# Are liberals facing the equivalent of political checkmate with the Supreme Court for the next 25-30 **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [July 9, 2018, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-facing-the-equivalent-of-political-checkmate-with-the-supreme-court-for-the-next-25-30/817566 "2018-07-09T14:05:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-facing-the-equivalent-of-political-checkmate-with-the-supreme-court-for-the-next-25-30/817566/81 "2018-07-10T16:57:19Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Nope. The Groupies Of Putiun have set the standard: the time allotted for an investigation shall at least be sufficient to write down the Nine Billion Names of Benghazi. It took Starr seven years to find a blowjob. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-facing-the-equivalent-of-political-checkmate-with-the-supreme-court-for-the-next-25-30/817566/82 "2018-07-10T17:07:06Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > :rolleyes: > > Nice grammar and typos there, eh; a real quality post. And your diction! I love the way you phrase things; where are you from? Iowa? Wisconsin? :dubious: > [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Attempting to parse his arguments, I get the impression that he is from outer space, but only works in Iowa. Knock it off, both of you. [/moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-facing-the-equivalent-of-political-checkmate-with-the-supreme-court-for-the-next-25-30/817566/83 "2018-07-10T17:07:22Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > :rolleyes: > > Nice grammar and typos there, eh; a real quality post. And your diction! I love the way you phrase things; where are you from? Iowa? Wisconsin? :dubious: Enough of that, right now. No personal attacks. That goes for all of you. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-facing-the-equivalent-of-political-checkmate-with-the-supreme-court-for-the-next-25-30/817566/84 "2018-07-10T17:10:50Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > It took Starr seven years to find a blowjob. Sounds like my first marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-facing-the-equivalent-of-political-checkmate-with-the-supreme-court-for-the-next-25-30/817566/85 "2018-07-10T17:14:01Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Not a chance. And there is nothing illegitimate about the current court except in the imagination of some people. I mean, sure, if you assume that the sitting president not being allowed to seat justices (not _specific_ justices, not _hardline partisan_ justices, just any justices) doesn’t illegitimize the court, then there’s nothing wrong here. Similarly, I can’t help but wonder - would the court be legitimate if, in 2020, under a democratic president, some nutjob started killing off conservative justices, and the democratic response was, “Welp, that’s a _real_ tragedy. Time to seat a bunch of Sotomayor’s clerks (and Merrick Garland for shits and giggles)!”? I mean, after all, it would technically be following the rules, in the same way McConnell did. I think _anyone_ would immediately recognize that the resulting court made a complete mockery of the judicial system - unless we’re still laboring under the bizarre delusion that the court is not political. > [@](#): > > Roberts isn’t losing any sleep over the idea of court packing, because it’s not going to happen. If there was any chance of that happening, the Republicans would be doing it right now as a preemptive measure. I’d like to think you’re wrong. McConnell has shown that the gloves are off at this point. Judicial norms simply are no longer a thing. (Really, the current republican administration has shown that norms, _period_, simply are not a thing, and that even ethical rules are moot, because who the fuck is going to enforce them when people flagrantly violate them, but that’s another story altogether.) There is no law or rule in place as to how many justices are on the supreme court; there is merely a _norm_. And norms that only one side has any interest in following are not really norms. Packing the courts is absolutely a reasonable response to the complete abandonment of norms in the nomination process that McConnell brought about. It’s not enough to just go tit for tat; at that point your enemy always has first move advantage. You have to hit them _harder_ and punish them for defecting. Also on a _completely_ unrelated note (nothing to do with you, **John Mace** ), if it’s against the rules to call someone out as lying, can it please also be against the rules to blatantly lie over and over and over again in elections? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-facing-the-equivalent-of-political-checkmate-with-the-supreme-court-for-the-next-25-30/817566/86 "2018-07-10T17:39:22Z")
Fox and McConnell may have slightly misrepresented the [Biden Rule](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/), didn’t they? > [@](#): > > Biden’s floor speech was on June 25, 1992, more than three months later in the election cycle than it is now. > > There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill. > > There was no nominee to consider. > > The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election. > > Nonetheless, Biden took to the floor in a speech addressing the Senate president to urge delay if a vacancy did appear. But he didn’t argue for a delay until the next president began his term, as McConnell is doing. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election, which was on Nov. 3, 1992. > > Many of Biden’s words echo the state of Washington today: > > “Given the unusual rancor that prevailed in the (Clarence) Thomas nomination, the need for some serious reevaluation of the nomination and confirmation process, and the overall level of bitterness that sadly infects our political system and this presidential campaign already, it is my view that the prospects for anything but conflagration with respect to a Supreme Court nomination this year are remote at best.” > > He noted that among the previous seven nominations, two were not confirmed and two passed with strong opposition. > > "In my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down. > > "Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself. > > “Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed.” > > Biden said if Bush were to nominate someone anyway, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.” > > Based on Biden’s words, it appears he would not have objected to Bush nominating someone the day after election day. It would have given the Senate more than two and a half months to vote on confirmation. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-facing-the-equivalent-of-political-checkmate-with-the-supreme-court-for-the-next-25-30/817566/87 "2018-07-10T17:40:38Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > I mean, sure, if you assume that the sitting president not being allowed to seat justices (not _specific_ justices, not _hardline partisan_ justices, just any justices) doesn’t illegitimize the court, then there’s nothing wrong here. > > Similarly, I can’t help but wonder - would the court be legitimate if, in 2020, under a democratic president, some nutjob started killing off conservative justices, and the democratic response was, “Welp, that’s a _real_ tragedy. Time to seat a bunch of Sotomayor’s clerks (and Merrick Garland for shits and giggles)!”? I mean, after all, it would technically be following the rules, in the same way McConnell did. I think _anyone_ would immediately recognize that the resulting court made a complete mockery of the judicial system - unless we’re still laboring under the bizarre delusion that the court is not political. I don’t see why that wouldn’t be legitimate. Presidents get to nominate SCOTUS justices. There is nothing in the constitution that says it has to be done a certain way under unusual circumstances. Lots of people would gripe about it, but lots of people gripe about all sorts of things. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-facing-the-equivalent-of-political-checkmate-with-the-supreme-court-for-the-next-25-30/817566/88 "2018-07-10T17:48:17Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > I mean, sure, if you assume that the sitting president not being allowed to seat justices (not _specific_ justices, not _hardline partisan_ justices, just any justices) doesn’t illegitimize the court, then there’s nothing wrong here. > > Similarly, I can’t help but wonder - would the court be legitimate if, in 2020, under a democratic president, some nutjob started killing off conservative justices, and the democratic response was, “Welp, that’s a _real_ tragedy. Time to seat a bunch of Sotomayor’s clerks (and Merrick Garland for shits and giggles)!”? I mean, after all, it would technically be following the rules, in the same way McConnell did. I think _anyone_ would immediately recognize that the resulting court made a complete mockery of the judicial system - unless we’re still laboring under the bizarre delusion that the court is not political. I don’t see why that would make the Court illegitimate. The Court would have vacancies; the President has the power under Art II Sec 2 to appoint justices to fill those vacancies, with the advice and consent of the Senate. What is your idea for what should happen? And more important than your idea; what law supports your idea of what should happen? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-facing-the-equivalent-of-political-checkmate-with-the-supreme-court-for-the-next-25-30/817566/89 "2018-07-10T18:07:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t see why that would make the Court illegitimate. The Court would have vacancies; the President has the power under Art II Sec 2 to appoint justices to fill those vacancies, with the advice and consent of the Senate. > > What is your idea for what should happen? And more important than your idea; what law supports your idea of what should happen? Legitimacy is about more than just law. If a large majority of the public sees something as illegitimate, it’s unlikely to survive whether it’s strictly legal or not. History shows us many examples of laws or policies that were legal at the time, but considered illegitimate by the public, and they didn’t last. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-facing-the-equivalent-of-political-checkmate-with-the-supreme-court-for-the-next-25-30/817566/90 "2018-07-10T18:12:13Z")
I don’t think the Court itself is illegitimate after the Garland debacle. I think the process of judicial nominations is now a laughingstock. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-facing-the-equivalent-of-political-checkmate-with-the-supreme-court-for-the-next-25-30/817566/91 "2018-07-10T18:23:04Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Legitimacy is about more than just law. If a large majority of the public sees something as illegitimate, it’s unlikely to survive whether it’s strictly legal or not. History shows us many examples of laws or policies that were legal at the time, but considered illegitimate by the public, and they didn’t last. I think if someone is going to claim in a a debate forum here that something about our government is not “legitimate”, and they mean something other than the legal definition, they should be clear about that. I mean, where do you think the word “legitimate” comes from? And further, if you have evidence that a large majority of the public sees the Garland affair as somehow making the court “illegitimate” (colloquially or otherwise), then that evidence should be presented. If you (the generic you) are just offering your opinion… well, you know what they say about opinions. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-facing-the-equivalent-of-political-checkmate-with-the-supreme-court-for-the-next-25-30/817566/92 "2018-07-10T18:33:00Z")
And in case anyone has forgotten, we had long discussions about the Garland issue where more than one poster insisted that the Senate was constitutionally required to vote on Garland. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-facing-the-equivalent-of-political-checkmate-with-the-supreme-court-for-the-next-25-30/817566/93 "2018-07-10T18:37:55Z")
What! “More than one poster”! The Devil you say! Well, that totally proves…I mean, that leaves no doubt that…actually, what does that prove, perzackly? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-facing-the-equivalent-of-political-checkmate-with-the-supreme-court-for-the-next-25-30/817566/94 "2018-07-10T18:40:38Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > What! “More than one poster”! The Devil you say! Well, that totally proves…I mean, that leaves no doubt that…actually, what does that prove, perzackly? Perhaps your mistake is assuming that I was trying to prove something. I wasn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-facing-the-equivalent-of-political-checkmate-with-the-supreme-court-for-the-next-25-30/817566/95 "2018-07-10T18:42:00Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Legitimacy is about more than just law. If a large majority of the public sees something as illegitimate, it’s unlikely to survive whether it’s strictly legal or not. History shows us many examples of laws or policies that were legal at the time, but considered illegitimate by the public, and they didn’t last. Sure. And I suppose if a large majority saw future SCOTUS assassination vacancies being filled by a Democrat as being somehow illegitimate, they could absolutely push for a constitutional amendment to reform the appointment process, or more immediately push their senators not to consent to the appointments. That’s a feature of representative democracies. But you went from **BPC** ’s question about whether the Court would be illegitimate to the assumption that it would be illegitimate based on “large majorities,” believing it illegitimate. Perhaps I’m cynical to a fault, but I believe that if this were to happen, roughly half the country would be nonplussed. No matter what party benefitted. It would just be different halves, trading sanguinity for anger. ---
**Author:** ![dalej42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@dalej42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalej42)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-facing-the-equivalent-of-political-checkmate-with-the-supreme-court-for-the-next-25-30/817566/96 "2018-07-10T18:51:17Z")
I will say that the Democrats had better do something besides using the court vacancy as nothing more than a fundraising opportunity. I’m sure I’ve received at least 30 fundraising emails since the announcement. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-facing-the-equivalent-of-political-checkmate-with-the-supreme-court-for-the-next-25-30/817566/97 "2018-07-10T18:53:17Z")
Boy, the SDMB Award for Semantic Parsing this year is going to be a close one! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-facing-the-equivalent-of-political-checkmate-with-the-supreme-court-for-the-next-25-30/817566/98 "2018-07-10T18:56:47Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Boy, the SDMB Award for Semantic Parsing this year is going to be a close one! That depends on what you mean by “close”. ---
**Author:** ![Silver\_lining](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aca169/32.png) [@Silver\_lining](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silver_lining)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-facing-the-equivalent-of-political-checkmate-with-the-supreme-court-for-the-next-25-30/817566/99 "2018-07-10T19:02:10Z")
> [@Superdude](#): > > I see where a bit of confusion lies. When I suggested that it was a dick move, I worded it so that it could be inferred that it was only a dick move when Republicans do it. I didn’t mean to imply that. Chalk that up to an oversight on my part. It’s a dick move when anyone does it. My apologies for any confusion. > > Clinton? Go ahead, if you so desire. I’d counter, however, that she’s among the more investigated politicians in recent history. And, given the multitude of hearings surrounding Benghazi, where Republicans seemed determined to keep repeating the investigation until they finally found something they could pin on her, I think it’s premature to only investigate Trump once. We should keep investigating until something finally turns up. After all, Republicans have set a precedent for investigation possible wrongdoing. Same standard should apply to both parties. > > And I suppose that I could make a new thread about Mueller, but you mentioned him before I did, so perhaps it should be you to open that thread. Just a suggestion. > > I did notice, however, that you didn’t answer my question about what it would take to convince you that Trump actually did the things he’s been accused of. Would you mind answering that question, please? Okay, thanks for being a stand-up dude on the di@k move comment. Clinton and the DNC likely have just as many illegal activities with people connected to it as the Trump organization has. Perhaps more considering their length of operation in politics. Unlike Trump, Clinton is guilty of how she handed classified information. Meeting with people or foreign nations does not mean tampering. I’d rather see foreign aid toward elections banned. But it’s not. There is a double standard on which candidate took more money from foreign nations based on the coverage given by the press. That would be Clinton by a wide margin. Bill himself pocketed $500,000.00 for speech in Russia. So the quid quo pro if much higher for Clinton. To answer your question, what it would take to convince me that Trump actually did the things he’s been accused of? Okay. Frist off getting dirt on your opponent is not illegal in politics. It happens all the time. Having groups pay for political ads is legal, and happens all of the time. An attempt to rig an election, however, is a serious matter! If there was clear evidence that Trump conspired with various groups to rig the election by tampering with voting machines, and this was proven by forensics with the story corroborated by Russians and USA people on audio or via an electronic paper trail, then I say he did something very wrong. They did a recount in Wisconsin, and Trump actually picked up votes. There was no such tampering of any voting machine. No person says the Russian imitated or bought their vote. People voted their conscience. Trump won the election fairly. Muller has nothing. Zero, nada, zilch. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-facing-the-equivalent-of-political-checkmate-with-the-supreme-court-for-the-next-25-30/817566/100 "2018-07-10T19:03:27Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > That depends on what you mean by “close”. Point for **John**. 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-facing-the-equivalent-of-political-checkmate-with-the-supreme-court-for-the-next-25-30/817566.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-facing-the-equivalent-of-political-checkmate-with-the-supreme-court-for-the-next-25-30/817566.md?page=6)