# Trump's Supreme Court nominee? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 20, 2020, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-supreme-court-nominee/921092 "2020-09-20T19:00:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2020, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-supreme-court-nominee/921092/361 "2020-10-27T19:06:33Z")
Someone’s got to say it. Yesterday, October 26, Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed as the 115th Justice of the Supreme Court. 52 Republicans voted to confirm her, with all 45 Democrats, both Independents, and Susan Collins (R-Maine) voting against. Justice Thomas administered the oath of office last night on the South Lawn (of the White House), at Justice Barrett’s personal request. Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath of office again this morning in the East Conference Room (of the Supreme Court Building, I think). ~Max ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2020, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-supreme-court-nominee/921092/362 "2020-10-27T22:39:41Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Republicans aren’t even playing by the rules they themselves unilaterally set much less rules long held in the senate. Most people call changing the rules in the middle of a game cheating. Any gains they get is tantamount to stealing. That seems too pat. It’s possible, in a sense, to characterize disregarding a mere norm as ‘changing the rules’ — in a situation where rules don’t actually get broken, and it’s not tantamount to cheating, let alone stealing. Maybe the Fosbury Flop is a good example? Maybe the first guy who pulled the hidden-ball trick, or iced a kicker with a timeout? The point is, there’s a _different_ sense in which literally changing a rule in the middle of a game _would_ be tantamount to cheating — the kind of thing where folks don’t even bother with terms like ‘tantamount’, but instead explain that, no, see, we’re talking about official rules instead of mere norms — but I don’t think that should get blurred together with the first type. Sometimes it’s fun to say that people who ignore norms are Breaking All The Rules; but it seems like taking that seriously is missing the point. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2020, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-supreme-court-nominee/921092/363 "2020-10-27T23:54:30Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > > [@Sherrerd](#): > > > > A person of integrity would have asked that the swearing-in take place at the Supreme Court building itself (as happened with Kagan and Sotomayor, as well as many others). > > Would that include [this swearing in ceremony](https://www.c-span.org/video/?48274-1/supreme-court-justice-swearing-ceremony) for a recent justice? Was Ginsburg about to be asked to rule on an election which Bill Clinton expected to lose? And thus would need a “friendly” Justice to vote his way? No? Then, no comparison. No problem with Ginsburg’s integrity; major absence of integrity in Barrett. ---
**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:** [October 28, 2020, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-supreme-court-nominee/921092/364 "2020-10-28T00:01:30Z")
This [article](https://www.city-journal.org/barret-appointment-supreme-court-power-shift) brings up something I hadn’t thought of before: Now that there are 5 conservatives on the Supreme Court, Roberts may be powerless in many cases to prevent a conservative outcome from happening. As such, it is more in his interests to vote with the majority than the liberal minority, because if he is with the majority, then he as Chief Justice gets to assign the opinion or write it, whereas if he were in the minority, the majority opinion is then written by someone else, thus diminishing his influence. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2020, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-supreme-court-nominee/921092/365 "2020-10-28T00:57:49Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > This [article](https://www.city-journal.org/barret-appointment-supreme-court-power-shift) brings up something I hadn’t thought of before: Now that there are 5 conservatives on the Supreme Court, Roberts may be powerless in many cases to prevent a conservative outcome from happening. As such, it is more in his interests to vote with the majority than the liberal minority, because if he is with the majority, then he as Chief Justice gets to assign the opinion or write it, whereas if he were in the minority, the majority opinion is then written by someone else, thus diminishing his influence. . That seems not-unlikely. I haven’t read the article but expect it mentions that Roberts would certainly be conflicted about such a course; he’s known to care about the Court being seen as legitimate. And strings of 6-3 cases will bring that into question. In any case, if we go either 6-3 or 5-4 for practically every decision, it will build public support for the idea of making the Court more independent and less partisan. And since getting a constitutional amendment (for term or age limits for Justices) passed is unlikely, the most practical and reasonable course of action would be for Congress to bring the number of Justices in line with the current number of Circuit Courts --thirteen. No advanced nation goes through the drama we do when a Justice retires or dies–because either they have term or age limits, OR they have more justices on their Supreme courts. A larger number of justices means less drama and more independence of SCOTUS. It would be more in line with the Framers’ design for three branches, employing checks and balances over ascendance of any one branch. That will increasingly be seen as the correct thing to do by everyone but the rabid right, I believe. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2020, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-supreme-court-nominee/921092/366 "2020-10-28T01:27:49Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > The point is, there’s a _different_ sense in which literally changing a rule in the middle of a game _would_ be tantamount to cheating — the kind of thing where folks don’t even bother with terms like ‘tantamount’, but instead explain that, no, see, we’re talking about official rules instead of mere norms — but I don’t think that should get blurred together with the first type. It is “tantamount” because it is all, technically, legal. You seem to think that because you can do a thing it is ok to do a thing. For example, see the massive voter suppression attempts we see across the country. The norm may have been (making numbers up) one ballot drop box for every 11 square miles in a county. Now they just put one drop box in regardless of how big or populous the country is. They dismantle mail sorting machines (all expensive and some even new) in an effort to slow down the mail. Justice Kavanaugh delivers a specious excuse to allow a grace period in Wisconsin for ballots to arrive because the mail was intentionally slowed down. Tossing ballots because of signature mismatches to the tune of tens of thousands of ballots. The list goes on. But in your world that is all ok because it is all, technically, legal. Most of us do not see the world that way. In your world: > _“But the ballot box was on display…” > “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find it.” > “That’s the voting department.” > “With a flashlight.” > “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.” > “So had the stairs.” > “But look, you found the box, didn’t you?” > “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”_ ~Douglas Adams, Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (with some minor modification by me) ---
**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:** [October 28, 2020, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-supreme-court-nominee/921092/367 "2020-10-28T01:33:50Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > That will increasingly be seen as the correct thing to do by everyone but the rabid right, I believe. The rabid right will probably be perfectly fine with expanding the Court to 13 justices…as long as it’s they who get to pick the 4 new justices. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2020, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-supreme-court-nominee/921092/368 "2020-10-28T01:42:33Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > But in your world that is all ok because it is all, technically, legal. In my world, some things _aren’t_, ah, technically, legal — and when someone ignores a norm or a custom, I react accordingly; and when they ignore a law, I tend to react very differently. Don’t you? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2020, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-supreme-court-nominee/921092/369 "2020-10-28T01:47:16Z")
When it goes to the heart of our democracy and it was norms that held it together rather than an endless litany of laws meant to curb every possible excess one could possibly imagine (probably impossible) then no, I don’t. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2020, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-supreme-court-nominee/921092/370 "2020-10-28T02:18:30Z")
Out of curiosity, does that work the other way around for you? If there’s a law I disagree with, I work to officially get it taken off the books; and I’d hope you do likewise. And if there’s a norm or a custom or whatever that lacks any force of law but also meets with one’s disagreement, then — what? Shrug while ignoring it? Smirk while flouting it? It seems to me to be a whole different kind of thing; how does it seem to you? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2020, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-supreme-court-nominee/921092/371 "2020-10-28T02:56:24Z")
Sure. These norms were held by both sides for most of our history. It worked both ways. I can ask you the same thing. If liberals gain control of the government and set about to thwart conservative voters at every turn and deny them their vote whenever possible will you still shrug it all away as fair game? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2020, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-supreme-court-nominee/921092/372 "2020-10-28T03:02:27Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > whenever possible You mean whenever legal, right? ~Max ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2020, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-supreme-court-nominee/921092/373 "2020-10-28T03:24:44Z")
How does a larger number mean more independence? The House has 435 members and I don’t see much independence there. The real issues are we have two dominant parties and will continue to have two dominant parties and that the Court has morphed into the dominant prize in politics and now there are sour grapes because it backfired. Which should be a lesson. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2020, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-supreme-court-nominee/921092/374 "2020-10-28T03:26:04Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > The real issues are we have two dominant parties and will continue to have two dominant parties and that the Court has morphed into the dominant prize in politics and now there are sour grapes because it backfired. You think there’s sour grapes now? Just wait until the ruling is handed down. You ain’t seen nothing yet. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2020, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-supreme-court-nominee/921092/375 "2020-10-28T03:26:59Z")
It didn’t backfire, it’s specifically a Republican thing to get their policy goals by packing the court. McConnell stole Obama’s placement. The Republicans allow the Federalist Society to choose their applicants. This is one party. One. The GOP. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2020, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-supreme-court-nominee/921092/376 "2020-10-28T03:40:58Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I can ask you the same thing. If liberals gain control of the government and set about to thwart conservative voters at every turn and deny them their vote whenever possible will you still shrug it all away as fair game? I’ve seen folks work within the law for causes I’m against, and I’ve opposed them by working within the law in turn; I don’t think that counts as shrugging, just like I don’t think it involves claiming that they’re breaking the law, and I figure I’d keep on keeping on going forward. And, at that, when I _have_ taken issue with folks who in fact seem to be breaking the law, I’ve — claimed that _they_ sure do seem to be breaking the law? There’s no “tantamount” about it; I just note, in such cases, that what they’re doing seems to be illegal — and that what other folks are doing, uh, _isn’t_. And I think some laws should be changed, and I vote accordingly and so on; but that doesn’t mean I talk as if something legal is _already_ illegal, or vice versa, because, y’know, carts and horses and the rest. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2020, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-supreme-court-nominee/921092/377 "2020-10-28T03:44:50Z")
Of course. But we have seen “legal” is a malleable thing. Ask justice Kavanaugh. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2020, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-supreme-court-nominee/921092/378 "2020-10-28T03:47:43Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I’ve seen folks work within the law for causes I’m against, and I’ve opposed them by working within the law in turn; I don’t think that counts as shrugging, just like I don’t think it involves claiming that they’re breaking the law, and I figure I’d keep on keeping on going forward. You seem to think the law is some magical balm that covers anything that is right and ethical. If somehow an injustice is done the law will cover it and if the law does not cover it than it is, by definition, just and ethical to do. Or, if there is an oversight and some unethical thing creeps through, the law will surely have it sorted in short order. Which is, of course, absurd on the face of it. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2020, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-supreme-court-nominee/921092/379 "2020-10-28T03:51:59Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > > > I’ve seen folks work within the law for causes I’m against, and I’ve opposed them by working within the law in turn; I don’t think that counts as shrugging, just like I don’t think it involves claiming that they’re breaking the law, and I figure I’d keep on keeping on going forward. > > You seem to think the law is some magical balm that covers anything that is right and ethical. If somehow an injustice is done the law will cover it and if the law does not cover it than it is, by definition, just and ethical to do. …I literally just wrote that I think some laws should be changed, and you cut the quote off to deliver the ‘magical balm’ line equating what’s legal with what’s just and ethical. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2020, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-supreme-court-nominee/921092/380 "2020-10-28T03:55:48Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > …I literally just wrote that I think some laws should be changed, and you cut the quote off _right there_ to deliver the ‘magical balm’ line equating what’s legal with what’s just and ethical. What you imply is that the opposition working within the laws sorts these things out. But the other side has stacked the deck against you by these very means and there will be NO WAY to work it out once the other side gets away with their power grab. This story is shown repeatedly through history. Hell, it happened in the US (see: Baker v. Carr). What Tennessee did there was absolutely legal and the only way to undo it was via legal means but the opposition would never have the ability to do that because of the very thing they were fighting against…which was legal. Good to see you are separating what is legal from what is just and ethical though. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-supreme-court-nominee/921092.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-supreme-court-nominee/921092.md?page=20)