Straight Dope Message Board

[Velocity]

There's a disturbing amount of "two wrongs make a right" logic here. 101

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

... In fact, I find it a little surprising that you and Sam Stone think it is so obviously a power-grab. You don't think the consensus appointments of a 5-5 or 6-4 court would pick jurists who would side with conservatives? Why not?

Personally I think it highly unlikely that a 10-member SCOTUS would come to a consensus on additional members. I think the five extra seats would lie vacant, and the 10th seat would be a boon to whichever party got to fill it. 102

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Velocity

Except that Republicans haven't packed the Court yet. Court-packing goes significantly beyond what McConnell, etc did.

The "gunfight" is using any and every tool that they can get away with to gain a partisan advantage. That's the game the Republicans in the Senate are playing, and it'd be incredibly foolish of the Democrats to not respond in kind.

And I think this would make the necessary Constitutional amendment that could depoliticize the court more likely, which is the ultimate goal. 103

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Velocity

There's a disturbing amount of "two wrongs make a right" logic here.

I'm sure you'd prefer the Democrats do nothing to oppose an entirely politicized court that favors the Republicans. I don't see why or how you could expect that the Democrats would prefer this. 104

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

I'm sure you'd prefer the Democrats do nothing to oppose an entirely politicized court that favors the Republicans. I don't see why or how you could expect that the Democrats would prefer this.

There is an excluded middle here between "do nothing" and court-packing. 105

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

The "gunfight" is using any and every tool that they can get away with to gain a partisan advantage. That's the game the Republicans in the Senate are playing, and it'd be incredibly foolish of the Democrats to not respond in kind. ...

Responding "in kind" would be blocking a Republican President from filling a vacant seat the next time one opens up and the Dems control the Senate. What is being discussed here, court-packing, is a significant escalation. It's an escalation that Republicans have not pursued, which exposes the inaccuracy of your claim that they are "using any and every tool". Court-packing is a chainsaw they have not wielded. 106

[Richard Parker]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Personally I think it highly unlikely that a 10-member SCOTUS would come to a consensus on additional members. I think the five extra seats would lie vacant, and the 10th seat would be a boon to whichever party got to fill it.

Maybe. That's certainly consistent with a view that the court is basically already just a tiny broken Senate. If that's so, then court-packing is probably the correct course for the Democrats. Though it would make more sense to start by mobilizing support for DC and Puerto Rican statehood.

But I don't think we're actually all the way there yet. I suspect justices like Roberts and Garland would be consensus picks, for example. Indeed, I imagine that the consensus selections would make most on the left pretty unhappy, which is another reason I find it odd that the idea would be received with such hostility by the right. 107

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

Indeed, I imagine that the consensus selections would make most on the left pretty unhappy, which is another reason I find it odd that the idea would be received with such hostility by the right.

This is because the modern right considers Gorsuch acceptable, Roberts liberal (at best), and Garland an extremist/socialist/communist. 108

[Richard Parker]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

This is because the modern right considers Gorsuch acceptable, Roberts liberal (at best), and Garland an extremist/socialist/communist.

I'm sure that accurately describes large swathes of GOP voters. Does it describe Sam Stone and HurricaneDitka? (A question for them, I suppose.) 109

[Ludovic]

... 110

[Thing Fish]

It appears some people need to calm down and remember that, as far as I can see, no prominent Democrat is actually advocating that we expand the Court the minute we get full control of government. Whether that gets seriously on the agenda will depend on just how obstructionist the conservative majority decides to be, in the event that public opinion swings to the left. Hopefully the Republican judges will prove more deferential to the popular will than their politician counterparts have, and extreme measures can be averted.

As far as I can tell, partisan court-packing laws have been passed on three occasions in American history; the lame duck Federalist Congress reduced the size of the Court (which happens by attrition, not by immediately unseating sitting Justices, remember) in 1801 to prevent Jefferson from getting to make appointments.. This was promptly undone by the Jeffersonians in 1802.

During Reconstruction, the Republican Congress reduced the size of the Court again to prevent Johnson from making appointments, then increased it again once Grant was in office (this act of 1869 established the Court at nine members, where it has remained since).

So it has happened in times of crisis and political realignment, high partisan rancor and mistrust, which certainly describes the present day. And, despite Roosevelt's experience, it has historically worked out OK for the parties that did it. It's not a tactic for normal times, when the opposition party may well be back in power at the next election. It's a tactic for preventing the Court from being dominated indefinitely by a faction which the voters have decisively rejected. 111

[iiandyiiii]

The first priority (politically speaking, in terms of changing the structure of any branches of the government) if the Democrats get the WH and both houses of Congress should be to make PR and DC states. Eliminate the filibuster, if that's necessary to make that happen. Changes to SCOTUS are important, but not nearly as important as making those two unrepresented citizen-filled territories states. 112

[CarnalK]

They can't make Pr and DC states with just control of both houses. It's not going to happen and in the case of DC rightfully so. 113

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

This is because the modern right considers Gorsuch acceptable, Roberts liberal (at best), and Garland an extremist/socialist/communist.

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

I'm sure that accurately describes large swathes of GOP voters. Does it describe Sam Stone and HurricaneDitka? (A question for them, I suppose.)

I'd label Roberts a moderate right-winger and Garland a moderate left-winger. 114

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by CarnalK

They can't make Pr and DC states with just control of both houses. It's not going to happen and in the case of DC rightfully so.

In my understanding, there's a legislative path to making new states, that only requires a majority. My understanding could be wrong, of course. 115

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by Thing Fish

It appears some people need to calm down and remember that, as far as I can see, no prominent Democrat is actually advocating that we expand the Court the minute we get full control of government. ...

This is a good point. I'm not even sure the Senate Dems have the stomach to nuke the legislative filibuster (which, Whack-a-mole's assertions aside, would be necessary to pack the court) 116

[Sam Stone]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

I'd label Roberts a moderate right-winger and Garland a moderate left-winger.

Ditto. 117

[CarnalK]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

In my understanding, there's a legislative path to making new states, that only requires a majority. My understanding could be wrong, of course.

I think you're right, at least about PR but the status of DC is spelled out in the constitution. 118

[Buck Godot]

Originally Posted by CarnalK

They can't make Pr and DC states with just control of both houses. It's not going to happen and in the case of DC rightfully so.

Why rightfully so? Why shouldn't resident of DC have representation in the US legislature? Particularly since said legislature has the power to invalidate local laws. That a voter in Montana has more voting power to affect DC laws than an actual resident being affected by those laws, is absurd IMHO. 119

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by CarnalK

I think you're right, at least about PR but the status of DC is spelled out in the constitution.

Googling suggests a process for DC that, by my reading, would only need a majority: https://wamu.org/story/16/05/02/dc_w...oing_about_it/

I don't know if that's Constitutional. If the Democrats get both Houses and the WH, I suspect we'll find out. 120

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by Buck Godot

Why rightfully so? Why shouldn't resident of DC have representation in the US legislature? Particularly since said legislature has the power to invalidate local laws. That a voter in Montana has more voting power to affect DC laws than an actual resident being affected by those laws, is absurd IMHO.

Retroceding DC back to Maryland would resolve your concerns about their lack of representation, and I suspect you could easily get bipartisan support for it. It does, however, deprive you of the chance to score two additional Dem Senators, so if its the power grab you're after, I guess you should keep fighting for DC statehood. 121

[Airbeck]

I'm curious, does the GOP ever do anything that you would consider a "power grab"? Or is that something only Democrats can do? 122

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

I'm curious, does the GOP ever do anything that you would consider a "power grab"? ...

Yes. 123

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

... I don't know if that's Constitutional. If the Democrats get both Houses and the WH, I suspect we'll find out.

Prior to the 2018 election, would you have given good odds to President Trump being impeached if the Democrats got the House? 124

[Translucent Daydream]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

I'd label Roberts a moderate right-winger and Garland a moderate left-winger.

Why? Just curious. It might be helpful for everyone to note why. 125

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by Translucent Daydream

Why? Just curious. It might be helpful for everyone to note why.

It's the product of everything I've read / heard about them. I'm not sure what you're looking for here. 126

[Sam Stone]

In Roberts' case, he seems to be more interested in protecting the institution of the Court than stricto ideology. He has a history of voting against the other conservative judges in such situations, starting with his decision that Obamacare's mandate was constitutional. 127

[Chronos]

So, Hurricane Ditka and Velocity, what's your counter-proposal? How would you restore the integrity of the Court?

iiandyiiii, I'm all for Puerto Rican statehood, if the people of PR want it. But there is no way to grant statehood to DC without a Constitutional amendment. Which, incidentally, I would not support, because DC already has greater representation in Congress than any other state. 128

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Chronos

iiandyiiii, I'm all for Puerto Rican statehood, if the people of PR want it. But there is no way to grant statehood to DC without a Constitutional amendment. Which, incidentally, I would not support, because DC already has greater representation in Congress than any other state.

I'm not sure if you're correct here as to the process of DC statehood, and I don't understand your point about representation. 129

[Translucent Daydream]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

It's the product of everything I've read / heard about them. I'm not sure what you're looking for here.

The reason I ask is because I don't think anyone agrees on the labels. You don't seem agree with what progressives label "conservative" and vise versa. Not singling you out or anything just saying from an outside perspective it seems like you guys are speaking different languages. Its easier for someone like me (not really one side or the other) to follow along with what people are really meaning if they say something like:

Blah blah is a liberal activist judge because blah blah blah.

Blah blah is a Neo-conservative judge because of blah blah blah.

People with no real political rub one way or the other might think that each side believes their own bullshit a little too much. It seems that way to me anyway. I haven't seen a lot of independent thinking from the talking heads on TV or the typing heads here. From my perspective, both sides seem to be arguing with a scare crow.

Not to single you out in particular or anything. 130

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by Translucent Daydream

The reason I ask is because I don't think anyone agrees on the labels. ...

Sam Stone agreed with my labels, for one. I suspect the vast majority of politically-interested Americans would agree that Scalia was a conservative and Ginsburg is a liberal. I suspect a great many of them would also agree to the labels I gave Chief Justice Roberts and Garland.

If you meet someone calling Scalia a liberal or Ginsburg a conservative, you can be reasonably confident you're talking to someone way out on one of the fringes of the American political spectrum. 131

[Velocity]

Originally Posted by Chronos

So, Hurricane Ditka and Velocity, what's your counter-proposal? How would you restore the integrity of the Court?

Keep things the way they are now, except that every nominee is entitled to a Senate hearing and confirmation up-or-down vote. No McConnell-Garlanding. And no court packing.

Also, allow justices to be removed for medical reasons if 3/4 of the Senate agrees (this prevents a scenario whereby someone like Ginsburg could be in a coma for years but still be a justice due to not technically being dead .) 132

[septimus]

It has become startling how many important Supreme Court cases are decided by a 5-4 vote. And it's almost always the same 5-4 alignment. For several years, the court consisted of 4 moderate or liberal judges, 1 right-of-center judge (Kennedy) and 4 right-wing judges. For many years there has been such a judge-in-the-middle who has essentially made all the important decisions himself! Before 2005 it was the centrist Rehnquist (appointed by Nixon, elevated to Chief by Reagan); since Kennedy's 2018 retirement it is Roberts. In the olden days, Roberts would be called a severe right-winger. In the new diction, we must call him "right-of-center" to distinguish him from haters, liars, and lunatics.

ALL of the following cases were decided 5-4. In ALL of these cases the 4 liberal/moderates voted the same way. In ALL of these cases the four right-wingers voted opposite to the moderates. In EVERY case the decision was decided by the Middle Judge — First Rehnquist or Kennedy, now Roberts.

Obergefell v. Hodges (right to same-sex marriage)
Montejo v. Louisiana (partial denial of right to counsel)
Padilla v. Kentucky (aliens must be advised of deportation risk)
Berghuis v. Thompkins (partial denial of right to remain silent)
Kennedy v. Louisiana (death penalty)
Citizens United v. FEC ("money is speech")
McCutcheon v. FEC ("money is speech")
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (struck down the contraceptive mandate)
Town of Greece v. Galloway (town hall prayer)
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (vouchers for religious schools)
District of Columbia v. Heller (handgun bans disallowed)
McDonald v. Chicago (handgun bans disallowed)
Michigan v. EPA (weaken clean air act)
Bush v. Gore (prohibit Florida from counting ballots)
Husted v A Philip Randolph Institute — in a 5-4 vote (Kennedy joining the dogs) SCOTUS ruled that Ohio can purge its voter lists using a discriminatory procedure.
Abbott v Perez — in a 5-4 vote (Kennedy joining the dogs) SCOTUS overruled a lower court ruling that Texas gerrymandering to disenfranchise blacks and hispanics was illegal.
Epic Systems Corp v Lewis — in a 5-4 vote (Kennedy joining the dogs) SCOTUS decimated workers' rights to unionize or join class actions
Trump v Hawaii — in a 5-4 vote (Kennedy joining the dogs), Trump's anti-Muslim immigration policies became the law of the land
Janus v American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees — in a 5-4 vote (Kennedy joining the dogs) SCOTUS effectively installed "right to work" (actually the "right to scab") for the public sector.
National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v Becerra — in a 5-4 vote (Kennedy joining the dogs) SCOTUS ruled that crisis pregnancy centers were not required to tell women seeking help that abortion was a legal option.

Not enough examples? Here are some more; all 5-4; all with the hard-righters voting the same way: Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko; Dusenbery v. United States ; Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co.; Kelly v. South Carolina; Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc.; Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB; Mickens v. Taylor; Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc.; Federal Maritime Comm'n v. South Carolin; McKune v. Lile; Carey v. Saffold; Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran; Republican Party of Minnesota v. White; Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania; United States v. White Mountain Apache; Ewing v. California; Lockyer v. Andrade; Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington ; Roell v. Withrow; Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle; Georgia v. Ashcroft; Stogner v. California; Jama v. Immigration & Customs Enforc; Smith v. Massachusetts; Roper v. Simmons; Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education; Pace v. DiGuglielmo; Dodd v. United States; Rompilla v. Beard; Kelo v. City of New London; Bell v. Thompson; McCreary County v. ACLU; Brown v. Sanders; Central Virginia Community College v. Ka; Garcetti v. Ceballos; Hudson v. Michigan; Rapanos v. United States; United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez; Kansas v. Marsh; Ayers v. Belmontes; Lawrence v. Florida; Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusett; Massachusetts v. EPA; Gonzales v. Carhart; Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman; Brewer v. Quarterman; Smith v. Texas; Schriro v. Landrigan; Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber ; Uttecht v. Brown; Bowles v. Russell; Morse v. Frederick; Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin; Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation; National Assn. of Home Builders v. Defen; Parents Involved in Community Schools v.; Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v; Panetti v. Quarterman; Boumediene v. Bush; Dada v. Mukasey; Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Servic; Medellin v. Texas ; Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Coun; Altria Group, Inc. v. Good; Herring v. United States; Summers v. Earth Island Institute; Bartlett v. Strickland; Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc.; 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett; Corley v. United States; FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.; Ashcroft v. Iqbal; Haywood v. Drown; Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co.; United States v. Denedo; District Attorney's Office for Third Jud; Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.; Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend; Horne v. Flores; Cuomo v. Clearing House Assn.; Ricci v. DeStefano

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

In Roberts' case, he seems to be more interested in protecting the institution of the Court than stricto ideology. He has a history of voting against the other conservative judges in such situations, starting with his decision that Obamacare's mandate was constitutional.

Roberts always votes with the GOP when an election or a partisan survival issue is on the line. His vote for ACA might have been clever partisanship. Repealing ACA would be disastrous for millions of Americans, and disastrous for GOP electoral chances in the aftermath. The smarter GOPsters know that.

Roberts may be qualified to be a judge, unlike Kavanaugh, and isn't batshit insane. But it's laughable to imagine him as anything but right-wing. Oh! Here are two cases I overlooked above.

In Glossip v. Gross, Roberts joined Kennedy and the batshit wing to allow Oklahoma to torture convicts undergoing lethal injection. (Richard Glossip himself, by the way, is probably innocent but still waiting on death row as I type.)

And in breaking news just yesterday, in yet another 5-4 decision Roberts joined the batshit wing when "five justices of the Supreme Court authorized Missouri to torture a man to death."

If anyone thinks that "packing" on more judges could dishonor this Court, I can only laugh. 133

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Velocity

Keep things the way they are now, except that every nominee is entitled to a Senate hearing and confirmation up-or-down vote. No McConnell-Garlanding. And no court packing.

Also, allow justices to be removed for medical reasons if 3/4 of the Senate agrees (this prevents a scenario whereby someone like Ginsburg could be in a coma for years but still be a justice due to not technically being dead .)

Mitch McConnell endorses your "plan". It can't possibly be surprising to you if most Democrats are going to disagree with Mitch McConnell on how to approach SCOTUS, right? 134

[septimus]

Originally Posted by septimus

And in breaking news just yesterday, in yet another 5-4 decision Roberts joined the batshit wing when "five justices of the Supreme Court authorized Missouri to torture a man to death."

Lest this be thought hyperbole:

Originally Posted by Mark Joseph Stern

Russell Bucklew is a death row inmate in Missouri who suffers from a rare medical condition called cavernous hemangioma. Due to this disorder, his body is covered with tumors filled with blood vessels. Tumors in Bucklew’s neck and throat, his lips and uvula, which make it difficult for him to breathe. They are highly sensitive and frequently squirt blood. A medical expert, Dr. Joel Zivot, has testified that if Missouri administers a lethal injection to Bucklew, he will die a slow, agonizing death. His tumors will rupture and fill his mouth with blood, and he will suffocate to death in unbearable pain, choking and convulsing on the gurney as he dies.
... Bucklew asked to be killed with nitrogen gas so that he can die from “hypoxia,” a lack of oxygen, because his death from hypoxia would be faster than his death from lethal injection.

[That the lethal injections will needlessly torture Bucklew is NOT in dispute. The majority opinion of the Court is that torture doesn't matter becuase it isn't "deliberate"]
According to Gorsuch, “the question in dispute” here is whether lethal injection “cruelly superadds pain” to Bucklew’s death. But that language does not come from Baze or Glossip. It comes from Thomas’ separate opinions, which were joined only by Scalia. With one neat trick, Gorsuch has transformed the “superadds pain” test from a minority viewpoint to binding Supreme Court precedent.

... Welcome to our post-Kennedy death penalty jurisprudence, where legalized torture is back on the table.

Pack the Supreme Court to reduce the power of these five horrible disgusting excuses for judges? I'd be ashamed of any Democrat who does NOT want to do that. 135

[Velocity]

Not to derail the thread, but isn't it standard procedure to sedate the condemned first before the rest of the lethal injection takes place? 136

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

How would you rate the scientific backing for "a future to look forward to where the planet turns into a hellscape"?

If we do nothing about global warming, it's pretty solid AFAICT. 137

[UltraVires]

Originally Posted by septimus

It has become startling how many important Supreme Court cases are decided by a 5-4 vote. And it's almost always the same 5-4 alignment. For several years, the court consisted of 4 moderate or liberal judges, 1 right-of-center judge (Kennedy) and 4 right-wing judges. For many years there has been such a judge-in-the-middle who has essentially made all the important decisions himself! Before 2005 it was the centrist Rehnquist (appointed by Nixon, elevated to Chief by Reagan); since Kennedy's 2018 retirement it is Roberts. In the olden days, Roberts would be called a severe right-winger. In the new diction, we must call him "right-of-center" to distinguish him from haters, liars, and lunatics.

ALL of the following cases were decided 5-4. In ALL of these cases the 4 liberal/moderates voted the same way. In ALL of these cases the four right-wingers voted opposite to the moderates. In EVERY case the decision was decided by the Middle Judge — First Rehnquist or Kennedy, now Roberts.

Obergefell v. Hodges (right to same-sex marriage)
Montejo v. Louisiana (partial denial of right to counsel)
Padilla v. Kentucky (aliens must be advised of deportation risk)
Berghuis v. Thompkins (partial denial of right to remain silent)
Kennedy v. Louisiana (death penalty)
Citizens United v. FEC ("money is speech")
McCutcheon v. FEC ("money is speech")
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (struck down the contraceptive mandate)
Town of Greece v. Galloway (town hall prayer)
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (vouchers for religious schools)
District of Columbia v. Heller (handgun bans disallowed)
McDonald v. Chicago (handgun bans disallowed)
Michigan v. EPA (weaken clean air act)
Bush v. Gore (prohibit Florida from counting ballots)
Husted v A Philip Randolph Institute — in a 5-4 vote (Kennedy joining the dogs) SCOTUS ruled that Ohio can purge its voter lists using a discriminatory procedure.
Abbott v Perez — in a 5-4 vote (Kennedy joining the dogs) SCOTUS overruled a lower court ruling that Texas gerrymandering to disenfranchise blacks and hispanics was illegal.
Epic Systems Corp v Lewis — in a 5-4 vote (Kennedy joining the dogs) SCOTUS decimated workers' rights to unionize or join class actions
Trump v Hawaii — in a 5-4 vote (Kennedy joining the dogs), Trump's anti-Muslim immigration policies became the law of the land
Janus v American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees — in a 5-4 vote (Kennedy joining the dogs) SCOTUS effectively installed "right to work" (actually the "right to scab") for the public sector.
National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v Becerra — in a 5-4 vote (Kennedy joining the dogs) SCOTUS ruled that crisis pregnancy centers were not required to tell women seeking help that abortion was a legal option.

Not enough examples? Here are some more; all 5-4; all with the hard-righters voting the same way: Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko; Dusenbery v. United States ; Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co.; Kelly v. South Carolina; Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc.; Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB; Mickens v. Taylor; Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc.; Federal Maritime Comm'n v. South Carolin; McKune v. Lile; Carey v. Saffold; Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran; Republican Party of Minnesota v. White; Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania; United States v. White Mountain Apache; Ewing v. California; Lockyer v. Andrade; Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington ; Roell v. Withrow; Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle; Georgia v. Ashcroft; Stogner v. California; Jama v. Immigration & Customs Enforc; Smith v. Massachusetts; Roper v. Simmons; Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education; Pace v. DiGuglielmo; Dodd v. United States; Rompilla v. Beard; Kelo v. City of New London; Bell v. Thompson; McCreary County v. ACLU; Brown v. Sanders; Central Virginia Community College v. Ka; Garcetti v. Ceballos; Hudson v. Michigan; Rapanos v. United States; United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez; Kansas v. Marsh; Ayers v. Belmontes; Lawrence v. Florida; Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusett; Massachusetts v. EPA; Gonzales v. Carhart; Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman; Brewer v. Quarterman; Smith v. Texas; Schriro v. Landrigan; Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber ; Uttecht v. Brown; Bowles v. Russell; Morse v. Frederick; Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin; Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation; National Assn. of Home Builders v. Defen; Parents Involved in Community Schools v.; Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v; Panetti v. Quarterman; Boumediene v. Bush; Dada v. Mukasey; Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Servic; Medellin v. Texas ; Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Coun; Altria Group, Inc. v. Good; Herring v. United States; Summers v. Earth Island Institute; Bartlett v. Strickland; Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc.; 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett; Corley v. United States; FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.; Ashcroft v. Iqbal; Haywood v. Drown; Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co.; United States v. Denedo; District Attorney's Office for Third Jud; Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.; Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend; Horne v. Flores; Cuomo v. Clearing House Assn.; Ricci v. DeStefano



Roberts always votes with the GOP when an election or a partisan survival issue is on the line. His vote for ACA might have been clever partisanship. Repealing ACA would be disastrous for millions of Americans, and disastrous for GOP electoral chances in the aftermath. The smarter GOPsters know that.

Roberts may be qualified to be a judge, unlike Kavanaugh, and isn't batshit insane. But it's laughable to imagine him as anything but right-wing. Oh! Here are two cases I overlooked above.

In Glossip v. Gross, Roberts joined Kennedy and the batshit wing to allow Oklahoma to torture convicts undergoing lethal injection. (Richard Glossip himself, by the way, is probably innocent but still waiting on death row as I type.)

And in breaking news just yesterday, in yet another 5-4 decision Roberts joined the batshit wing when "five justices of the Supreme Court authorized Missouri to torture a man to death."

If anyone thinks that "packing" on more judges could dishonor this Court, I can only laugh.

First, you are absolutely wrong in saying that Rehnquist was a centrist. He was very conservative. I'm not sure what you gain by labeling the four liberal justices as "moderates." Further, just because you disagree with a 5-4 decision does not make the Court "dishonorable."

Also, your statements about torturing people to death border on the absurd. 138

[septimus]

Originally Posted by UltraVires

First, you are absolutely wrong in saying that Rehnquist was a centrist. He was very conservative. I'm not sure what you gain by labeling the four liberal justices as "moderates." Further, just because you disagree with a 5-4 decision does not make the Court "dishonorable."

Also, your statements about torturing people to death border on the absurd.

Yes, I misremembered about Rehnquist. O'Connor was the conservative who occasionally took Kennedy's place and voted with the moderates.

The rest of your comment is confused. I'll bother explaining if/when you answer my questions. 139

[septimus]

Originally Posted by Velocity

Not to derail the thread, but isn't it standard procedure to sedate the condemned first before the rest of the lethal injection takes place?

IIRC, Hippocratic Oath and anti-death policies make it hard to procure the optimal pharmaceuticals for executions. (Some right-wingers, believing that punishment should punish, seem to view this as a feature not a bug.) This has been discussed in prior threads.

Anyway, expert Dr. Joel Zivot testified under oath that Bucklew will die a slow, agonizing death, that he will suffocate to death in unbearable pain, choking and convulsing on the gurney as he dies. If the State of Missouri had witnesses to refute that, why weren't they called to testify? Did Missouri just want to get a legal precedent for their right to torture? 140

[sps49sd]

Originally Posted by Thing Fish

... judges will prove more deferential to the popular will....

Judges are not supposed to be deferential to the popular will. The ideal is impartial and independent. 141

[Sam Stone]

Let's get something straight then - Democrats in the Senate have been FAR more partisan on Supreme Court judges than have Republicans.

For example, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who was a very liberal candidate in her day, only got 3 no votes from Republicans. Justice Thomas from the same era had 46 votes against him. And of course Robert Bork was met with such hostility that he had to withdraw. Stephen Breyer had only 9 'nay' votes from Republicans. Alito had 40 nay votes from Democrats, while SotoMayor had 31 from Republicans. John Roberts even had 22 nay votes from Democrats, and no one could identify a thing wrong with him other than that he was slightly to the right. Kagan had 36 nay votes from Republicans, while Gorsuch had 43 nay votes from Democrats. All of these judges were qualified and had outstanding records, which is all that's supposed to matter. And of course, Kavanaugh was subject to the kind of smear campaign we haven't seen since Bork, and 48 Democrats voted against him. 142

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

Let's get something straight then - Democrats in the Senate have been FAR more partisan on Supreme Court judges than have Republicans.

For example, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who was a very liberal candidate in her day, only got 3 no votes from Republicans. Justice Thomas from the same era had 46 votes against him. And of course Robert Bork was met with such hostility that he had to withdraw. Stephen Breyer had only 9 'nay' votes from Republicans. Alito had 40 nay votes from Democrats, while SotoMayor had 31 from Republicans. John Roberts even had 22 nay votes from Democrats, and no one could identify a thing wrong with him other than that he was slightly to the right. Kagan had 36 nay votes from Republicans, while Gorsuch had 43 nay votes from Democrats. All of these judges were qualified and had outstanding records, which is all that's supposed to matter. And of course, Kavanaugh was subject to the kind of smear campaign we haven't seen since Bork, and 48 Democrats voted against him.

LOL!

Garland. Not to mention the entirely reasonable scrutiny faced by Thomas and Kavanaugh, based on the credible allegations made against them.

What a joke. It's hard to believe that anyone actually finds this plausible. At best, this is a demonstration of the entirely different universes we live in. 143

[enalzi]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

Let's get something straight then - Democrats in the Senate have been FAR more partisan on Supreme Court judges than have Republicans.

For example, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who was a very liberal candidate in her day, only got 3 no votes from Republicans. Justice Thomas from the same era had 46 votes against him. .

And Souter, also from that era, only had 9 votes against him. Only if there was something that came up during Thomas's nomination hearing that would have caused people to vote against him. I haven't the faintest idea what that could have been 144

[Chronos]

No, he's right. Garland had no votes at all against him. 145

[enalzi]

Originally Posted by Chronos

No, he's right. Garland had no votes at all against him.

Let's not forget that the Whig Party hasn't voted against a justice in over a hundred years. Clearly they are the most bipartisan party. 146

[Velocity]

Sam Stone has a point though. Ginsburg and Roberts were both scandal-free nominees and yet the former only got 3 Republican "no" votes while the latter had 22 Democratic "no" votes. So, even leaving Thomas and Kavanaugh aside, there is indeed a clear trend of evidence that Democrats vote more along the lines of ideology than Republicans do. You could be a scandal-free, clean conservative nominee for SCOTUS and there would still be Democratic Senators who would vote against you because you are.....conservative. (Namely, because you would represent a legal threat to Roe, etc.) 147

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Velocity

Sam Stone has a point though. Ginsburg and Roberts were both scandal-free nominees and yet the former only got 3 Republican "no" votes while the latter had 22 Democratic "no" votes. So, even leaving Thomas and Kavanaugh aside, there is indeed a clear trend of evidence that Democrats vote more along the lines of ideology than Republicans do. You could be a scandal-free, clean conservative nominee for SCOTUS and there would still be Democratic Senators who would vote against you because you are.....conservative. (Namely, because you would represent a legal threat to Roe, etc.)

Namely because of Garland. 148

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

Namely because of Garland.

Roberts' confirmation was in 2005, well before Garland was ever an issue. 149

[Chronos]

No justice ever nominated by a Republican will ever be a threat to Roe v. Wade. Not overturning Roe is the Republicans' #1 criterion for a judge, because if they ever delivered on that, they wouldn't be able to us it to rally people to vote for corporatist candidates. 150