# The winds of change at the Supreme Court **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 7, 2017, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012 "2017-04-07T21:32:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/81 "2017-04-11T18:38:19Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > We are looking at some seriously thin gains from this maneuver. Isn’t that just the nature of national politics? It is the very rare action or vote that, on its lonesome, mobilizes large numbers of people to vote or not to vote or to switch parties. I don’t think anyone thinks maneuvering over the filibuster is tipping Arizona’s Senate race in 2018. But then, _no_ individual decision is doing that. It all matters. And each thing, only a little. If you want to say that killing the SCOTUS filibuster matters about as much as allowing hunters to kill hibernating bears or how many Yemeni innocents we kill in February 2017, which all matter less than a single month’s job report, then I’m with you. If you want to claim it doesn’t matter at all, I’m not convinced. ---
**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:** [April 11, 2017, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/82 "2017-04-11T18:46:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So when Pryor replaces RBG, and the numbers of Democrats who are opposed is much higher, the filibuster will be gone already. This presumes that it would have been useful in this scenario (which may or may not occur in any case, depending on RBG’s health), which those of us who supported the filibuster don’t believe. I think there’s a minuscule chance that McConnell wouldn’t get rid of the filibuster in any other contentious SCOTUS confirmation in which a conservative justice was nominated, and therefore the potential gain/loss for filibustering Gorsuch is much better for the Democrats than not doing so. ---
**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:** [April 11, 2017, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/83 "2017-04-11T19:49:58Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I’m sympathetic to this logic, but I don’t think it bears close scrutiny. > > You’re right about Joe SixPack, of course. Our friend Joe SixPack can’t tell you the Vice President’s name. He certainly doesn’t know anything about how a Supreme Court justice is confirmed, much less what changes there have been in that process. About half of his cohort cannot name the three branches of government and he believes the Earth circles the Sun. > > But while you need to persuade Joe Sixpack in order to win elections, it does not follow that only issues that affect Joe Sixpack’s vote matter to winning. Our elections are often close and are decided at the margins. And, at the margins, lots of people know these facts. Tens of percents! If a party comes to be known for dishonest dealings among the teeming tens, that matters. It might not cost a lot of votes. But it all adds up. Yeah, but who are the bad guys here? Do Americans see the filibuster as some great tradition that needs to be preserved, or as some underhanded, obstructionist parliamentary trick that thwarts “true democracy”? Or both, depending on whom they happen to have listened to last? I thought the Republicans were making a big mistake with they way they handled Garland, but it seems to have mattered little, if at all, in the last election. That is it didn’t seem to hurt them or help them. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/84 "2017-04-11T20:19:08Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Tactically, you get elected by being popular and you’re more likely to be popular when you aren’t the bad guy. The team that nuked the filibuster looks like the bad guy. But so does the guy who filibustered a competent nominee in tit-for-tat partisanship forcing the nuking of the filibuster. IMHO: The Dems had a chance to look like the grown-up in the room, keeping their powder dry and the filibuster available for when they really need it to block the nomination of say Roy Moore. Instead they fall into a “both sides do it” trap, and can’t do anything for the rest of the Trump administration but yell from the side lines. If a Dem president come into office with the Filibuster still intact and the Republicans block all nominees, the the Democrats can decide to go ahead and blow it up saying that they had allowed Trumps nominations to come to a vote, but the Republicans refuse to consider anyone. I’m really disappointed that they filibustered. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/85 "2017-04-11T20:34:45Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > . > If you want to say that killing the SCOTUS filibuster matters about as much as allowing hunters to kill hibernating bears or how many Yemeni innocents we kill in February 2017, which all matter less than a single month’s job report, then I’m with you. If you want to claim it doesn’t matter at all, I’m not convinced. I guess I’m saying it is that minimal. As in, how tall the candidate is and whether it rains on election are bigger factors. This despite the fact that forcing the filibuster got a billion times more coverage than the Dems stance on shooting sleeping bears. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/86 "2017-04-11T20:34:45Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Yeah, but who are the bad guys here? Do Americans see the filibuster as some great tradition that needs to be preserved, or as some underhanded, obstructionist parliamentary trick that thwarts “true democracy”? Or both, depending on whom they happen to have listened to last? I doubt it’s so fine-grained. I think parties have a brand. For the last six years, the GOP brand has not been compromise and aisle-crossing. That turned out to be a good brand for this period of extreme partisanship! But it’s not a good brand in every race, and it won’t be a good brand for all time. The more they do that is consistent with the brand, the harder it will be to change brands when the time comes, or as necessary to win races where the brand hurts. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > I thought the Republicans were making a big mistake with they way they handled Garland, but it seems to have mattered little, if at all, in the last election. That is it didn’t seem to hurt them or help them. I’m not sure I disagree, but how would we know? The argument I’m making here is that there are a million moving parts. You cannot really isolate any of them and look at an election and say what mattered and what didn’t It seems just as likely that they all matter as that none or some of them do. Maybe Maggie Hassan would have lost but for McConnell’s tactics, taken collectively. It’s not so hard to imagine that .1% of the vote moves on such things. Obviously, it did not become an issue on the level of the ACA or the Iraq War. But those issues are the rare exceptions. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/87 "2017-04-11T23:26:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So when Pryor replaces RBG, and the numbers of Democrats who are opposed is much higher, the filibuster will be gone already. Yet another sham argument. As if the Republicans would live up to some kind of gentlemen’s agreement if it were the slightest bit to their advantage to break it. Where did you think the power to break the filibuster came from in the first place? It doesn’t go away if the Democrats don’t filibuster. Really getting tired of hearing the same old, completely bullshit arguments. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/88 "2017-04-12T00:38:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So when Pryor replaces RBG, and the numbers of Democrats who are opposed is much higher, the filibuster will be gone already. Sure, but Bricker, the Republicans don’t need any Democratic votes to get rid of the filibuster. So, lets say the filibuster wasn’t gone with this vote. Prior replaces RBG, all the Democrats are opposed, they filibuster, and the Republicans get rid of the filibuster anyway. So what’s the loss? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/89 "2017-04-12T01:17:12Z")
They will be proceeding under the cloud of knowing that **Bricker** ’s regard for them is diminished. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/90 "2017-04-12T03:07:46Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Sure, but Bricker, the Republicans don’t need any Democratic votes to get rid of the filibuster. So, lets say the filibuster wasn’t gone with this vote. Prior replaces RBG, all the Democrats are opposed, they filibuster, and the Republicans get rid of the filibuster anyway. So what’s the loss? The Republicans in either instance have to hold their party line to nuke the filibuster. The argument is that was easier to do for Gorsuch, considered a well qualified nominee with suitable temperament by conservative standards. So Republicans such as Graham and McCain who have expressed views that the filibuster is a part of how the Senate works were nevertheless willing to vote to nuke the filibuster. Should the next nominee be a judge viewed as more extreme like Pryor or Moore, perhaps Republican Senate traditionalists might not be willing to nuke the filibuster to get him seated. With the filibuster still in place a handful of Republicans could side with the Democrats on a cloture vote and effectively quash the nomination without the need to cast an actual vote against the nominee. Maybe. Cannot tell for sure. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/91 "2017-04-12T03:32:12Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > Should the next nominee be a judge viewed as more extreme like Pryor or Moore, perhaps Republican Senate traditionalists might not be willing to nuke the filibuster to get him seated. With the filibuster still in place a handful of Republicans could side with the Democrats on a cloture vote and effectively quash the nomination without the need to cast an actual vote against the nominee. > > Maybe. Cannot tell for sure. You ever read the Peanuts comic strip? Charlie Brown and all that? There’s this recurring thing where Lucy is holding a football for Charlie Brown to kick, and every time, Charlie Brown says, “Oh, no, I’m not falling for that trick this time. You’re going to pull the football away at the last minute.”, and Lucy says, “No, no, this time I’m not going to do that.”, and so Charlie Brown always goes to kick the football, and sure enough, she pulls the football away, and he always lands on his back. It’s like that. It doesn’t matter who the nominee is. Republicans are going to put them in. Only two Republicans voted against Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Education, even though she had no idea what the current debate was on testing standards. No Republicans voted against somebody with a long history of making racist statements for Attorney General. Marco Rubio spent his entire questioning of Tillerson criticizing him for being pro-Russian and too friendly to Putin, and then voted for him for Secretary of State. Do you understand what I’m saying? Nothing the Democrats do in the Senate right now matters, because the Republicans, no matter how much they say they’ll use independent judgement, will walk in lockstep and swallow as much crap as the party tells them to swallow. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/92 "2017-04-12T05:44:45Z")
“Gosh, Grampa, were they always batshit baboon crazy?” “No, child, once they were just stubbornly misguided, like the dog chasing a car. Once, they were the dog that was going to bite through a tire and stop the car. Not so bad, compared to the ones who were going to seize the back bumper, give the car a good shaking, and then drag it back.” “Then what happened?” “Oh, a lot of things, child, a lot of things. Pass the gruel.” ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/93 "2017-04-12T05:53:44Z")
Why do people keep saying “conservative majority” at the SCOTUS? Isn’t it 4 righties, 4 lefties, and Kennedy the deciding centrist? It’s also the same SCOTUS that voted 5-4 for _Obergefell_, so if anything Kennedy may lean slightly to the left. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/94 "2017-04-12T05:59:24Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Why do people keep saying “conservative majority” at the SCOTUS? Isn’t it 4 righties, 4 lefties, and Kennedy the deciding centrist? It’s also the same SCOTUS that voted 5-4 for _Obergefell_, so if anything Kennedy may lean slightly to the left. Kennedy is the most centrist but sill considered right leaning on many issues, particularly business interests. Despite that he has authored several of the most pro gay rights opinions to come out of the court in recent years. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/95 "2017-04-12T06:43:31Z")
Kinda depends, don’t it? I mean, “center”? What does that even _mean_, any more? The guys that don’t tear their hair and chew holes in the furniture? ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/96 "2017-04-12T07:17:49Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Kinda depends, don’t it? I mean, “center”? What does that even _mean_, any more? The guys that don’t tear their hair and chew holes in the furniture? Think of it like a statistical median. The closest to the center is the swing justice even if s/he is well to one side or the other as you might view the political spectrum. He upheld abortion rights in _Planned Parenthood v Casey_, but voted that a parental notification prior to abortion was an acceptable restriction (_Hodgson v Minnesota_). He authored landmark gay rights cases _Romer v Evans_, _Lawrence v Texas_, and _Obergefell_ leading Politico to[hail](http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/anthony-kennedy-gay-marriage-supreme-court-icon-119471) him as “a gay rights icon.” But he voted with the majority in _DC v Heller_ to strike down the District’s strict gun control laws. And in _McDonald v Chicago_ he again sided with the conservatives on the court on a landmark Second Amendment gun control case. And perhaps most reviled of all his “conservative” opinions was _Citizens United_ which he authored. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/97 "2017-04-12T07:26:06Z")
Your composition is appropriate, the punch line being at the end. More for everybody, so long as those who already have more get to keep it. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/98 "2017-04-12T13:14:28Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > You’re one to talk about dodging questions. Maybe when you provide a single cite I asked for in our previous ‘discussion.’ (I use quotes because it was completely one-sided as far as cites were concerned; you spent your time making excuses for not providing any.) > > You don’t get to direct what I will say, especially after the above. The ‘jump off a bridge’ defense is bullshit, regardless. Were Reid and McConnell both right, both wrong, or IOKIADDI? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/99 "2017-04-12T14:00:21Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Why do people keep saying “conservative majority” at the SCOTUS? Isn’t it 4 righties, 4 lefties, and Kennedy the deciding centrist? It’s also the same SCOTUS that voted 5-4 for _Obergefell_, so if anything Kennedy may lean slightly to the left. Not really. At the time of Kennedy’s vote, gay marriage enjoyed roughly 60% support nationally. So if you’re center-right–and especially if you’re highly educated and not an evangelical–you’re likely to have supported it as a policy matter. A better test of Kennedy’s political leanings (to the extent it is fair to judge them based on the outcomes of his judicial decisions) would be to look at issues that sharply divide conservatives, even center-right conservatives, from liberals: Voter ID. Voting Rights Act. Affordable Care Act. So-called “partial birth” abortion. Workplace discrimination. Bush v. Gore. On all of those cases, Kennedy sided with the conservatives. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012/100 "2017-04-12T16:29:26Z")
Huh? Voter ID laws are significantly more popular than gay marriage. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-winds-of-change-at-the-supreme-court/784012.md?page=6)