Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-08-2020, 04:09 PM
2ManyTacos is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,009

The GOP seating ANY Supreme Court Justice this year would permanently & irrevocably destroy politics


This thread is inspired by the article on Politico now where the GOP is pledging to fill any open SCOTUS seats this year, up to and including the possibility of confirming a Justice after Biden wins, the GOP loses the Senate, and McConnell muscles through a Justice during the lame duck session of Congress.

I genuinely, truly do not believe the kind of fire they are playing with by making these pledges, or the extent to which politics will be fundamentally & permanently destroyed by confirming any Justice this year. This is something that just cannot be done after the theft of Merrick Garland's seat and the justification for that.

Basically, I think one of two things will become inevitable if another Republican Justice is seated this year:

(1) Democratic Court-packing. People outside of Congress are *already* agitating for this; another Republican Justice will make those calls deafening & an inevitability. Note that this may already happen REGARDLESS of any confirmation, especially if SCOTUS issues an obviously bullshit hack decision in TX v US and overturns Ocare.

(2) Future Democratic governors & presidents ignoring SCOTUS decisions and refusing to enforce them. There's already precedent for this in US history; another Republican Justice this year would supercharge the return of this practice.

Basically, there's real danger to actually moving forward with this possibility post-Merrick Garland. In time, it'll basically be all-out war against SCOTUS amongst Democrats, and other things on the agenda could range from jurisdiction stripping - passing laws that directly bar certain issues from being adjudicated in court - to reducing the salaries of SCOTUS clerks to $0.

Now, it will likely never be Biden to pursue these avenues because the man is an ineffective, weak, radical centrist, BUT a future president AOC would hold no such qualms.
  #2  
Old 05-08-2020, 04:29 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 17,476
We've heard "THIS is what will destroy things permanently" for years and years now. Whether it was blocking Garland, or confirming Kavanaugh, or any of a hundred other things done by Trump.
  #3  
Old 05-08-2020, 04:33 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,840
I think the SCOTUS's reputation is already done. It's already quite obviously just another political branch of the government -- right now it's a GOP branch. With luck maybe it will become a Democratic branch at some point, if the process to pick SCOTUS justices isn't fixed. But there's no chance of it resuming its role as a fair and objective arbiter of law and the Constitution unless there's a huge change to the process of how justices are chosen.
  #4  
Old 05-08-2020, 04:35 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos View Post
This is something that just cannot be done after the theft of Merrick Garland's seat
Near as I can tell, you’re using the word “theft” incorrectly.
  #5  
Old 05-08-2020, 04:42 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 41,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Near as I can tell, you’re using the word “theft” incorrectly.
I think you misspelled, "in my humble opinion."
  #6  
Old 05-08-2020, 05:00 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I think you misspelled, "in my humble opinion."
The OP flatly says This Is Something That Just Cannot Be Done After The Theft, and you don’t aim your I think you misspelled quip there? Instead taking issue with someone who amiably tosses in a quick Near As I Can Tell?

Could we maybe split the difference with a To The Best Of My Knowledge?
  #7  
Old 05-08-2020, 07:14 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16,461
As much as he would love to do so, I don’t think there would be enough time to nominate and confirm a new justice in the lame duck Senate session, especially if there’s still social distancing. Plus we might not know who controls the senate that night if there are tight races or a Georgia runoff. And some vulnerable 2022 Republicans might not want to go that far in a blatant power grab.

If Thomas retires in June, they’ll definitely fill the seat.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #8  
Old 05-08-2020, 07:26 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,840
In the short and medium term, the Democrats can and should do absolutely everything they can get away with (McConnell-style!) to tilt the court from a GOP court to a Democratic court, including "packing" and creative interpretation of SCOTUS judgments. The court's reputation is already sunk, and so they might as well tilt the results to themselves as much as they can get away with.

In the long term, the country needs to fix the process of appointing justices. I'd suggest either staggered 18 year terms, so every presidential term results in 2 appointments, or a minimum age requirement for SCOTUS (perhaps 65 or 70 years old). Something needs to happen so that SCOTUS picks aren't the end-all be-all of politics, as they are now. They should just be routine -- standard business for the WH and Senate. Both of these would require constitutional amendments, unless some brave president could agree to only appoint old justices from now on, and get their opponents to agree to the same, to de-escalate this skyrocketing level of importance placed on SCOTUS vacancies.

I've said it before -- if this doesn't happen, at some point a political party will figure out that there is good politics in manufacturing court vacancies. And if you think about what that would mean, we'll be in big, big trouble.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-08-2020 at 07:26 PM.
  #9  
Old 05-08-2020, 07:51 PM
Wesley Clark's Avatar
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,841
Sadly the federal judiciary may be a lost cause unless there is a political realignment.

There are about 30 red states and about 20 blue states. So the gop has an advantage when it comes to confirming judges in the senate. Yeah the gems won the popular vote in four of the last five presidential elections, but the electoral College negates that advantage.

I don't think it'll destroy democracy, but the US will continue to be a flawed democracy for the next several decades due to white nationalist pushback against democracy and multi culturalism.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 05-08-2020 at 07:53 PM.
  #10  
Old 05-08-2020, 09:12 PM
squeegee's Avatar
squeegee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Aptos CA
Posts: 9,338
OP, where have you been? That ship sailed long before your scenario, perhaps even long before Garland. Sometime during Whitewater I'd say.

Last edited by squeegee; 05-08-2020 at 09:13 PM.
  #11  
Old 05-08-2020, 09:16 PM
squeegee's Avatar
squeegee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Aptos CA
Posts: 9,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by squeegee View Post
OP, where have you been? That ship sailed long before your scenario, perhaps even long before Garland. Sometime during Whitewater I'd say.
And definitely by the 2000 recount.
  #12  
Old 05-09-2020, 10:02 AM
2ManyTacos is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
In the short and medium term, the Democrats can and should do absolutely everything they can get away with (McConnell-style!) to tilt the court from a GOP court to a Democratic court, including "packing" and creative interpretation of SCOTUS judgments. The court's reputation is already sunk, and so they might as well tilt the results to themselves as much as they can get away with.

In the long term, the country needs to fix the process of appointing justices. I'd suggest either staggered 18 year terms, so every presidential term results in 2 appointments, or a minimum age requirement for SCOTUS (perhaps 65 or 70 years old). Something needs to happen so that SCOTUS picks aren't the end-all be-all of politics, as they are now. They should just be routine -- standard business for the WH and Senate. Both of these would require constitutional amendments, unless some brave president could agree to only appoint old justices from now on, and get their opponents to agree to the same, to de-escalate this skyrocketing level of importance placed on SCOTUS vacancies.

I've said it before -- if this doesn't happen, at some point a political party will figure out that there is good politics in manufacturing court vacancies. And if you think about what that would mean, we'll be in big, big trouble.
I like the minimum age requirement and I've thought about it before; it would have to be at least 70 IMHO and for maximum effectiveness probably at least 75.

I've seen several commenters postulate the idea of 18 year terms, but IMO that is still too long. I would prefer 10 year terms, personally.
  #13  
Old 05-09-2020, 10:04 AM
Snarky_Kong is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,608
If Trump loses the election and RBG dies on January 19th, the GOP will be voting on a replacement that night.

And agree with the others that it wouldn't break politics, politics is already broken in this country. The advantage of the GOP is they know that (because they did it) and 75% of the Democrats don't recognize that yet.
  #14  
Old 05-09-2020, 10:05 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos View Post
I like the minimum age requirement and I've thought about it before; it would have to be at least 70 IMHO and for maximum effectiveness probably at least 75.

I've seen several commenters postulate the idea of 18 year terms, but IMO that is still too long. I would prefer 10 year terms, personally.
With 9 justices, staggered 18 year terms means that every 2 years, a vacancy opens up (ideally in odd-numbered years). So every presidential term would get to fill 2 vacancies. 9 year terms would mean a vacancy every year, so each presidential term gets 4 vacancies to fill. Occasionally, justices would pass or retire unexpectedly, opening up additional vacancies (or alternately, every time this happens the other justices just "move up" by a slot so that it's always the same number of vacancies per prez term). Either would be far superior to the current system.
  #15  
Old 05-09-2020, 10:20 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 88,589
The fundamental problem is that Democrats want the government to do good things, while Republicans want the government do do nothing, and it's easier to break things than it is to fix them. So Republicans break some aspect of government, and the Democrats can't fight back by breaking some other part, because breaking government is the Republicans' goal in the first place.
  #16  
Old 05-09-2020, 10:30 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snarky_Kong View Post
If Trump loses the election and RBG dies on January 19th, the GOP will be voting on a replacement that night.

And agree with the others that it wouldn't break politics, politics is already broken in this country. The advantage of the GOP is they know that (because they did it) and 75% of the Democrats don't recognize that yet.
And they've deliberately broken it.

If the long-term goal is to make private interests more powerful, then the near-term goal is to make the political system dysfunctional and tilted away from serving public interests. They've been trying to do this for years, and they've gradually inched toward the goal line.

It's a simple strategy for the GOP and their oligarchs backing them: when out of power, use whatever means are available to disrupt and obstruct so that people lose patience with and faith in progressives and reformers. Despite Romney's defeat in 2012, they were largely successful in thwarting much of what Obama intended to do. No real reforms of the tax code. No meaningful reforms with firearms control. No meaningful change in terms of wealth inequality.

And when in power, they grab as much power as they possibly can, and double down on denying the franchise to people most likely to vote against them. The republicans will eventually get what they want: a rigged democracy. Or a "democratic republic," just as the white supremacist elitists who founded this country intended, as they so often like to remind us.
  #17  
Old 05-09-2020, 10:37 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snarky_Kong View Post
If Trump loses the election and RBG dies on January 19th, the GOP will be voting on a replacement that night.

And agree with the others that it wouldn't break politics, politics is already broken in this country. The advantage of the GOP is they know that (because they did it) and 75% of the Democrats don't recognize that yet.
And they've deliberately broken it.

If the long-term goal is to make private interests more powerful, then the near-term goal is to make the political system dysfunctional and tilted away from serving public interests. They've been trying to do this for years, and they've gradually inched toward the goal line.

It's a simple strategy for the GOP and their oligarchs backing them: when out of power, use whatever means are available to disrupt and obstruct so that people lose patience with and faith in progressives and reformers. Despite Romney's defeat in 2012, they were largely successful in thwarting much of what Obama intended to do. No real reforms of the tax code. No meaningful reforms with firearms control. No meaningful change in terms of wealth inequality.

And when in power, they grab as much power as they possibly can, and double down on denying the franchise to people most likely to vote against them. The republicans will eventually get what they want: a rigged democracy. Or a "democratic republic," just as the white supremacist elitists who founded this country intended, as they so often like to remind us.
  #18  
Old 05-10-2020, 03:47 AM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 3,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snarky_Kong View Post
If Trump loses the election and RBG dies on January 19th, the GOP will be voting on a replacement that night.
The Congressional sessions (both houses) start 3 January 2021. Tramp will need to have her croaked on New Years. Moscow Mitch will call an emergency session on the 2nd to fill her vacant (but still warm) seat with reptilian Stephen Miller. The newly-invigorated SCOTUS will meet that night to okay Putin's puppy's emergency martial law decree. Order will be maintained.
  #19  
Old 05-11-2020, 01:25 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 7,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by squeegee View Post
OP, where have you been? That ship sailed long before your scenario, perhaps even long before Garland. Sometime during Whitewater I'd say.
Where have you been?, it has been broken since January 2, 1973.
  #20  
Old 05-11-2020, 01:41 PM
Skypist's Avatar
Skypist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 674
Phaw, Democrats won’t do anything. The GOP will just keep playing dirty when they have control and cry about how underhanded the Dems are to deflect attention from themselves. And enough of the public will swallow the lies and keep voting GOP. If Dems ever manage to get control again, they will try to meekly compromise with the looters and criminals of the GOP.

That doesn’t mean don’t bother to vote 🗳 but I am feeling very down right now.
  #21  
Old 05-11-2020, 03:13 PM
Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 13,837
Suppose the Dems win the senate and Biden the presidency. If RBG (or any other justice) dies at 11:59:00 AM on Jan. 3, there will be an emergency meeting of the outgoing senate and a new justice will be approved at 11:59:59. If it happens any time between then and Jan. 20 and Trump nominates anyone, the collective guffaw from the Democratic senators will be deafening.
  #22  
Old 05-11-2020, 04:07 PM
D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
The newly-invigorated SCOTUS will meet that night to okay Putin's puppy's emergency martial law decree.
The SCOTUS doesn't okay law/decrees.

See Article III, Section 2, Clause 1.
  #23  
Old 05-11-2020, 06:31 PM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 7,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
Suppose the Dems win the senate and Biden the presidency. If RBG (or any other justice) dies at 11:59:00 AM on Jan. 3, there will be an emergency meeting of the outgoing senate and a new justice will be approved at 11:59:59. If it happens any time between then and Jan. 20 and Trump nominates anyone, the collective guffaw from the Democratic senators will be deafening.
And Susan Collins will voice her concern before voting in favor.
  #24  
Old 05-12-2020, 02:21 PM
Some Call Me... Tim is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 1,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
The Congressional sessions (both houses) start 3 January 2021. Tramp will need to have her croaked on New Years. Moscow Mitch will call an emergency session on the 2nd to fill her vacant (but still warm) seat with reptilian Stephen Miller. The newly-invigorated SCOTUS will meet that night to okay Putin's puppy's emergency martial law decree. Order will be maintained.
It's not implausible that the incoming Senate will be a 50-50 split (simplifying the numbers to lump to two parties) with a Trump/Pence loss.

In this scenario, the January 20th date would still be very relevant as Pence would be the tiebreaker for those weeks while he's still in office.
  #25  
Old 05-12-2020, 03:46 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Where have you been?, it has been broken since January 2, 1973.
Yankee's fan, huh?
  #26  
Old 05-13-2020, 10:34 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 7,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Yankee's fan, huh?
Yes, also a fan of the constitution, unlike the Supreme Court at that time.
  #27  
Old 05-13-2020, 12:13 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Yes, also a fan of the constitution, unlike the Supreme Court at that time.
Ah, they must have done something that you disagreed with.

And we all know that disagreeing with puddlegum is unconstitutional.
  #28  
Old 05-13-2020, 12:25 PM
Chefguy's Avatar
Chefguy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portlandia
Posts: 44,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
And Susan Collins will voice her concern before voting in favor.
As will Alaska's coward, Lisa Murkowski.

If the Pubs stack the court beyond all fairness, can't the Dems (if they take back the Senate) increase the number of justices on the court? I confess ignorance as to the process involved.
  #29  
Old 05-13-2020, 12:44 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 17,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chefguy View Post
As will Alaska's coward, Lisa Murkowski.

If the Pubs stack the court beyond all fairness, can't the Dems (if they take back the Senate) increase the number of justices on the court? I confess ignorance as to the process involved.
This has been discussed many times before ("court packing.") AIUI, it only requires a mere Senate majority, if a future Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer were to invoke the nuclear option on that.


The main reason not to do it is that it just invites retaliation in kind. If Democrats increased the Court to, say, 15 justices, there's no reason a future Republican administration wouldn't increase it to 21 or 99. Of course, one could try a strategy where you "nuke your opponent entirely in one blow" by increasing the Supreme Court to such an immense size - packed full of one's own judges - that you run entirely roughshod over your opposition and they don't even get a chance to pack the Court their way in return down the road. But it's doubtful that you could get fifty Democratic senators to sign onto that idea, especially the ones in red states.
  #30  
Old 05-13-2020, 12:57 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,224
GOP seating any SCOTUS justice might destroy politics, and/or it might destroy the courts. If the US goes into a full-on economic depression and a political crisis ensues, and if the people elect some political superman to "fix" the country, one of the first things that guy (or gal) is gonna do is tell courts to stay the hell out of its way. It's then a question or whether or not that president would have a mandate, but if it's like the 1930s, that president would probably have it.
  #31  
Old 05-13-2020, 01:14 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The main reason not to do it is that it just invites retaliation in kind.
Ha! We're long, long past this. Everything that can be done to help the GOP gain advantage is being done or is in the works. McConnell has demonstrated time and time again that he has no actual principles. Until the SCOTUS process actually invites a chance for non-partisanship in the courts, the Democrats should do exactly the same.
  #32  
Old 05-13-2020, 01:17 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 17,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Everything that can be done to help the GOP gain advantage is being done or is in the works.
Of course not. By this logic, McConnell would have tried to pack the Supreme Court by now. He's had a Senate majority for years and years and hasn't.
  #33  
Old 05-13-2020, 01:21 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 36,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Of course not. By this logic, McConnell would have tried to pack the Supreme Court by now. He's had a Senate majority for years and years and hasn't.
Two months ago: The Senate majority leader has encouraged judges thinking about stepping down to do so soon to ensure that Republicans confirm their replacements this year.
  #34  
Old 05-13-2020, 01:28 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Of course not. By this logic, McConnell would have tried to pack the Supreme Court by now. He's had a Senate majority for years and years and hasn't.
This is because he currently doesn't have enough support for this among his Senators, not because he's unwilling to do it. I can't prove this, of course, but nothing I've seen in the last ten years or so suggests to me that McConnell has any principles beyond acquisition of power and money.

I doubt the Democrats would have the support to pack the courts either, if they got the Senate... but they still should try. There's no reason not to.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-13-2020 at 01:29 PM.
  #35  
Old 05-13-2020, 01:31 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 88,589
Because he hasn't needed to, because he already has a majority on the Court.
  #36  
Old 05-13-2020, 01:35 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 17,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Because he hasn't needed to, because he already has a majority on the Court.
Doesn't make sense. A 5-4 majority is flimsy; nowhere as secure as a 25-4 majority. Roberts has ruled against conservatives/Republicans on multiple occasions. Packing SCOTUS would ensure an iron-clad right-wing court.
  #37  
Old 05-13-2020, 02:07 PM
Shodan is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Doesn't make sense. A 5-4 majority is flimsy; nowhere as secure as a 25-4 majority. Roberts has ruled against conservatives/Republicans on multiple occasions. Packing SCOTUS would ensure an iron-clad right-wing court.
Court packing is the Democrat's version pre-emptive escalation, in the "he hit me back first" sense. They are just doing in retaliation for what Republicans haven't done yet.

Liberals find they can get the Supreme Court to litigate things they can't get thru legislation. So they push for more of it. Eventually, the pendulum swings back, and conservatives get Justices who don't litigate from the bench. Whereupon liberals begin to scream two things - one is lie about how Justices who don't litigate from the bench are litigating from the bench, and the other is scream about how unfair turnabout is.

Regards,
Shodan
  #38  
Old 05-13-2020, 03:06 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Doesn't make sense. A 5-4 majority is flimsy; nowhere as secure as a 25-4 majority. Roberts has ruled against conservatives/Republicans on multiple occasions. Packing SCOTUS would ensure an iron-clad right-wing court.
Yep, and he would if he could (but right now, he can't, because not enough Senators support it). Why wouldn't he? What are the consequences? Principles don't matter any more. Decency doesn't matter any more. Norms don't matter any more. All that matters is power and money.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-13-2020 at 03:11 PM.
  #39  
Old 05-13-2020, 03:07 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Court packing is the Democrat's version pre-emptive escalation, in the "he hit me back first" sense. They are just doing in retaliation for what Republicans haven't done yet.

Liberals find they can get the Supreme Court to litigate things they can't get thru legislation. So they push for more of it. Eventually, the pendulum swings back, and conservatives get Justices who don't litigate from the bench. Whereupon liberals begin to scream two things - one is lie about how Justices who don't litigate from the bench are litigating from the bench, and the other is scream about how unfair turnabout is.

Regards,
Shodan
Always interesting to hear signals from another universe, strange and nonsensical that they sometimes are!
  #40  
Old 05-13-2020, 06:44 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
The SCOTUS doesn't okay law/decrees.

See Article III, Section 2, Clause 1.
The Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. If Trump declares that due to the Covid 19 crisis, the results of the 2020 election were in error and as sitting president is declaring martial law until the situation can be rectified, so long as the SCOTUS agree with his interpretation, who can the Dems appeal to?
  #41  
Old 05-13-2020, 07:26 PM
D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
The Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. If Trump declares that due to the Covid 19 crisis, the results of the 2020 election were in error and as sitting president is declaring martial law until the situation can be rectified, so long as the SCOTUS agree with his interpretation, who can the Dems appeal to?
No. The person I was responding to posited that that the Senate would confirm a new justice on Jan 2nd, and then the Court would meet the same night to "okay a martial law decree."

Utter nonsense.

Last edited by D'Anconia; 05-13-2020 at 07:27 PM.
  #42  
Old 05-13-2020, 07:57 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
No. The person I was responding to posited that that the Senate would confirm a new justice on Jan 2nd, and then the Court would meet the same night to "okay a martial law decree."

Utter nonsense.
I agree that the specific timing of the scenario proposed is far fetched, but that isn't what you were arguing against when you pointed to article 3.

Note that even outside of the logistics involved in getting it all done in the same day, I don't actually think that the current batch of justices are really so biased as to actually go along with the scenario described, but, short of a coup, there is really nothing we could do to stop them if they were so inclined.

Last edited by Buck Godot; 05-13-2020 at 07:57 PM.
  #43  
Old 05-13-2020, 08:10 PM
OldGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Very east of Foggybog, WI
Posts: 5,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Of course not. By this logic, McConnell would have tried to pack the Supreme Court by now. He's had a Senate majority for years and years and hasn't.
I believe expanding the Supreme Court beyond 9 justices would require legislation and therefore approval of the House as well.
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 11:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.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.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017