SCOTUS - Supreme Court of the United States

[Wastl]

I don't think it has much to do with judges turning more liberal over the course of their career or trying to act in a way to get to the court and then easing up on their stances when they make it, at least not in these particular cases.

It seems more like there are some specific issues that judges care about. Well, at least some of them. Alito and Thomas are lost causes, they have pushed through basically every Republican agenda regardless of how stupid and / or unconstitutional it is, twisting themselves into pretzels while doing so. But the others all have their specific points they care about. Gorsuch has the rights of native americans as a topic, while Kavanaugh has state rights. Just look at the current decisions. He voted against the change in Wisconsin, because the decision came from a federal judge and thus didn't come from the state, and then he upheld the decisions in North Carolina and Pennsylvania, because those were made internally by the state. Roberts doesn't really have one specific issue, but you could make the case that he doesn't want his legacy to be an absurdly partisan Supreme Court that just let the Trump administration run wild. He's definately still very much a conservative, but unlike Alito and Thomas, he does have scruples.

 

[Farm Boy]

I think the overall is off on that, but I respect the observation on Kavanaugh and the election rulings. It's possible both he and Robert's were showing at least some judicial spine rather than just Roberts. The other 6, yeah. At the moment, they're looking entirely useless like that crab-bucketing rep from New York.

 

[Zkribbler]

There's a retirement age of 70,

unconstitutional

 

[mitsho]

unconstitutional

So that's why noone brought it up I see. The rest of mi list is from a vox article (by way of my memory). I still think retirement age would be something to look into, but in this case just not only for thr Supreme Court, but all judges everywhere - see the discussion on Alzheimer disproportionately prevalent with judges. That would warrant a constitutional discussion. We change our discussion up to four times a year, so I might come to that with a different mindset though

 

[hobbsyoyo]

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.

I think they are waking up to the reality that they really don't have any other choice because the court is going to hobble and block every initiative the Democrats work on. They've become a pocket veto (or rubber stamp, depending on the issue) for the GOP and this latest appointment has destroyed any veneer of neutrality or propriety on the court. That the Republicans are openly calling for the courts to intervene to disenfranchise voters and otherwise steal the election only reinforces that.

Unfortunately, I don't think Biden can say out loud whether or not he's going to stuff the courts until after he and the new congress are seated. To act before then not only risks a public backlash he doesn't need but also gives the Republicans a handy excuse to take actions to hobble his administration during the lame duck session.

I actually think that if Biden were to announce during the lame duck that he was going to pack the court that McConnell and Trump will proactively pack it to further de-legitimize the entire structure of the Court in the hope that when all the fallout has settled that they will still be in a better position than if they did nothing pre-emptively and then the Democrats packed the court.

There were rumors (mostly lies and exaggerations) that the Clinton administration tried to hobble the incoming Bush administration by doing things like pulling 'W' keys from computer keyboards and losing files and such. Well, I'm afraid that those antics will be nothing compared to what Trump and McConnell will do as far as changing rules and regulations on their way out of power. This of course assumes that Trump fails to mount an outright coup and also does not flee to Russia before December. I think either of those outcomes are still likely, unfortunately.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I think they are waking up to the reality that they really don't have any other choice because the court is going to hobble and block every initiative the Democrats work on. They've become a pocket veto (or rubber stamp, depending on the issue) for the GOP and this latest appointment has destroyed any veneer of neutrality or propriety on the court. That the Republicans are openly calling for the courts to intervene to disenfranchise voters and otherwise steal the election only reinforces that.

Unfortunately, I don't think Biden can say out loud whether or not he's going to stuff the courts until after he and the new congress are seated. To act before then not only risks a public backlash he doesn't need but also gives the Republicans a handy excuse to take actions to hobble his administration during the lame duck session.

I actually think that if Biden were to announce during the lame duck that he was going to pack the court that McConnell and Trump will proactively pack it to further de-legitimize the entire structure of the Court in the hope that when all the fallout has settled that they will still be in a better position than if they did nothing pre-emptively and then the Democrats packed the court.

There were rumors (mostly lies and exaggerations) that the Clinton administration tried to hobble the incoming Bush administration by doing things like pulling 'W' keys from computer keyboards and losing files and such. Well, I'm afraid that those antics will be nothing compared to what Trump and McConnell will do as far as changing rules and regulations on their way out of power. This of course assumes that Trump fails to mount an outright coup and also does not flee to Russia before December. I think either of those outcomes are still likely, unfortunately.

Pulling keys from keyboards is childish pranking. Changing the number of Justices on the SCOTUS is hardball. In any case, I think its pointless without some concurrent amendment that fixes the number of Justices going forward.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

If the Republicans pack the court in a lame duck session, the legitimacy of the courts will collapse and public outrage will be pretty extreme. There will be a lot of turmoil over it and I expect in this case the Democrats would end up trying to 'restore order' by not escalating about as much as I would expect them to actually push back and up the ante.

 

[Sommerswerd]

If the Republicans pack the court in a lame duck session, the legitimacy of the courts will collapse and public outrage will be pretty extreme. There will be a lot of turmoil over it and I expect in this case the Democrats would end up trying to 'restore order' by not escalating about as much as I would expect them to actually push back and up the ante.

I don't know that the legitimacy of the Court collapses in the eyes of Republican voters due to Republicans adding Justices. I think they mostly accept it as digging in against the coming Democratic onslaught. However, I doubt the Republicans preemptively add Justices to the Court in the lame duck session as it would be pointless, since the Democrats could obviously respond in kind. It would also ironically justify the very course of action that they would be opposed to.

I think they will try to hold on to some semblance of the moral high ground and just try to shame the Democrats out of adding Justices. Whether the Democrats are still susceptible to those kinds of appeals is anyone's guess, but if the Republicans add Justices, its no longer a question of whether it should be done... its done. Again, I think a Constitutional Amendment is the only way off this train at this point.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's not any better if the Republicans destroy the court. This is the first whiff of that particular odour I've seen though.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I think term limits is a bigger threat to the Court than adding Justices. Lifetime appointed Justices can do whatever the eff they want, regardless of party affiliation. Term-limited Justices have to be concerned with what comes after.

 

[AdrienIer]

Yeah, what do you do about a SC justice who's aiming at the presidency after his or her term ? That sounds awful...

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, if it tits for tats packing renders any particular justice unimportant. You need to pass the bar to practice. So far as I'm aware, there are no personal requirements for Supreme Justices.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I'm not too concerned about that. If Trump wasn't willing to go as far as to put his random golf buddies and business partners and/or children on the SCOTUS, nobody would.

 

[Farm Boy]

Optimist.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I'm not too concerned about that. If Trump wasn't willing to go as far as to put his random golf buddies and business partners and/or children on the SCOTUS, nobody would.

At this point we can't rule out he didn't float the idea.

 

[Lexicus]

Tbh, I think hardcore ideologues who know the law well are probably a bigger danger on the court than charlatans.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

True story.

 

[Lexicus]

The other thing we shouldn't forget is that the justices Obama actually got onto the court were themselves "compromises" from a liberal (let alone a left) perspective. They were ideological moderates, specifically chosen to be broadly acceptable and obviously inoffensive...I hope that will change if Biden wins...

 

[Sommerswerd]

The other thing we shouldn't forget is that the justices Obama actually got onto the court were themselves "compromises" from a liberal (let alone a left) perspective. They were ideological moderates, specifically chosen to be broadly acceptable and obviously inoffensive...I hope that will change if Biden wins...

It will only change if Democrats take the Senate.

 

[Cutlass]

It's not any better if the Republicans destroy the court. This is the first whiff of that particular odour I've seen though.

Citizen's United started the undermining of the Court's legitimacy.