barrett-set-be-confirmed-supreme-court-monday-n1244748

[AUDub 11,153]

We're expanding the court. Get ready. 

[Grumps 3,704]

1 minute ago, AUDub said:

We're expanding the court. Get ready. 

Do you really think so? I'd be surprised, but not that surprised.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

5 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Do you really think so? I'd be surprised, but not that surprised.

Oh I fully expect it to happen.  I also expect, at a minimum, for either Puerto Rico or D.C. to become states.

[Grumps 3,704]

Just now, Brad_ATX said:

Oh I fully expect it to happen.  I also expect, at a minimum, for either Puerto Rico or D.C. to become states.

Do you think that it could hurt the momentum that the dems expect to have or do you think it will energize the democratic voters?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Should be noted too, this may not happen immediately.  The Dems could wait until January 2023 if they so chose to.  The 2022 Senate map for Republicans is not good.  Nowhere that's an obvious pickup opportunity while R's will be defending seats in WI, NC, PA, FL, and IA.

Dems may choose to wait just to try and gain a larger Senate majority first if they take the chamber next week.

[SocialCircle 570]

18 minutes ago, AUDub said:

We're expanding the court. Get ready. 

Get ready for a disappointing November. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

2 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Do you think that it could hurt the momentum that the dems expect to have or do you think it will energize the democratic voters?

Tonight's confirmation will absolutely energize Democratic voters and they will be behind expanding the court.

The question is how do the swing suburbs react?

If I were the Dems, I wouldn't get too aggressive.  Make the argument that Mitch McConnell subverted the process twice.  Put two new justices on the court in the fight for "balance" and move on.

Personally I'd focus more on DC and Puerto Rican statehood along with filling lower court seats. Those are permanent measurements that move in your favor forever.  An extra four Senators, all of whom would likely be Democrats, is a lot more compelling to me, especially because a few conservative SC justices are getting a bit old.  Focus on getting control of the most important chamber of Congress for years.  And there's an easy argument for adding them: taxation without proper representation.

[RunInRed 16,427]

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

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

19 minutes ago, RunInRed said:

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

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

[1716AU 730]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

Tonight's confirmation will absolutely energize Democratic voters and they will be behind expanding the court.

The question is how do the swing suburbs react?

If I were the Dems, I wouldn't get too aggressive.  Make the argument that Mitch McConnell subverted the process twice.  Put two new justices on the court in the fight for "balance" and move on.

Personally I'd focus more on DC and Puerto Rican statehood along with filling lower court seats. Those are permanent measurements that move in your favor forever.  An extra four Senators, all of whom would likely be Democrats, is a lot more compelling to me, especially because a few conservative SC justices are getting a bit old.  Focus on getting control of the most important chamber of Congress for years.  And there's an easy argument for adding them: taxation without proper representation.

And there is the 1929 Apportionment Act. If that is overturned, Conservatives will never hold power again. Here is what I see:

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.  

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. 

Brad, I think that you will see a lot of Trump's appointees losing their positions via impeachment on the Federal Courts.  There may be an impeachment with Kavanaugh. If not, there will be a three judge expansion.

If you are a Conservative, this is going to look like "scorched-earth" policy, and I think they might even plow your fields with salt.   If we are lucky, Conservatives will never hold power again.

 

[RunInRed 16,427]

19 minutes ago, 1716AU said:

And there is the 1929 Apportionment Act. If that is overturned, Conservatives will never hold power again. Here is what I see:

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.  

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. 

Brad, I think that you will see a lot of Trump's appointees losing their positions via impeachment on the Federal Courts.  There may be an impeachment with Kavanaugh. If not, there will be a three judge expansion.

If you are a Conservative, this is going to look like "scorched-earth" policy, and I think they might even plow your fields with salt.   If we are lucky, Conservatives will never hold power again.

 

Damn, give me some of what l you’re hittin!

[DKW 86 7,426]

Packing the court will always end bad. While I do not support Trump nor his choices, elections mean things. That the Cheeto man got to name three is just sick. 

 

However, packing the court will send us into a spiral. The next time the Republicans take the Senate, they will pack the court their way. And on and on it goes. We could have a SCOTUS of 15 or more and climbing every time the Senate swaps power. That is not good for any one. 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

7 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.

To me, expanding the court does seem reactionary when you consider what you just said.  It's possible Alito and Thomas could have to step down in the next 4 years.  Or eight.  So there's a realistic chance that this 6-3 conservative majority could soon be a 5-4 liberal one.  I could be wrong, I just feel like expanding the court may end up looking like Icarus flying too close to the sun.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

6 hours ago, 1716AU said:

And there is the 1929 Apportionment Act. If that is overturned, Conservatives will never hold power again. Here is what I see:

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.  

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. 

Brad, I think that you will see a lot of Trump's appointees losing their positions via impeachment on the Federal Courts.  There may be an impeachment with Kavanaugh. If not, there will be a three judge expansion.

If you are a Conservative, this is going to look like "scorched-earth" policy, and I think they might even plow your fields with salt.   If we are lucky, Conservatives will never hold power again.

I get this anger, but I think a Biden win over Trump, even a convincing one, should not be read as some massive overall shift to the Democrats.  Biden is benefitting from Trump fatigue and from a number of fed-up Republicans just wanting Trump out of office more than being super fired up for Biden.  In other words, I think it would be a mistake to see a Biden win, even paired with a Democrat Senate majority, as a mandate for sweeping change.  It doesn't mean that elections don't have consequences, but it should give a note of caution about reaching too far too soon.

This country is split down the middle and I'm hoping Biden can do some things to repair the damage and bring back some semblance of unity amongst most of us.  But "scorched earth" won't do that.  The US has always had a tendency to over-correct rather than pull things back to 'within normal parameters.'   It would be nice if we did do that for once.

[McLoofus 35,182]

Speaking of reform, do any of y'all think that this advances the conversation about term limits for scotus judges?

Assuming for a second, and only for a second, that Trump doesn't hijack the election and our democracy, it seems like a continuous struggle and cycle of retaliation is inevitable at this point. Probably more compelling reasons for term limits, but it might mitigate the desperation of these appointments.

Edited October 27, 2020 by McLoofus

[RunInRed 16,427]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

I get this anger, but I think a Biden win over Trump, even a convincing one, should not be read as some massive overall shift to the Democrats.  Biden is benefitting from Trump fatigue and from a number of fed-up Republicans just wanting Trump out of office more than being super fired up for Biden.  In other words, I think it would be a mistake to see a Biden win, even paired with a Democrat Senate majority, as a mandate for sweeping change.  It doesn't mean that elections don't have consequences, but it should give a note of caution about reaching too far too soon.

This country is split down the middle and I'm hoping Biden can do some things to repair the damage and bring back some semblance of unity amongst most of us.  But "scorched earth" won't do that.  The US has always had a tendency to over-correct rather than pull things back to 'within normal parameters.'   It would be nice if we did do that for once.

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.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

13 minutes 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.

No, it's not.  But at the same time, it's likely a Democrat will get to replace two of the most conservative justices on the court in the next 4-8 years.  These things have a way of balancing out on their own.

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

9 hours ago, 1716AU said:

They are going to make you pay.  And it will hurt.

 

9 hours ago, 1716AU said:

this is going to look like "scorched-earth" policy, and I think they might even plow your fields with salt. 

 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

Speaking of reform, do any of y'all think that this advances the conversation about term limits for scotus judges?

Assuming for a second, and only for a second, that Trump doesn't hijack the election and our democracy, it seems like a continuous struggle and cycle of retaliation is inevitable at this point. Probably more compelling reasons for term limits, but it might mitigate the desperation of these appointments.

That's a reform that more people could probably go along with.  I'm not smart enough to think through any unintended consequences though.  I'd pair it with term limits for Congress as well.

[homersapien 11,386]

Some interesting history:

Amy Coney Barrett joins a Supreme Court that’s largely out of step with the national consensus

Ruth Marcus

Deputy editorial page editor

Oct. 26, 2020 at 8:07 p.m. EDT

Justice Amy Coney Barrett joins a court dangerously out of sync with the country. The nation is roughly evenly divided politically and has been for decades. Yet the court — now even more so with Barrett’s arrival — is dominated not only by Republican-appointed justices but also by muscularly conservative ones.

The last time the court had a majority of justices nominated by a Democratic president was in 1969, when Abe Fortas resigned. In the years since, Republican presidents have named 15 of 19 justices. That’s right, Democrats have had only four nominees confirmed in the past half-century.

It would be one thing is this were a reflection of Republican electoral dominance. It’s not. During that time, Democrats have won five of 12 presidential elections, and a plurality or majority of the popular vote in two more.

Part of this lopsidedness reflects the luck of the presidential draw — Richard M. Nixon had four appointments, Jimmy Carter none — or bad retirement timing on the part of justices.

Partly, it reflects the GOP willingness to play legislative hardball in filling — or obstructing the filling — of vacancies. The era of majority Republican-appointed justices would have ended in 2016 with the confirmation of Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s nominee to replace Antonin Scalia. But, of course, the Republican-controlled Senate did not permit that to happen, though the vacancy arose nine months before the presidential election.

And partly it is a consequence of the impact of the electoral college. Consider: There are now six Republican-nominated justices on the high court, yet during the tenure of every sitting justice, a Republican president has won the popular vote just once — George W. Bush in 2004.

The Senate has its own version of this phenomenon. Since the Fortas retirement in 1969, Democrats have controlled the Senate in more than half of the 26 Congresses. But as with the electoral college, the Senate’s structure, giving every state two senators no matter its size, exacerbates the inequities.

Senators representing significant majorities of the population voted to reject the three Supreme Court nominations made by President Trump, who himself received nearly 3 million fewer votes than his opponent. This is minority rule piled on minority rule, albeit counter-majoritarian rules enshrined in the constitution.

These important points were made forcefully by Georgetown University law professor Marty Lederman on the day of Brett M. Kavanaugh’s confirmation two years ago. They hold truer today, with Barrett’s confirmation.

As Lederman observed, “there’s been an extraordinarily stark and prolonged mismatch between (on the one hand) Democrats’ political power and the embrace of Democratic positions by strong majorities of the nation, and (on the other hand) Republican dominance on the Court — leading to a possible forthcoming ultraconservative era of jurisprudence.”

The numbers only tell part of the story. During a less partisan era, and in particular during an era when ideological considerations played a less decisive role in selecting Supreme Court justices, the fact of significantly greater numbers of Republican- than Democratic-appointed justices mattered far less.

After all, two of the liberal leaders of the Warren court, Earl Warren himself and William J. Brennan Jr., were named by Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower. Other Republican presidents have found themselves disappointed by their nominees’ liberal tendencies on the court, including Nixon (Harry A. Blackmun), Gerald Ford (John Paul Stevens), Ronald Reagan (Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy), and George H.W. Bush (David Souter).

But the era of justices who surprise is over. The conservative legal movement learned from its mistakes; its rallying cry has been, “No more Souters.” It created an ideological and financial architecture to identify and groom promising candidates, and to give them enough seasoning on the bench to ensure that nominees’ legal philosophies were reliably conservative. The elimination of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, with the confirmation of Neil M. Gorsuch in 2017, removed any incentive toward moderation.

The last time the Supreme Court had six Republican-nominated justices, that roster included Stevens, a liberal, and Kennedy, a swing vote. Now, there are six solid conservatives, even if the chief justice has deviated at a few key moments. Some of his colleagues are champing at the bit to implement their vision of the constitution. So an energetically conservative court now helps govern a centrist country.

The court serves an important counter-majoritarian role in preserving constitutional protections; we don’t want it to slavishly follow the election returns. But neither is it good for the court to be sharply out of step with the national consensus. That’s bad for the institution and bad for the country.

The court’s makeup is determined by the electoral landscape (control of the presidency and the Senate). But its rulings — on gerrymandering, on campaign finance, on voting rights — help define the contours of that landscape.

As Lederman put it, “there’s a strong — and not coincidental — symbiosis between the Republicans’ long-term, successful efforts to shape the Court and the ability of the GOP to secure success in the political arena beyond what its popular support would naturally produce: the entrenchments are mutually reinforcing.”

Mutually reinforcing, and distinctly unhealthy.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/amy-coney-barrett-joins-a-supreme-court-thats-largely-out-of-step-with-the-national-consensus/2020/10/26/5bae1de6-17c5-11eb-aeec-b93bcc29a01b_story.html

[TitanTiger 20,499]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Some interesting history:

Amy Coney Barrett joins a Supreme Court that’s largely out of step with the national consensus

Ruth Marcus

Deputy editorial page editor

Oct. 26, 2020 at 8:07 p.m. EDT

Justice Amy Coney Barrett joins a court dangerously out of sync with the country. The nation is roughly evenly divided politically and has been for decades. Yet the court — now even more so with Barrett’s arrival — is dominated not only by Republican-appointed justices but also by muscularly conservative ones.

The last time the court had a majority of justices nominated by a Democratic president was in 1969, when Abe Fortas resigned. In the years since, Republican presidents have named 15 of 19 justices. That’s right, Democrats have had only four nominees confirmed in the past half-century.

It would be one thing is this were a reflection of Republican electoral dominance. It’s not. During that time, Democrats have won five of 12 presidential elections, and a plurality or majority of the popular vote in two more.

Part of this lopsidedness reflects the luck of the presidential draw — Richard M. Nixon had four appointments, Jimmy Carter none — or bad retirement timing on the part of justices.

Partly, it reflects the GOP willingness to play legislative hardball in filling — or obstructing the filling — of vacancies. The era of majority Republican-appointed justices would have ended in 2016 with the confirmation of Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s nominee to replace Antonin Scalia. But, of course, the Republican-controlled Senate did not permit that to happen, though the vacancy arose nine months before the presidential election.

And partly it is a consequence of the impact of the electoral college. Consider: There are now six Republican-nominated justices on the high court, yet during the tenure of every sitting justice, a Republican president has won the popular vote just once — George W. Bush in 2004.

The Senate has its own version of this phenomenon. Since the Fortas retirement in 1969, Democrats have controlled the Senate in more than half of the 26 Congresses. But as with the electoral college, the Senate’s structure, giving every state two senators no matter its size, exacerbates the inequities.

Senators representing significant majorities of the population voted to reject the three Supreme Court nominations made by President Trump, who himself received nearly 3 million fewer votes than his opponent. This is minority rule piled on minority rule, albeit counter-majoritarian rules enshrined in the constitution.

These important points were made forcefully by Georgetown University law professor Marty Lederman on the day of Brett M. Kavanaugh’s confirmation two years ago. They hold truer today, with Barrett’s confirmation.

As Lederman observed, “there’s been an extraordinarily stark and prolonged mismatch between (on the one hand) Democrats’ political power and the embrace of Democratic positions by strong majorities of the nation, and (on the other hand) Republican dominance on the Court — leading to a possible forthcoming ultraconservative era of jurisprudence.”

The numbers only tell part of the story. During a less partisan era, and in particular during an era when ideological considerations played a less decisive role in selecting Supreme Court justices, the fact of significantly greater numbers of Republican- than Democratic-appointed justices mattered far less.

After all, two of the liberal leaders of the Warren court, Earl Warren himself and William J. Brennan Jr., were named by Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower. Other Republican presidents have found themselves disappointed by their nominees’ liberal tendencies on the court, including Nixon (Harry A. Blackmun), Gerald Ford (John Paul Stevens), Ronald Reagan (Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy), and George H.W. Bush (David Souter).

But the era of justices who surprise is over. The conservative legal movement learned from its mistakes; its rallying cry has been, “No more Souters.” It created an ideological and financial architecture to identify and groom promising candidates, and to give them enough seasoning on the bench to ensure that nominees’ legal philosophies were reliably conservative. The elimination of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, with the confirmation of Neil M. Gorsuch in 2017, removed any incentive toward moderation.

The last time the Supreme Court had six Republican-nominated justices, that roster included Stevens, a liberal, and Kennedy, a swing vote. Now, there are six solid conservatives, even if the chief justice has deviated at a few key moments. Some of his colleagues are champing at the bit to implement their vision of the constitution. So an energetically conservative court now helps govern a centrist country.

The court serves an important counter-majoritarian role in preserving constitutional protections; we don’t want it to slavishly follow the election returns. But neither is it good for the court to be sharply out of step with the national consensus. That’s bad for the institution and bad for the country.

The court’s makeup is determined by the electoral landscape (control of the presidency and the Senate). But its rulings — on gerrymandering, on campaign finance, on voting rights — help define the contours of that landscape.

As Lederman put it, “there’s a strong — and not coincidental — symbiosis between the Republicans’ long-term, successful efforts to shape the Court and the ability of the GOP to secure success in the political arena beyond what its popular support would naturally produce: the entrenchments are mutually reinforcing.”

Mutually reinforcing, and distinctly unhealthy.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/amy-coney-barrett-joins-a-supreme-court-thats-largely-out-of-step-with-the-national-consensus/2020/10/26/5bae1de6-17c5-11eb-aeec-b93bcc29a01b_story.html

Honestly, Supreme Courts shouldn't be on the front edge of national consensus.  Our government wasn't designed to make swift changes on important matters.  It was made for gradual change through processes that force longer time for consideration.  

[McLoofus 35,182]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

It would be one thing is this were a reflection of Republican electoral dominance. It’s not. During that time, Democrats have won five of 12 presidential elections, and a plurality or majority of the popular vote in two more.

This is maddening. 

 

[homersapien 11,386]

15 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Honestly, Supreme Courts shouldn't be on the front edge of national consensus.  Our government wasn't designed to make swift changes on important matters.  It was made for gradual change through processes that force longer time for consideration.  

That's broadly true, but the point of the article is that we are now entering a period in which the makeup of the court reflects an ultra-conservative perspective that has been literally engineered by a political party that does not reflect the majority of the country. 

The SCOTUS should broadly reflect the greater majority of the country, which is centrist, not the "tails" of the bell curve.  This court has been aggressively stacked to reflect the politics of the far right "tail".

It's minority power run amuck and is not good for long term future of our democracy. 

Edited October 27, 2020 by homersapien

[TitanTiger 20,499]

14 minutes ago, homersapien said:

The Senate has its own version of this phenomenon. Since the Fortas retirement in 1969, Democrats have controlled the Senate in more than half of the 26 Congresses. But as with the electoral college, the Senate’s structure, giving every state two senators no matter its size, exacerbates the inequities.

Senators representing significant majorities of the population voted to reject the three Supreme Court nominations made by President Trump, who himself received nearly 3 million fewer votes than his opponent. This is minority rule piled on minority rule, albeit counter-majoritarian rules enshrined in the constitution.

 

I'll also say this, trying to re-litigate the debates of the constitutional convention from 233 years ago over how best to set up our legislative branch is pointless.  We saw wisdom and advantages in both kinds of representation and created a bi-cameral legislature with a division of powers as a result.  It's not like anyone is doing anything underhanded simply by the Senate being what it was created to be and doing what it was created to do.  Rage against the slimy maneuvering of McConnell all you want and I'm with you.  I'm open to putting in some rules to prevent this sort of thing from happening again in the future.  But bitching about how representation works in the Senate and how it works in the House comes off as less about principled objections to manipulation of power and more like sour grapes.