1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

SCOTUS - Supreme Court of the United States

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by onejayhawk, Oct 22, 2015.

  1. Zardnaar

    Zardnaar Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    11,589
    Location:
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    Problem is eventually the GoP will win again and just add two more justices.

    GoP really only stole one seat so the court would be 5-4 instead of 6-3.

    Packing court a bad idea.
     
    EdmundIronside likes this.
  2. Farm Boy

    Farm Boy You gave me my own tail?

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    19,266
    As I understand it, the argument is that since the GOP wins a portion of the time and pulls the levers of power, it is proof that the system doesn't work or at least is anti-Democratic. So if you go court a'packing through increasing justices specifically to change inconvenient rulings, effectively neutering its ability to restrain legislation or executive action, in a census election, with a team legislative branch and team executive branch, you don't worry about losing and having it packed back on you, since can Fix the structure of the system to be fair and never lose again for the foreseeable. DemocracyDemocraticasy!

    They have good ideas, and they have bad ideas. They're my countrymen. Wouldn't do to halfass it, I suppose.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2020
  3. uppi

    uppi Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,783
    Such a constitutional amendment must include a reform of the appointment process as well (at least require a 2/3 majority confirmation, or something completely else), otherwise you are just punting the problem for 20 years without the option to resort to court packing when someone pulls this again. Better yet, include term limits as well.
     
  4. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd Rest in Peace Black Panther

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    18,949
    Location:
    Wakanda Forever
    Constitutional Amendments require a 2/3rd majority by default. If a limit of 9 Justices is inserted into the Constitution as I am suggesting, then changing it would automatically require 2/3rds to change it again.
     
  5. CKS

    CKS Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    2,659
    I'm pretty sure that uppi means that we should require a 2/3 majority in the Senate to confirm any particular justice, not to change the number of justices.
     
  6. Naskra

    Naskra Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    1,108
    3/4s of the states, by law, not default.
     
  7. uppi

    uppi Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,783
    Yes, exactly.
     
  8. RobAnybody

    RobAnybody Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,070
    I may not be following, but just for the record, my understanding (which obviously could be wrong!) is that judicial confirmation has throughout history only required 50.5 (VP tie break) to confirm, as did most appointments to cabinet positions, heads of departments, etc. It was kind of a formality, like "unless you nominate OJ or Vanilla Ice to the position", it got approved. For the most part, unless the candidate was egregiously unqualified, they got approved, whether justice/judge (at any level) or department head.

    During Obama's term though, McConnell, the Republican leader of the Senate who had more members at that point blocked literally *all* appointments, like confirmations to head up a department, by using the filibuster rule, which had never really been abused in the past. As in, people knew it was there, but didn't get used. It all the sudden got used 1000x as much during Obama's term [/hyperbole]. So, now it required 60 votes to approve literally anyone. McConnell kinda weaponized the filibuster, which was not really a "thing" before then.

    So the Dem head of the Senate (name escapes me - Reid?) abolished the filibuster *just* for blocking appointments for heads of departments, but not justices. So Obama could now appoint heads of departments, but not judges, with 50.5. Then the Reps took the Senate & proceeded to block literally every judicial appointment Obama put up, from SC (famously regarding Garland) but also all lower court justices, but couldn't block department heads.

    When the Reps took over all 3 branches in 2016, they abolished the filibuster for judges as well, so now 50.5 can appoint whoever they want. They proceeded to appoint not just heads of departments, but judges, including the one they filibustered from Obama, but also all the lower court ones they'd been "saving up" for years & years.

    There's a non-zero chance I got some of that wrong though.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2020
    hobbsyoyo and Drakle like this.
  9. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    44,946
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    Close. Democrats nuked the filibuster for judicial nominations as well, except for the Supreme Court. In 2017, the Republicans used the Nuclear Option there as well.

    In 2016, some Republicans were justifying the denying of a Supreme Court Justice seat to Obama because of the 2013 nuking of the filibuster in the lower courts. It's true that it means that there's less need for cross-aisle cooperation and things become more winner-take-all.
     
    hobbsyoyo and RobAnybody like this.
  10. RobAnybody

    RobAnybody Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,070
    I believe you, obviously, 'cause my knowledge was sketchy, but why were there so many lower court, non-SC, judicial unapproved vacancies pre-2016? Was it just because McConnell weaponized the approval process when no one had before?
     
    hobbsyoyo likes this.
  11. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    44,946
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    Republican slow-walking, basically. You could call it 'weaponizing the approval process', because that's what it looked like. As well, once (R) actually got the Senate, the true backlog could start accumulating.
     
    RobAnybody likes this.
  12. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd Rest in Peace Black Panther

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    18,949
    Location:
    Wakanda Forever
    It was formerly a 60 vote supermajority to move to a vote on Justices. That was abandoned by Republicans so they could ram through Gorsuch. So here we are.

    A Constitutional Amendment requiring a 2/3 majority to confirm SCOTUS Justices just makes the current problem permanent, whereby the opposition party can simply block any Justices from being confirmed and eventually we would have the absurd situation where all the Justices die out and there is no SCOTUS.

    A more functional rule would be that in order to appoint a Justice, you must have the WH and the Senate simultaneously... which is effectively the rule that has been created in the current political climate anyway.
     
    Drakle and El_Machinae like this.
  13. cardgame

    cardgame Obsessively Opposed to the Typical

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    14,901
    Location:
    Misery
    One seat stolen, a second seat given to unqualified (Kavanaugh), possibly a third seat given to complete unqualified. Pack the court, it's already been packed by the Republicans.
     
  14. RobAnybody

    RobAnybody Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,070
    Just to reiterate, that "rule" was what effectively what the Reps did anyway in Obama's 2nd term. That "rule" literally got introduced by McConnell to oppose Obama. It was never a "rule" in the prior 239-ish years prior to Obama.
     
    hobbsyoyo likes this.
  15. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    44,946
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    Yeah, but until someone takes a huge risk on bipartisanship, it's now the status quo. I'll reiterate - Trump could have nominated Garland and thereby have changed the course of history. He didn't, because duh. The last hope on this front is for Gorsuch to voluntarily step down in 2021 in order to chastise the partisan politics.
     
  16. RobAnybody

    RobAnybody Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,070
    Oh, I don't disagree that Trump could've not been a dick, but there was really no chance of that happening. McConnell stealing a SC pick plus Trump being a dick = now we're here. If the Dems continue playing by the unwritten "rules", they look not just weak but stupid. The "other side" tossed out the rulebook & said anything goes. I'm honestly not sure where we go from here.

    EDIT: Apparently we now go to a very amusing place: :)
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2020
    El_Machinae likes this.
  17. Farm Boy

    Farm Boy You gave me my own tail?

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    19,266
    Changed the course of history, eh?

    We have a progressive ****ting on the principle of 1.8 trillion now and more later in favor of it all being thier doing with nothing now. I have to color that one... fanciful. If they're in there now, they're pretty much human scum along with their acolytes.
     
    RobAnybody likes this.
  18. cardgame

    cardgame Obsessively Opposed to the Typical

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    14,901
    Location:
    Misery
    what is this referring to?
     
  19. Farm Boy

    Farm Boy You gave me my own tail?

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    19,266
    The total failure of both houses of the legislature and an Assclown pretending they're human enough to pass a COVID bill. They're making the court look good, in that ugly friend out with an uglier one sort of way. But specifically I wasted my life watching The Speaker talk with that dick-out Zoom guy. Might not actually be the zoom guy, but the glasses looked the same. Might not actually be the speaker, but I have no proof of doppelgangers from the pits in that case.
     
  20. RobAnybody

    RobAnybody Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,070
    That was epic Farm Boy babelling, I approve.
     
    Drakle likes this.

Share This Page