RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg!

[Cisairse]

Democrats should not add new justices to the court.

They should simply abolish all lower courts (which they are legally permitted to do, if they retake the Senate and presidency). If the SCOTUS matters so much to conservatives, they can handle the caseload.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

Democrats should not add new justices to the court.

They should simply abolish all lower courts (which they are legally permitted to do, if they retake the Senate and presidency). If the SCOTUS matters so much to conservatives, they can handle the caseload.

Bad idea; too much workload on too few people. Quality will drop. And it would just be out of spite.

[Cisairse]

Democrats should not add new justices to the court.

They should simply abolish all lower courts (which they are legally permitted to do, if they retake the Senate and presidency). If the SCOTUS matters so much to conservatives, they can handle the caseload.

Bad idea; too much workload on too few people. Quality will drop. And it would just be out of spite.

Yes, that is the general idea.

[Nazeroth]

Democrats should not add new justices to the court.

They should simply abolish all lower courts (which they are legally permitted to do, if they retake the Senate and presidency). If the SCOTUS matters so much to conservatives, they can handle the caseload.

You realize that would make the Democrats responsible for the "caseload" don't you?

[Elwher]

Democrats should not add new justices to the court.

They should simply abolish all lower courts (which they are legally permitted to do, if they retake the Senate and presidency). If the SCOTUS matters so much to conservatives, they can handle the caseload.

Article 3 Section 2 of the Constitution - "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."

Most trials have to be held in the State where the crime occurred, and not in Washington. Further, there is no jury in cases before the Supreme Court.

[Nazeroth]

Democrats should not add new justices to the court.

They should simply abolish all lower courts (which they are legally permitted to do, if they retake the Senate and presidency). If the SCOTUS matters so much to conservatives, they can handle the caseload.

Bad idea; too much workload on too few people. Quality will drop. And it would just be out of spite.

pretty sums up the Democrats behavior since Trump was elected

[Cisairse]

Democrats should not add new justices to the court.

They should simply abolish all lower courts (which they are legally permitted to do, if they retake the Senate and presidency). If the SCOTUS matters so much to conservatives, they can handle the caseload.

Article 3 Section 2 of the Constitution - "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."

Most trials have to be held in the State where the crime occurred, and not in Washington. Further, there is no jury in cases before the Supreme Court.

State court is out of scope of the federal government and thus out of scope of my post.

Congress can abolish all federal courts save the Supreme Court. My opinion is that they should do this.

[Elwher]

Article 3 Section 2 of the Constitution - "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."

Most trials have to be held in the State where the crime occurred, and not in Washington. Further, there is no jury in cases before the Supreme Court.

State court is out of scope of the federal government and thus out of scope of my post.

Congress can abolish all federal courts save the Supreme Court. My opinion is that they should do this.

Federal crimes must be tried in the State where the crime occurred, therefore there must be Federal courts in each state.

[Cisairse]

State court is out of scope of the federal government and thus out of scope of my post.

Congress can abolish all federal courts save the Supreme Court. My opinion is that they should do this.

Federal crimes must be tried in the State where the crime occurred, therefore there must be Federal courts in each state.

Not really. SCOTUS justices used to travel from state to state all the time; it would be trivial to reinstate this practice. Back in the day, this was due to SCOTUS justices presiding over circuit courts. With circuit courts abolished, the entire SCOTUS would need to physically travel to each state to try each federal crime in that state. Again, this is completely within Congress's power to enact.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

Federal crimes must be tried in the State where the crime occurred, therefore there must be Federal courts in each state.

Not really. SCOTUS justices used to travel from state to state all the time; it would be trivial to reinstate this practice. Back in the day, this was due to SCOTUS justices presiding over circuit courts. With circuit courts abolished, the entire SCOTUS would need to physically travel to each state to try each federal crime in that state. Again, this is completely within Congress's power to enact.

Spite is evil and your proposal has no significant benefits; its chief characteristics are spite and decreased quality due to overworking. Don't pack the court (that will be unfair and just end with a huge supreme court); Trump constitutionally must be allowed to nominate, and the Senate should at least consider the nominee.

[Picairn]

Don't pack the court (that will be unfair and just end with a huge supreme court)

As unfair as Republicans blocking Merrick Garland?

[Bombadil]

Has anyone noted that in Deadpool 2, when they're creating X-Force candidates, RBGs picture is the first one as Deadpool flicks through.. that's how bad ass she was.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7IPeilxCOE

[Picairn]

Has anyone noted that in Deadpool 2, when they're creating X-Force candidates, RBGs picture is the first one as Deadpool flicks through.. that's how bad ass she was.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7IPeilxCOE

The letters below says "Notorious RBG".

[Senkaku]

Democrats should not add new justices to the court.

They should simply abolish all lower courts (which they are legally permitted to do, if they retake the Senate and presidency). If the SCOTUS matters so much to conservatives, they can handle the caseload.

so instead of

democrats take power --> democrats take over SCOTUS --> democrats have unified control of all branches and can undertake sweeping political action

your proposal is

democrats take power --> democrats choose not to take over SCOTUS, but instead paralyze an entire branch of govt for no clear reason, while leaving the hostile upper echelon of that branch intact --> democrats are handicapped for 4 to 8 years as our judicial and legal systems implode like dying stars and bury their administration in the rubble

seems like a solid program for the achievement of your political desires, if your desire is nihilistic wrecking and inaction on existential political and ecological threats to the nation and the planet!

(it's fucking stupid. I'm saying your idea is fucking stupid as shit and idk why or how you even thought of it)

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Democrats should not add new justices to the court.

They should simply abolish all lower courts (which they are legally permitted to do, if they retake the Senate and presidency). If the SCOTUS matters so much to conservatives, they can handle the caseload.

so instead of

democrats take power --> democrats take over SCOTUS --> democrats have unified control of all branches and can undertake sweeping political action

your proposal is

democrats take power --> democrats choose not to take over SCOTUS, but instead paralyze an entire branch of govt for no clear reason, while leaving the hostile upper echelon of that branch intact --> democrats are handicapped for 4 to 8 years as our judicial and legal systems implode like dying stars and bury their administration in the rubble

seems like a solid program for the achievement of your political desires, if your desire is nihilistic wrecking and inaction on existential political and ecological threats to the nation and the planet!

(it's fucking stupid. I'm saying your idea is fucking stupid as shit and idk why or how you even thought of it)

I have nothing to add to that. So I'll just quote it.

[Senkaku]

I will also add that at this point talking about what the Democrats should do if they take power seems to make about as much sense as me talking about what I should do if everyone ahead of me in line for the French throne dies and I’m invited to assume the throne

[Salus Maior]

Democrats should not add new justices to the court.

They should simply abolish all lower courts (which they are legally permitted to do, if they retake the Senate and presidency). If the SCOTUS matters so much to conservatives, they can handle the caseload.

So you want to make regular people suffer even more because the Republicans are in control?

That's a shitty idea.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Democrats should not add new justices to the court.

They should simply abolish all lower courts (which they are legally permitted to do, if they retake the Senate and presidency). If the SCOTUS matters so much to conservatives, they can handle the caseload.

So you want to make regular people suffer even more because the Republicans are in control?

That's a shitty idea.

They own the libs, the libs own back.

[Punished UMN]

Democrats should not add new justices to the court.

They should simply abolish all lower courts (which they are legally permitted to do, if they retake the Senate and presidency). If the SCOTUS matters so much to conservatives, they can handle the caseload.

You do realize that such a huge caseload would necessarily mean investing a massive amount of power in the presidency, right?

[Greed and Death]

Democrats should not add new justices to the court.

They should simply abolish all lower courts (which they are legally permitted to do, if they retake the Senate and presidency). If the SCOTUS matters so much to conservatives, they can handle the caseload.

You do know matters of federal law can be handled in state court right ? What you propose is a Republican's wet dream.

[The Archregimancy]

It seems fairly clear at this point that Senator McConnell is expecting the Republican Party to lose both the presidency and the Senate this November; or at the very least thinks that it's more likely than no that the party will lose both.

If the Senator - who, whatever his strengths and weaknesses, is clearly not an idiot - thought that it was likely the party would win the presidency, then there would be no issue in standing by the 'McConnell Rule' from 2016, and wait until after the election before nominating a replacement for Ginsburg.

If the Senator thought it was likely his party would win the Senate, then there would be no issue in waiting until after the election to confirm a replacement, even if the nomination came through before the election. No one could realistically object to confirming the nomination between the election and seating the new congress if the same party was going to control the senate.

By pushing through both the nomination and confirmation hearings before the election - thereby additionally forcing vulnerable sitting senators to make uncomfortable choices - McConnell seems to have calculated that there's a strong possibility that the Democratic Party will end up controlling both the White House and both Houses of Congress from January; so if his party are going to be swept from power in the elected branches of the government, he might as well attempt to increase the conservative hold on the Supreme Court as some form of compensation as a counterbalance to the executive and legislative branches. The schedule is therefore the clearest evidence that McConnell thinks his party is going to lose the November elections; at least those taking place at the national level.

The Senate majority leader is, after all, far more of a realist than the sitting president, and isn't going to simply ignore opinion polls that don't comply with his particular version of reality.

[The Emerald Legion]

It seems fairly clear at this point that Senator McConnell is expecting the Republican Party to lose both the presidency and the Senate this November; or at the very least thinks that it's more likely than no that the party will lose both.

If the Senator - who, whatever his strengths and weaknesses, is clearly not an idiot - thought that it was likely the party would win the presidency, then there would be no issue in standing by the 'McConnell Rule' from 2016, and wait until after the election before nominating a replacement for Ginsburg.

If the Senator thought it was likely his party would win the Senate, then there would be no issue in waiting until after the election to confirm a replacement, even if the nomination came through before the election. No one could realistically object to confirming the nomination between the election and seating the new congress if the same party was going to control the senate.

By pushing through both the nomination and confirmation hearings before the election - thereby additionally forcing vulnerable sitting senators to make uncomfortable choices - McConnell seems to have calculated that there's a strong possibility that the Democratic Party will end up controlling both the White House and both Houses of Congress from January; so if his party are going to be swept from power in the elected branches of the government, he might as well attempt to increase the conservative hold on the Supreme Court as some form of compensation as a counterbalance to the executive and legislative branches. The schedule is therefore the clearest evidence that McConnell thinks his party is going to lose the November elections; at least those taking place at the national level.

The Senate majority leader is, after all, far more of a realist than the sitting president, and isn't going to simply ignore opinion polls that don't comply with his particular version of reality.

Or alternatively, he knows that leaving it open is just chumming the waters for the Democrats. Why people think it matters that they didn't want Obama to appoint a supreme court justice, but will do so themselves, I will never understand.

[Genivaria]

Democrats should not add new justices to the court.

They should simply abolish all lower courts (which they are legally permitted to do, if they retake the Senate and presidency). If the SCOTUS matters so much to conservatives, they can handle the caseload.

This. Is. A. Bad. Idea.
Like I get sometimes you play hardball but this isn't nuking the enemy it's nuking the republic.

[Senkaku]

Why people think it matters that they didn't want Obama to appoint a supreme court justice, but will do so themselves, I will never understand.

"why people hold others to their words or standards of behavior I will never understand"

[The Emerald Legion]

Why people think it matters that they didn't want Obama to appoint a supreme court justice, but will do so themselves, I will never understand.

"why people hold others to their words or standards of behavior I will never understand"

It's fucking politicians. None of them have a speck of honor.