Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-29-2017, 03:54 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 10,394
[If] Ginsburg dies, Trump nominates far-righter, what's the opposition strategy?

If Ginsburg dies before January 2021 and the GOP still holds a Senate majority, and Trump nominates a far-right justice as her replacement, I don't see any way the Democrats can stop the confirmation from proceeding except to persuade a sufficient number of Republican senators to defect.

The nuclear option has already been invoked, and while protesters could physically occupy the Capitol building to prevent a confirmation vote, that couldn't go on forever. If the Democrats target specifically the Republican senators from blue or tossup states, and especially those with elections coming up in 2018 or 2020, might that suffice to get them to defect?

Last edited by Bone; 06-30-2017 at 03:09 PM. Reason: Updated thread title at OP request
  #2  
Old 06-29-2017, 03:59 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 10,394
Edit: Maybe boycott the hearings and confirmation vote, so that there is an insufficient number of senators to establish quorum?
  #3  
Old 06-29-2017, 04:03 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 43,895
Apply maximum possible persuasion to Republicans under electoral threat, also appealing to their patriotism and integrity as required, in hopes they'll join you in a No vote. Remind them they don't have to do what McConnell says just because he says it and point out where he's led them off a cliff lately.
  #4  
Old 06-29-2017, 04:08 PM
PastTense PastTense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6,075
If Trump nominates a reputable person, even though far right, like Gorsuch the confirmation will pass--very similar to Gorsuch's.
  #5  
Old 06-29-2017, 04:42 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 53,330
Trump could nominate a diseased yak, and the Republicans would roll over.
  #6  
Old 06-29-2017, 04:45 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 18,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Edit: Maybe boycott the hearings and confirmation vote, so that there is an insufficient number of senators to establish quorum?
McConnell can force a quorum with a quorum call. If they don't come he can send marshals (I think marshals) to round them up and physically carry them to the senate chamber if they have to.

I can't imagine any senator going into hiding for any length of time. Can't miss those fundraiser cocktail parties. Hardship is not something any of that lot would abide for more than a few hours.
  #7  
Old 06-29-2017, 04:47 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 18,895
Their only hope would be to retake the House and Senate and then impeach Gorsuch on the grounds he was put there by improper means when the republicans refused to vote on an Obama nomination. Then hold out for someone they like.

Till then not much they can do and this is a long shot since they need a 2/3 majority in the senate to pull it off.

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 06-29-2017 at 04:48 PM.
  #8  
Old 06-29-2017, 04:57 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 10,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
McConnell can force a quorum with a quorum call. If they don't come he can send marshals (I think marshals) to round them up and physically carry them to the senate chamber if they have to.

I can't imagine any senator going into hiding for any length of time. Can't miss those fundraiser cocktail parties. Hardship is not something any of that lot would abide for more than a few hours.
Could the GOP use another nuclear option for this, reducing the number needed for Senate confirmations to only (say, 50) senators to be present, rather than whatever the quorum is right now?
  #9  
Old 06-29-2017, 05:01 PM
Lantern Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,758
I think a Kennedy retirement is a more immediate worry than Ginsburg right now. And there is very little Democrats can do; there is a high likelihood that Republicans will be able to confirm someone like Gorsuch again which will set up a solidly conservative majority for at least the next decade.

If and when the Democrats regain the White House and Congress their only serious option will be court-packing which will arguably be justified by the Republican treatment of Garland but which will also set off a political firestorm and likely retaliation by Republicans when they get back into power.
  #10  
Old 06-29-2017, 05:01 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,993
If Ginsburg dies, I'll try not to be as smug or crass about it as some Dopers were about Scalia's passing, but I don't see that they have many good options. Nothing they can string together into anything I'd call a plausible "strategy". It seems a bit like the 7th Cavalry at Little Bighorn asking "Hey, LTC Custer, what's the strategy?"
  #11  
Old 06-29-2017, 05:15 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 73,183
As soon as Ginsberg dies, one of the senators grabs the gavel, and calls for a confirmation vote on Merrick Garland, who never actually had a confirmation vote, and whose nomination is thus still in some sort of limbo. No, I don't expect this would actually work, but it'd be fun to watch.
  #12  
Old 06-29-2017, 05:25 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 10,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
If and when the Democrats regain the White House and Congress their only serious option will be court-packing
If court--packing requires only control of the White House and Congress, why isn't the GOP giving it consideration right now? They may never have this opportunity again.
  #13  
Old 06-29-2017, 05:27 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
I think a Kennedy retirement is a more immediate worry than Ginsburg right now. And there is very little Democrats can do; there is a high likelihood that Republicans will be able to confirm someone like Gorsuch again which will set up a solidly conservative majority for at least the next decade.
Not as "solidly" as some of us would like.
  #14  
Old 06-29-2017, 05:28 PM
Okrahoma Okrahoma is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Edit: Maybe boycott the hearings and confirmation vote, so that there is an insufficient number of senators to establish quorum?
Quorum is 51 senators. If GOP doesn't have 51 senators, there is no confirmation anyway. Well, 50. But that's a very marginal case.
  #15  
Old 06-29-2017, 05:30 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 53,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Not as "solidly" as some of us would like.
How far "right" would be too far for you? Are there any on that side of the scale that would be too much for you to accept...or is it all to the good as long as it pisses off those less conservative than yourself?

Last edited by Czarcasm; 06-29-2017 at 05:30 PM.
  #16  
Old 06-29-2017, 05:33 PM
PastTense PastTense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
If court--packing requires only control of the White House and Congress, why isn't the GOP giving it consideration right now?
They don't have filibuster-proof control of the Senate.
  #17  
Old 06-29-2017, 05:35 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
How far "right" would be too far for you? Are there any on that side of the scale that would be too much for you to accept...or is it all to the good as long as it pisses off those less conservative than yourself?
I think I'd probably be pretty happy with a court of 9 Clarence Thomas clones. It's got very little to do with pissing off liberals, and a whole lot to do with restoring the government to (what I see as) a truer adherence to the original intent of the Constitution.

Can you think of some past justices to the right of Clarence Thomas that I should look into to see if they're "too far" right for me?
  #18  
Old 06-29-2017, 05:41 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 53,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Can you think of some past justices to the right of Clarence Thomas that I should look into to see if they're "too far" right for me?
I asked if you could think of any...and apparently, you can't.
BTW, if you had 9 Thomases, who would ask any questions?

Last edited by Czarcasm; 06-29-2017 at 05:42 PM.
  #19  
Old 06-29-2017, 05:43 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Can you think of some past justices to the right of Clarence Thomas that I should look into to see if they're "too far" right for me?
Presumably the ones who voted against Dred Scott, the majority in Plessy v Ferguson, the dissent in Boynton v Virginia, and others on the wrong (IMO) side of Civil Rights cases.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 06-29-2017 at 05:44 PM.
  #20  
Old 06-29-2017, 05:44 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
BTW, if you had 9 Thomases, who would ask any questions?
In true conservative fashion, it would be an extremely efficient Supreme Court, just zipping through oral arguments in significantly less time than previous courts.
  #21  
Old 06-29-2017, 06:06 PM
Iggy Iggy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 4,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Could the GOP use another nuclear option for this, reducing the number needed for Senate confirmations to only (say, 50) senators to be present, rather than whatever the quorum is right now?
Though the House and Senate can do a lot to set their own rules, Article I Section 5 of the Constitution does specify that "a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business". That would seem to set 50%+1 = 51 Senators as a constitutionally defined as a quorum.

So Democrats could boycott but so long as the Republicans can get 51 of their members to show up then they could go ahead and confirm a nomination before them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
As soon as Ginsberg dies, one of the senators grabs the gavel, and calls for a confirmation vote on Merrick Garland, who never actually had a confirmation vote, and whose nomination is thus still in some sort of limbo. No, I don't expect this would actually work, but it'd be fun to watch.
The Garland nomination is no longer before the Senate. Per Senate rules any nomination pending but not voted upon expires and is returned to the executive as unacted upon.
  #22  
Old 06-29-2017, 06:08 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 10,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy View Post
Though the House and Senate can do a lot to set their own rules, Article I Section 5 of the Constitution does specify that "a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business". That would seem to set 50%+1 = 51 Senators as a constitutionally defined as a quorum.

So Democrats could boycott but so long as the Republicans can get 51 of their members to show up then they could go ahead and confirm a nomination before them.
Ah my bad. I had thought it was something like 67 for quorum.
  #23  
Old 06-29-2017, 06:14 PM
furt furt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: College Park, MD
Posts: 9,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
I asked if you could think of any...and apparently, you can't.
BTW, if you had 9 Thomases, who would ask any questions?
Anyone who needs to, which is usually nobody. As Thomas has explained, 95% the questions asked by SC have already been answered at some point in the appelate process, and the Justices are grandstanding for appearances.
  #24  
Old 06-29-2017, 07:15 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy View Post
Though the House and Senate can do a lot to set their own rules, Article I Section 5 of the Constitution does specify that "a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business". That would seem to set 50%+1 = 51 Senators as a constitutionally defined as a quorum.
Just curious, how would the filibuster rule work in that situation (I know it doesn't apply to nominees)? Imagine a scenario where 47 Dem senators decided to boycott because the Ginsburg replacement nomination was coming to the floor for a vote, so they all fly / drive home for the weekend. Could McConnell and company pull a fast one and bring up the AHCA for a vote at that point? Would it still need 60 votes (not possible with only 53 Senators present) to proceed to a final vote, or since no one was around to demand a cloture vote could they go ahead and fix health care and taxes all in the same afternoon?
  #25  
Old 06-29-2017, 07:21 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 10,394
I have a question too, does the law require Congressional votes to take place at the Capitol building?

Suppose there are protesters who are surrounding the Capitol building to physically prevent a vote from taking place. Could McConnell say, "OK fellow Republican colleagues, there are enough of us to make quorum, I am renting a nearby gymnasium for a day, everybody go there to vote on this SCOTUS nominee/healthcare bill?"
  #26  
Old 06-29-2017, 08:01 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 75,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Trump could nominate a diseased yak, and the Republicans would roll over.
I think it's the other way around. I doubt Trump could tell you the names of all nine justices on the Supreme Court. Judicial theory is far beyond him.

What will happen is the Republicans in Congress will pick the diseased yak and then tell Trump who he should nominate. Of course, they'll have to be subtle so he thinks he's in charge. They'll probably leak the name to Fox so Trump can see it on TV.
  #27  
Old 06-29-2017, 08:25 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 55,070
Can I ask a favor?

I think Justice Ginsburg is smart and honest and has done her level best to leave the judiciary, and the country, better than she found it. I have profound disagreement with her on the proper role of the judiciary, but I dislike spinning scenarios that call for her death. Can't she hypothetically retire, which would serve the speculative discussion just as well, but avoid the unseemly aspect of accomplishing the seating of the next hypothetical justice as the result of a death?
  #28  
Old 06-29-2017, 08:49 PM
John DiFool John DiFool is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 17,526
PLEASE put an "If" at the beginning of your hypothetical titles from now on!! I about had a heart attack when I saw your thread title on the main board.
  #29  
Old 06-29-2017, 09:33 PM
Iggy Iggy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 4,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Just curious, how would the filibuster rule work in that situation (I know it doesn't apply to nominees)? Imagine a scenario where 47 Dem senators decided to boycott because the Ginsburg replacement nomination was coming to the floor for a vote, so they all fly / drive home for the weekend. Could McConnell and company pull a fast one and bring up the AHCA for a vote at that point? Would it still need 60 votes (not possible with only 53 Senators present) to proceed to a final vote, or since no one was around to demand a cloture vote could they go ahead and fix health care and taxes all in the same afternoon?
A cloture motion is a motion to end debate. My admittedly non-expert understanding is that if no one raises an objection to ending debate then there is no need for a cloture vote.

Further, even if there was one Democrat left to object to ending debate my understanding is that the 3/5 requirement is of those Senators present. So 53 Republicans and one lone Democrat would mean the Republicans could easily meet the 3/5 requirement.

So yes, if the Democrats hypothetically decided to run and hide that would open the opportunity for Republicans to ram through all sorts of legislation in the meanwhile. Even if there were existing rules in the Senate/House that would nominally prevent a measure from coming to a vote the Congressional members present could just vote to change the rules.
  #30  
Old 06-29-2017, 09:43 PM
Iggy Iggy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 4,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I have a question too, does the law require Congressional votes to take place at the Capitol building?

Suppose there are protesters who are surrounding the Capitol building to physically prevent a vote from taking place. Could McConnell say, "OK fellow Republican colleagues, there are enough of us to make quorum, I am renting a nearby gymnasium for a day, everybody go there to vote on this SCOTUS nominee/healthcare bill?"
Not sure, but it would not surprise me if there is a law. I would imagine there is probably at least a Congressional rule on the matter.

After all the Declaration of Independence had this section complaining about the king screwing with the location of legislative meetings...

Quote:
...He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
...
  #31  
Old 06-29-2017, 10:17 PM
alphaboi867 alphaboi867 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: the Keystone State
Posts: 13,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by John DiFool View Post
PLEASE put an "If" at the beginning of your hypothetical titles from now on!! I about had a heart attack when I saw your thread title on the main board.
Seconded.
__________________
No Gods, No Masters
  #32  
Old 06-29-2017, 10:26 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 75,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
In true conservative fashion, it would be an extremely efficient Supreme Court, just zipping through oral arguments in significantly less time than previous courts.
Just uphold everything when the Republicans are in power and overturn everything when the Democrats are in power. The Supreme Court will function as a third chamber of Congress. Which you apparently feel was the founders' original intent.
  #33  
Old 06-29-2017, 11:13 PM
Flyer Flyer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,678
I decided to look up the older justices' life expectancy, from the Social Security actuarial info.

Justice -- age -- remaining life expectancy
Kennedy -- 80 -- 8
Ginsberg -- 84 -- 7
Breyer -- 78 -- 9

Given that all the justices have access to top-notch medical care, and (by definition,) they have at least reasonably good genes, since they've survived this long in good health; it is theoretically possible that Trump might get only the one appointment.
  #34  
Old 06-29-2017, 11:22 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 10,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by John DiFool View Post
PLEASE put an "If" at the beginning of your hypothetical titles from now on!! I about had a heart attack when I saw your thread title on the main board.
Sorry, my bad, will do.
  #35  
Old 06-29-2017, 11:24 PM
pjacks pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 80
That thread title needs a trigger warning, my heart skipped a beat when I first saw it.

So RBG dies, leaving her seat bare, what can be done? Nothing. As much as I would like 9 RBGs sitting on the Supreme Court, there is nothing nefarious about a president nominating a replacement that will swiftly be confirmed by a Senate held by the same party. Thems the breaks. Maybe RBG should have retired after her pancreatic cancer diagnosis, back when Obama could've filled the seat with a suitable replacement. Maybe the Dems should've nominated an at least mildly likable candidate for President, so the ideological makeup of SC wouldn't be in jeopardy. Maybe the party should've stopped the rot at the state level years ago, so Senate Democrats would've at least held on to a slim majority & been able to wrangle a suitable SC judge out of Trump.

Lots of maybes. I think Trump gets at least 2 more judge to replace- unfortunate, but those are the cards we were dealt. The Democrats are powerless to do anything even if they wanted to, the Senate is out of reach until 2020 at the earliest.

Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk
  #36  
Old 06-29-2017, 11:25 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 10,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Trump could nominate a diseased yak, and the Republicans would roll over.
What Little Nemo said. Republicans aren't dumb; they have an agenda to pass, they are serious about getting that agenda passed, and they know what helps or obstructs that agenda.

Nominating a diseased yak to SCOTUS - or, OK, anyone other than a conservative justice - doesn't help the conservative cause, and they know it. If, (realistically,) Trump had nominated a liberal to fill Scalia's vacancy, no way Republicans would have "rolled over" for that one.
  #37  
Old 06-29-2017, 11:29 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 10,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Can I ask a favor?

I think Justice Ginsburg is smart and honest and has done her level best to leave the judiciary, and the country, better than she found it. I have profound disagreement with her on the proper role of the judiciary, but I dislike spinning scenarios that call for her death. Can't she hypothetically retire, which would serve the speculative discussion just as well, but avoid the unseemly aspect of accomplishing the seating of the next hypothetical justice as the result of a death?
Fair enough, I could have put "retire" and it would have worked as well. But I think that, unlike Kennedy, it is very unlikely that Ginsburg would willingly retire in the knowledge that Trump would nominate her successor and the GOP-held Senate would ram it through. I think she's determined to survive out the Trump presidency to the end.
  #38  
Old 06-30-2017, 12:20 AM
ultimate11 ultimate11 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Cook County, Illinois
Posts: 329
What strategy? It didn't prevent Neil Gorsuch from getting put into the court, although it did for Merrick Garland...but at that point of the nomination (it was 2016, bad timing considering the election and at that time, Republicans held the Senate. Merrick had no chance.)

I estimate that if they try the same strategy they did for Gorsuch in 2017 for Ginsburg's future replacement, especially as the mid-term elections of 2018 come walking in, the democrats might lose some seats and be further labeled as obstructionists. People can resist bull for so long before someone gets fed up, and hence why Donald Trump was elected- people had enough of the system.

Considering the outlook for 2020 (if liberals keep on with their current policy of resist and refusal of collaboration and unity), liberals better hope Ginsburg lasts for the next 8 years, cause the executive branch will remain red until then.

Either way, the court is likely to get more conservative by that time cause I have my doubts she'll keep working for the next 8 years. At best maybe 4 years, but I wouldn't be working if I'm 88 years old.

At worse case, she'll pass away before the 2018 elections and then there's nothing Democrats can do. Especially if it can be used to harm Democrats during the 2018 elections.

Last edited by ultimate11; 06-30-2017 at 12:23 AM.
  #39  
Old 06-30-2017, 01:57 AM
Iggy Iggy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 4,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy View Post
A cloture motion is a motion to end debate. My admittedly non-expert understanding is that if no one raises an objection to ending debate then there is no need for a cloture vote.

Further, even if there was one Democrat left to object to ending debate my understanding is that the 3/5 requirement is of those Senators present. So 53 Republicans and one lone Democrat would mean the Republicans could easily meet the 3/5 requirement.
...
Correcting myself here.

Cloture is governed by Senate Rule XXII which specifies a cloture vote requires:
Quote:
...three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn...
which is normally 60 of the 100 Senators unless there is a vacancy. So, at least initially, that one lone Democrat hanging around could object to ending debate and a cloture vote would not be successful. Until...

As we recently saw the Senate can decide to change the rules.
Quote:
...a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting
So it would require the willingness to change the Senate Rules. And should they choose to use the nuclear option to change the Senate Rules then it really only takes a simple majority of Senators present.

One additional step, easily accomplished IMHO, since in this hypothetical it it would allow the Republicans to steamroll through a their dream agenda.
  #40  
Old 06-30-2017, 06:40 AM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 19,403
Best option- use the possibility of impending deaths/retirements as election issues and retake the Senate. Should vacancies occur, leave them open until a Democrat takes office. We now have a precedent that vacancies may be filled only when the Senate and White House are controlled by the same party.
  #41  
Old 06-30-2017, 07:38 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Presumably the ones who voted against Dred Scott, the majority in Plessy v Ferguson, the dissent in Boynton v Virginia, and others on the wrong (IMO) side of Civil Rights cases.
Did I find some justices who were too conservative for you, HurricaneDitka?
  #42  
Old 06-30-2017, 08:17 AM
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,546
There's really nothing Democrats can do except to start winning some elections, and I'm resigning (mentally bracing) myself for the prospect that Democrats might end up losing rigged elections for the next decade, no matter how bad the optics get for Republicans.

If there's a strategy, it's to start rebuilding the party from the bottom up. I've recently thought that perhaps the Democrats ought to find a few places in the Heartland where they might be able to use a left-leaning majority to work with right moderates and centrists to radically innovate politics and then use it as an example for others to follow. For instance, maybe ditch the idea of $15 minimum wages, which is really the radical left's way of trying to punch the wealthy class in the face, and instead experiment with a combination of economic strategies that would be consistent with progressive values while not being abhorrent to the right either.

But this whole notion that Democrats are going to come back to power and gain momentum in the courts by impeaching Trump or just making him look bad is just more of Democrats being out of touch with reality. Attempts at obstruction would only serve to polarize, which is really what Trump and the GOP extremists want. They actually want polarization. They want controversy. It gets their names out there on TV or in Google, and it inspires the base.
  #43  
Old 06-30-2017, 08:25 AM
Silver lining Silver lining is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
If Ginsburg dies before January 2021 and the GOP still holds a Senate majority, and Trump nominates a far-right justice as her replacement, I don't see any way the Democrats can stop the confirmation from proceeding except to persuade a sufficient number of Republican senators to defect.

The nuclear option has already been invoked, and while protesters could physically occupy the Capitol building to prevent a confirmation vote, that couldn't go on forever. If the Democrats target specifically the Republican senators from blue or tossup states, and especially those with elections coming up in 2018 or 2020, might that suffice to get them to defect?
It will be Trump's court for decades if Ginsburg dies or steps down.

Justice Kennedy, the most moderate of the group is going to step down within a year. He's just waiting for the right time to do it, which could be early 2018.
  #44  
Old 06-30-2017, 08:31 AM
Silver lining Silver lining is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyer View Post
I decided to look up the older justices' life expectancy, from the Social Security actuarial info.

Justice -- age -- remaining life expectancy
Kennedy -- 80 -- 8
Ginsberg -- 84 -- 7
Breyer -- 78 -- 9

Given that all the justices have access to top-notch medical care, and (by definition,) they have at least reasonably good genes, since they've survived this long in good health; it is theoretically possible that Trump might get only the one appointment.

Oh, I think Trump will at least get TWO total appointments before 2020. And if he wins re-election, he might get as many a FOUR Supreme Court people in there.

Ginsberg has had some major health issues and people who have had major illness before tend to age in dog years in their mid-80's.

The ones who made it to their mid 80's with no major surgeries or hospitalizations are the ones that tend to live a bit longer.

But the real story is this. 2018 looks like a giant red wave in the Senate. This is the group that confirms supreme court nominations.

Dem's will lose seats in the 2018 mid term elections...the math and geography say so. Dem's must defend more seats and have some red state seats to defend.

Last edited by Silver lining; 06-30-2017 at 08:31 AM.
  #45  
Old 06-30-2017, 08:35 AM
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver lining View Post
It will be Trump's court for decades if Ginsburg dies or steps down.

Justice Kennedy, the most moderate of the group is going to step down within a year. He's just waiting for the right time to do it, which could be early 2018.
It's already Trump's (GOP's) court for decades. That was assured on election night. As Obama said afterward, elections have consequences. We'll be feeling them for a long time to come.
  #46  
Old 06-30-2017, 08:42 AM
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver lining View Post
Oh, I think Trump will at least get TWO total appointments before 2020. And if he wins re-election, he might get as many a FOUR Supreme Court people in there.

Ginsberg has had some major health issues and people who have had major illness before tend to age in dog years in their mid-80's.

The ones who made it to their mid 80's with no major surgeries or hospitalizations are the ones that tend to live a bit longer.

But the real story is this. 2018 looks like a giant red wave in the Senate. This is the group that confirms supreme court nominations.

Dem's will lose seats in the 2018 mid term elections...the math and geography say so. Dem's must defend more seats and have some red state seats to defend.
I think opposition to Trump will drive Democrats out to vote. The states where Dems are most vulnerable are swing states, and Trump's popularity has declined in these areas while the anti-Trump sentiments have ticked up. I would agree, however, that talk of a blue wave, as some armchair pundits have suggested, is also not likely to happen. As you correctly pointed out, Dems are the ones defending their territory this time. If any chamber is up for grabs it won't be the Senate. The House just might be in play, but that's hardly a given at this point. I'd be satisfied with Dems picking up enough seats to be able to occasionally block Republicans in the House.
  #47  
Old 06-30-2017, 08:47 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 43,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
As Obama said afterward, elections have consequences.
Not always, right, Mitch?
  #48  
Old 06-30-2017, 08:55 AM
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Can I ask a favor?

I think Justice Ginsburg is smart and honest and has done her level best to leave the judiciary, and the country, better than she found it. I have profound disagreement with her on the proper role of the judiciary, but I dislike spinning scenarios that call for her death. Can't she hypothetically retire, which would serve the speculative discussion just as well, but avoid the unseemly aspect of accomplishing the seating of the next hypothetical justice as the result of a death?
I like to hold a higher opinion of Ginsburg than that she would retire under the Trump administration.

As for the answer to the OP: are we only counting technically legal options? Fuck-all. Nothing they can do. Illegal options present themselves, but they're all pretty terrible.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 06-30-2017 at 08:56 AM.
  #49  
Old 06-30-2017, 09:21 AM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 73,183
Quote:
Quoth Flyer:

Given that all the justices have access to top-notch medical care, and (by definition,) they have at least reasonably good genes, since they've survived this long in good health; it is theoretically possible that Trump might get only the one appointment.
While it's true that they have top-notch medical care, you can't count their good genes in their favor. All of the other people the actuarial tables are based on also had good enough genes to live that long.
  #50  
Old 06-30-2017, 10:36 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Just uphold everything when the Republicans are in power and overturn everything when the Democrats are in power. The Supreme Court will function as a third chamber of Congress. Which you apparently feel was the founders' original intent.
That's not at all how I feel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Did I find some justices who were too conservative for you, HurricaneDitka?
I haven't had a chance to look into it in much depth yet. At a cursory glance, it would appear that I disagree with those particular rulings, but then there are things the current conservative bloc on the Court supports that I disagree with, so I can't really speak to those previous justice's judicial philosophy without doing additional research.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:58 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017