SCOTUS - Supreme Court of the United States

[Drakle]

Collins also has a reelection she is nearly doomed in, so trying to buy some last minute goodwill. While Murkowski has a coming Republican primary to face in 2022, which is a bigger danger in her mind (I bet she gets primaried again, and then has to beg for Democratic support just like last time).

Both could vote no, and even a last minute switch by a Republican wouldn't doom it, because Republicans now have a 53 majority, and Pence can vote on a tie. But yes they are voting strategic.

 

[Estebonrober]

Well, any bets on what the revenge will be?

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/...ont-believe-democrats-have-the-stones-to-play


Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) took to Twitter late Monday to call for the expansion of the Supreme Court as Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in as a justice, with the progressive first-term lawmaker arguing that Republicans don’t believe Democrats “have the stones to play hardball like they do. “

“Expand the court,” the congresswoman wrote in response to the 52-48 Senate vote Monday evening to confirm Barret after a weeks-long partisan fight.

“Republicans do this because they don’t believe Dems have the stones to play hardball like they do,” Ocasio-Cortez added in a follow-up tweet. “And for a long time they’ve been correct. But do not let them bully the public into thinking their bulldozing is normal but a response isn’t."

Well the good part of the democrat party is talking about doing something real, but my bet would be next to nothing will actually be done.

So she's now confirmed before the election. Glad to be one of the few here who called it. McConnell also excused the hypocrisy, saying the Democrats would have done it too.

And personally, I think they would have.

Looking back through the years, finding the flipflops among House and Senate majority/minority leaders based on whether they were majority or minority leaders is pretty easy, and pretty depressing.

It must be pointed out that we are forty years down a line of democrats not playing hardball while republicans are playing with aluminum bats.

 

[Gorbles]

Just think how different things would have been if so many self-described leftists hadn't gone "I CAN SEE NO DIFFERENCE" in 2016.

This is a bit of a mistaken analysis, in my opinion. Not only did Clinton win the popular vote, but you can't criticise leftists (however performant they may be) without knowing where they live and thus what impact their vote will actually have.

Are there leftists which will refuse to entertain voting Democrat to beat Trump? Sure. I have no doubt such people exist. But that doesn't speak to their impact on the actual result.

 

[Sommerswerd]

This is a bit of a mistaken analysis, in my opinion. Not only did Clinton win the popular vote, but you can't criticise leftists (however performant they may be) without knowing where they live and thus what impact their vote will actually have.

Are there leftists which will refuse to entertain voting Democrat to beat Trump? Sure. I have no doubt such people exist. But that doesn't speak to their impact on the actual result.

While its certainly true that Hillary got many more, millions more votes than Trump, her margin was lower, 2.1% versus Obamas 3.9% in 2012. She also got less votes than Obama did 4 years earlier, and far less votes than Obama did 8 years earlier. Whereas Trump got more votes than any Republican in history. The only one who came close is Baby Bush in 2004, missing Trump's total by over 900k votes. Trump's total is actually the fourth highest in US history, behind Obama 08', Obama 12' and Clinton 16'.

The point is, the Trump overperformed for a Republican, or at a minimum, performed as he should have, given population growth, participation rates, etc. Whereas Hillary underperformed for a Democrat, given the same factors. So for all the hand-wringing we do about how she "got the most votes"... we have to face facts... she blew it... and we blew it.

 

[Gorbles]

While its certainly true that Hillary got many more, millions more votes than Trump, her margin was lower, 2.1% versus Obamas 3.9% in 2012. She also got less votes than Obama did 4 years earlier, and far less votes than Obama did 8 years earlier. Whereas Trump got more votes than any Republican in history. The only one who came close is Baby Bush in 2004, missing Trump's total by over 900k votes. Trump's total is actually the fourth highest in US history, behind Obama 08', Obama 12' and Clinton 16'.

The point is, the Trump overperformed for a Republican, or at a minimum, performed as he should have, given population growth, participation rates, etc. Whereas Hillary underperformed for a Democrat, given the same factors. So for all the hand-wringing we do about how she "got the most votes"... we have to face facts... she blew it... and we blew it.

The problem is the reasons for this get nebulous, very quickly. How much were third-party voters a factor in Trump's increase? How much were right(er than right)-wing Democrats? By focusing solely on the alleged leftists that went all both-sides on the candidates, I believe Ajidica is missing the forest for the trees.

I have no doubt she blew it. It's a part of history now. But focusing on the voters, and extreme examples of ones at that, is the wrong lesson to take from it. Heck, it's 2020 and we still haven't gotten much further on the discourse of why the Democrats disenfranchise progressive or otherwise leftist voters. It's just 2016 all over again, but with (understandably and for the record absolutely necessary) panic.

 

[Sommerswerd]

The problem is the reasons for this get nebulous, very quickly. How much were third-party voters a factor in Trump's increase? How much were right(er than right)-wing Democrats? By focusing solely on the alleged leftists that went all both-sides on the candidates, I believe Ajidica is missing the forest for the trees.

I have no doubt she blew it. It's a part of history now. But focusing on the voters, and extreme examples of ones at that, is the wrong lesson to take from it. Heck, it's 2020 and we still haven't gotten much further on the discourse of why the Democrats disenfranchise progressive or otherwise leftist voters. It's just 2016 all over again, but with (understandably and for the record absolutely necessary) panic.

Participation was actually up around 1% in 2016 from 2012, so its not like people stayed home. But still Hillary's vote total was a little behind Obama's in 2012. Conversely, Trump beat's Romney's total by about 2 million votes. So that means Trump greatly increased turnout in his favor, and poached a bunch of Obama's voters from Hillary, while Hillary didn't even maintain what Obama did the prior cycle.

At any rate, to bring this back in line... I will say that if Biden does manage to win by enough of a margin to keep it out of Barrett's hands, and the Democrats take the Senate, I am actually starting to think that increasing the number of Justices may actually be something that they go for.

 

[El_Machinae]

And personally, I think they would have.

They should have! (R) created the precedent that (R) didn't keep!

There's only one hypocrisy, where someone didn't actually mimic their previous behavior

 

[Farm Boy]

That Trumpy rep gets worse and worse.

That might actually be long gun politics. Ungh.

 

[adcarrymaokai]

Just think how different things would have been if so many self-described leftists hadn't gone "I CAN SEE NO DIFFERENCE" in 2016.

There was a study which showed that the majority of "leftists" voted for Hillary. I voted for Hillary. But I won't vote for Biden.

Republicans managed to make a SC appointment in record time, while Democrats did... what exactly? Nancy Pelosi clapped? Chuck Schumer wrote a strongly worded letter? If I were really naïve, I would assume that Democrats are just really bad at politics and get outmaneuvered by Republicans like it's an episode of Tom & Jerry. But I don't even believe that. I believe Democrats also wanted this appointment to happen because it also benefits their corporate interests. They didn't lift a finger to do anything, even though all they had to do was to delay this by a mere week.

And Joe Biden? Joe Biden openly stated he won't impose term limits for SC judges and dodged every question about court packing. He won't do it. So why exactly should I vote for him?

 

[Drakle]

While its certainly true that Hillary got many more, millions more votes than Trump, her margin was lower, 2.1% versus Obamas 3.9% in 2012. She also got less votes than Obama did 4 years earlier, and far less votes than Obama did 8 years earlier. Whereas Trump got more votes than any Republican in history. The only one who came close is Baby Bush in 2004, missing Trump's total by over 900k votes. Trump's total is actually the fourth highest in US history, behind Obama 08', Obama 12' and Clinton 16'.

The point is, the Trump overperformed for a Republican, or at a minimum, performed as he should have, given population growth, participation rates, etc. Whereas Hillary underperformed for a Democrat, given the same factors. So for all the hand-wringing we do about how she "got the most votes"... we have to face facts... she blew it... and we blew it.

No, Trump underperformed as a Republican. He won Wisconsin by fewer votes than Romney and got a lower percentage of the vote while winning it, than Bush did in narrowly losing it. He won multiple EC votes by pluralities, like WI, PA, MI, NC, Arizona and Florida. He well underperformed population growth and participation rates.

And a not even 2 per cent popular vote margin change, going from an easy EC win to a solid loss is a sign of a bad system, not anything else.

There was a study which showed that the majority of "leftists" voted for Hillary. I voted for Hillary. But I won't vote for Biden.

Republicans managed to make a SC appointment in record time, while Democrats did... what exactly? Nancy Pelosi clapped? Chuck Schumer wrote a strongly worded letter? If I were really naïve, I would assume that Democrats are just really bad at politics and get outmaneuvered by Republicans like it a Tom & Jerry cartoon. But I don't even believe that. I believe Democrats also wanted this appointment to happen because it also benefits their corporate interests. They didn't lift a finger to do anything, even though all they had to do was to delay this by a mere week.

And Joe Biden? Joe Biden openly stated he won't impose term limits for SC judges and dodged every question about court packing. He won't do it. So why exactly should I vote for him?

https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/1319700797656092672

I required the GOP to show up for a live quorum call—Senate can't do business without quorum

Then I forced us into closed session to talk face-to-face about this nomination & its impact on America

But the GOP decided to keep forcing this nominee through an illegitimate process

Schumer did what he could. But 53 votes automatically overrides 47. What else is he supposed to do? Come on name something? There is nothing to hold up, the Republicans don't even want stimulus. There is no filibuster, Republicans got rid of it. The right-wing courts will uphold this. Hell Schumer did good work keeping people like Manchin from bolting, who I will remind you, represents one of the top 5 states that Trump won by margin.

I really don't understand this, complaining Democrats are powerless, so I won't vote to give them any power mentality. It is completely self-defeating.

Term limits require a constitutional amendment, which ain't happening. And it doesn't do anything to stop them overturning Roe v Wade and the VRA right now.

And Biden is being cagey so he doesn't lose moderate votes. He clearly said that the options are on the table. His chief of staff just endorsed judicial reform. If Biden loses or doesn't have the Senate majorities he needs, there is nobody better waiting in the wings. The Republican court victory will be solidified, and they will make it impossible to overturn.

But if I don't convince you, as nearly all internet arguments result in, at least vote down-ballot. Leave the Presidential blank, and vote some of the other important things.

https://whatsontheballot.com/

 

[Farm Boy]

The court seems have handed down 2/3 rulings on election counting deadlines so far during the last week in which the more liberal wing held sway. Everyone but Roberts looks to have flopped like a tool between Wisconsin("conservative victory") and Pennsylvania("liberal victory"), Kavanaugh and Roberts sided with the liberals in North Carolina. Maybe some of the are next-leveling in the politics. Maybe a couple are trying to take it case by case. Dunno. Don't feel like digging too hard into opinions/dissents tonight. Might not be a totally accurate read.

 

[Sommerswerd]

The court seems have handed down 2/3 rulings on election counting deadlines so far during the last week in which the more liberal wing held sway. Everyone but Roberts looks to have flopped like a tool between Wisconsin("conservative victory") and Pennsylvania("liberal victory"), Kavanaugh and Roberts sided with the liberals in North Carolina. Maybe some of the are next-leveling in the politics. Maybe a couple are trying to take it case by case. Dunno. Don't feel like digging too hard into opinions/dissents tonight. Might not be a totally accurate read.

I also haven't taken the time to sit down and wade through all the opinions, but my limited understanding of the rulings is that they essentially said, regarding PA and NC, paraphrasing "We'll let the votes count... for now... let's see what happens and maybe we'd like to revisit the issue again after election day." What concerns me about this is the subtext. Essentially, they seem to be saying "Look Donny, if you lose and it comes down to the results in PA and/or NC... maybe we'll bail you out... but if you get taken to the cleaners such that those two wouldn't make a difference, then pass." But again, I haven't actually read the opinions so I'm speculating.

As an aside, there seems to be a trend whereby Republican appointed Justices are more likely to tend to drift more "liberal" once they get on the bench than vice versa. I've been wondering lately if that reflects a tendency for "conservative" Justices to rule, speak, represent themselves as staunch conservatives, to get the brass ring... get along to go along as it were... but then once they get on the bench, freed of the threat of losing position or opportunity, are able to more often just do what they think is right, which as it turns out, is more often the "liberal" position.

That's one of the reasons I'm not in love with the idea of term limits for SCOTUS Justices. I don't want a SCOTUS Justice worrying about what lobbying firm they are going to land a sweet gig with once their term is up. We already have that problem with Congress. I think I'd rather have SCOTUS Justices thinking about things like their legacy, and how they will be remembered in the history books.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yes, I also think conservatively appointed judges tend to adjudicate more, and legislate less, than the hack counterparts. But only somewhat.

Justice emeritas also is just, ew. Eeeew.

I mean it comes down to what I'm willing to waste time on, right? Reading Thomas would just be futile, it'll say whatever bullfeathers. Same with Sotomayor, just bullfeathers. Totally meaningless waste of time. But Roberts might be interesting to read. Kennedy was. Kavanaugh might be yet, we'll see. Who know with Barrett. Gotta get a feel. When I want my lies naked, I'll listen to Congress.

 

[EgonSpengler]

That's one of the reasons I'm not in love with the idea of term limits for SCOTUS Justices. I don't want a SCOTUS Justice worrying about what lobbying firm they are going to land a sweet gig with once their term is up. We already have that problem with Congress. I think I'd rather have SCOTUS Justices thinking about things like their legacy, and how they will be remembered in the history books.

I think I'm in favor of term limits, but you do make an interesting point that I hadn't thought of. I guess the idea is that a SCOTUS seat would be the final, crowning achievement in a person's career, and they would fully retire afterwards, but of course that might not always be the case. I heard part of a radio program the other day where someone raised the possibility that any number of federal judges, serving lifetime appointments into the early stages of dementia or Alzheimer's. Probably some people here have had to take an elderly relative's car away from them, or maybe try to get them to turn over running a business; imagine trying to tell a federal judge that they're not as sharp as they used to be and maybe they might want to spend more time with the grandkids.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'd put 100 bucks on alcoholism from the federal bench being way more of a mental ability issue then the spectre of granny not being able to drive to court.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I think I'm in favor of term limits, but you do make an interesting point that I hadn't thought of. I guess the idea is that a SCOTUS seat would be the final, crowning achievement in a person's career, and they would fully retire afterwards, but of course that might not always be the case. I heard part of a radio program the other day where someone raised the possibility that any number of federal judges, serving lifetime appointments into the early stages of dementia or Alzheimer's. Probably some people here have had to take an elderly relative's car away from them, or maybe try to get them to turn over running a business; imagine trying to tell a federal judge that they're not as sharp as they used to be and maybe they might want to spend more time with the grandkids.

Of course federal judges are different from SCOTUS Justices, but the pros/cons of lifetime appointments certainly have a lot of overlap.

With all the support clerks etc that they get, I'm not as worried about them getting old as I am about them openly currying favor with specific corporations/industries to feather their nests for later on. Amy Coney Barrett is 48. A ten year appointment for example would see her leaving the Court just in time to go be a "consultant" for Exxon-Mobil... how might that prospect weigh on her rulings?

 

[Ajidica]

As an aside, there seems to be a trend whereby Republican appointed Justices are more likely to tend to drift more "liberal" once they get on the bench than vice versa. I've been wondering lately if that reflects a tendency for "conservative" Justices to rule, speak, represent themselves as staunch conservatives, to get the brass ring... get along to go along as it were... but then once they get on the bench, freed of the threat of losing position or opportunity, are able to more often just do what they think is right, which as it turns out, is more often the "liberal" position.

I think it is worth noting that "conservatism" wasn't really a Thing until the 80s. "Conservatism" was associated with either John Birch fringe stuff or a droning patrician like William Safire calling Gore Vidal a queer.
Republicanism was much more aligned with the Eastern Establishment/ Good Government types, especially in the aristocratic world of the judiciary. Since "conservatism" became a Thing, has anyone besides Souter and Connor "gone liberal" following their appointment?

 

[EgonSpengler]

Of course federal judges are different from SCOTUS Justices, but the pros/cons of lifetime appointments certainly have a lot of overlap.

With all the support clerks etc that they get, I'm not as worried about them getting old as I am about them openly currying favor with specific corporations/industries to feather their nests for later on. Amy Coney Barrett is 48. A ten year appointment for example would see her leaving the Court just in time to go be a "consultant" for Exxon-Mobil... how might that prospect weigh on her rulings?

The House bill that was proposed would have set SCOTUS terms at 18 years, with a seat opening up every 2 years, on a schedule (retired Justices would be available to pinch-hit, if needed). Still, if mid-to-late-40s becomes the norm for SCOTUS justices, they'd still only be in their mid-to-late-60s, which is basically still middle-aged if you're wealthy and healthy. There was a proposal by Elizabeth Warren to prevent members of Congress from becoming lobbyists after leaving office, and I suppose it could be extended to the Court as well, but I think the idea was ignominiously named "Least Likely to Succeed" by The Atlantic during the primary race (presumably even beating out Andrew Yang's "Freedom Dividend" for the Not Gonna Happen Championship ), for exactly the reason you cite it as a concern - because former members of Congress make a killing in the private sector after they retire, and they would never shoot themselves in the foot with a multimillion-dollar bullet.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I think it is worth noting that "conservatism" wasn't really a Thing until the 80s. "Conservatism" was associated with either John Birch fringe stuff or a droning patrician like William Safire calling Gore Vidal a queer.
Republicanism was much more aligned with the Eastern Establishment/ Good Government types, especially in the aristocratic world of the judiciary. Since "conservatism" became a Thing, has anyone besides Souter and Connor "gone liberal" following their appointment?

Well there's Kennedy, and then staunch Conservatives, evangelicals in particular, complain that Roberts has already done so as well, with Gorsuch not too far behind.

 

[mitsho]

There's a retirement age of 70, there's chosing the judges from the panel of lower tier ones by random for every session, there's tinkering with the decision-making process (juidical review) there's term limits, there's requiring a supermajority for a decision, there's giving decision power down to state courts, there's...

There's so many ways to reform the Supreme Court without packing. Packing is just at the same time both the least and most disruptive way to do it. Most since it may open a can of worms of reforms or further packing. Least since it by definition holds up the way the court goes on doing its business as it were for the past 100 years. It'll be interesting how it goes.