RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg!

[Sundiata]

It seems like it's coming down to Barrett or Lagoa, since I'm sure not a ton of people know much about the latter Politico did a brief writeup on her.

Honestly I kind of think that politically Lagoa would be a safer bet. She's a minority woman who passed through with a bipartisan vote to become a federal judge and doesn't seem to have much controversy surrounding her. That'd complicate things for the Senate Dems.

I do hope it's not going to be the former.

I know too much to argue or to judge.

[Shin-Mutsu]

It shouldn’t, because that man could be Biden and he would pick a far leftist to appease the Sanders block

Sanders isn't far left, and if the people elect Biden, the people elect Biden. If Obama couldn't nominate a justice in his last year, neither can Trump.

Calling Sanders a far leftist is like calling barley tea Darjeeling.
Barley tea is good, but in no ways delicious as Darjeeling.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Which the Senate did not do. In 2016.



Article II Section 2: "[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur"

Different wording. Stop digging.

The senate refusing to give a nominee a hearing

Stop digging. The Senate did no such thing. It was never put to a vote.

is within their power just as it's within their power to grant a hearing during an election year, 17 supreme court justices have been appointed during an election year by the senate,

... and hence, Mitch McConnell was a ten pound bag full of 170 pounds of shit, when he said there was no precedent "recently"

also to point out that no supreme court candidate has been appointed during a lame duck session.

Nice. I'll use that.

The senate refusing to give a nominee a hearing is part of their core role in appointments as a check on the president, which it exercises by not giving consent and simply by not acting.

No, I think "shall" is pretty strong. It allows for "cannot", if for instance they cannot raise a quorum, of if they try but fail to get it done before the end of their term. But "shall" does not cover "the President Pro Tempore declares the Senate shall not vote"

"The Senate" means the Senate, and they only ever do anything, approve or reject (or refuse to consider) by a vote.

You are defending the executive decision of Mitch McConnell who is NOT empowered by the constitution to make any decision to be passed off as the decision of the Senate.

One man blocked the Senate from performing it's constitutional role. And you are defending that. The Senate is the chamber which represents voters by their States. Think about that. Whose side are you on?

McConnell's main justification in 2016 is that it was too close to an election. If there was any constitutional support for blocking the Senate from considering Obama's nomination ... don't you think McConnell would have cited it?

This falls under Article 1 Section 5, which in part reads:...Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings...

Louis XIV: "The State? I am the State"
Mitch McConnell: "The Senate? I am the Senate"

[The Black Forrest]

The senate refusing to give a nominee a hearing

Stop digging. The Senate did no such thing. It was never put to a vote.

Well he does show one thing. The Republicans have taught us we don’t need to fill a seat for up to two years.

[Grinning Dragon]

The senate refusing to give a nominee a hearing

Stop digging. The Senate did no such thing. It was never put to a vote.

is within their power just as it's within their power to grant a hearing during an election year, 17 supreme court justices have been appointed during an election year by the senate,

... and hence, Mitch McConnell was a ten pound bag full of 170 pounds of shit, when he said there was no precedent "recently"

also to point out that no supreme court candidate has been appointed during a lame duck session.

Nice. I'll use that.

The senate refusing to give a nominee a hearing is part of their core role in appointments as a check on the president, which it exercises by not giving consent and simply by not acting.

No, I think "shall" is pretty strong. It allows for "cannot", if for instance they cannot raise a quorum, of if they try but fail to get it done before the end of their term. But "shall" does not cover "the President Pro Tempore declares the Senate shall not vote"

"The Senate" means the Senate, and they only ever do anything, approve or reject (or refuse to consider) by a vote.

You are defending the executive decision of Mitch McConnell who is NOT empowered by the constitution to make any decision to be passed off as the decision of the Senate.

One man blocked the Senate from performing it's constitutional role. And you are defending that. The Senate is the chamber which represents voters by their States. Think about that. Whose side are you on?

This falls under Article 1 Section 5, which in part reads:...Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings...

Louis XIV: "The State? I am the State"
Mitch McConnell: "The Senate? I am the Senate"

Yes I am defending that, as that is fine under the constitution just as I pointed out in Article 1 Section 5.
The senate is the upper chamber and is the states' house as each state gets equal representation by 2 representatives from each state.
A senate majority leader acts as the leader that is in charge of managing the senate. The senate majority leader is responsible of scheduling and managing all of the legislative matters that are to be proposed on the floor of the senate.

[Valrifell]

Did you know that even so much as nominating a SCOTUS Justice this close to the election is unprecedented, and getting a confirmation in so quickly (to squeeze it in) before the election) would also be unprecedented (post-war, anyway)?

Just the fun facts you get from following multiple political news blogs. I expect if it happens things will be disastrous, and if the Democrats get a majority there's nothing emotionally stopping them from abolishing the legislative filibuster and packing the court, because that will be the standard of politics.

[Major-Tom]

Did you know that even so much as nominating a SCOTUS Justice this close to the election is unprecedented, and getting a confirmation in so quickly before the election would also be unprecedented (post-war, anyway)?

Just the fun facts you get from following multiple political news blogs. I expect if it happens things will be disastrous, and if the Democrats get a majority there's nothing emotionally stopping them from abolishing the legislative filibuster and packing the court, because that will be the standard of politics.

They won't I don't think, they learned their lesson from Harry Reid, who made emotional decisions in how Senatorial procedures are done, and it's come back to bite them in the ass quite hard.

[Valrifell]

Did you know that even so much as nominating a SCOTUS Justice this close to the election is unprecedented, and getting a confirmation in so quickly before the election would also be unprecedented (post-war, anyway)?

Just the fun facts you get from following multiple political news blogs. I expect if it happens things will be disastrous, and if the Democrats get a majority there's nothing emotionally stopping them from abolishing the legislative filibuster and packing the court, because that will be the standard of politics.

They won't I don't think, they learned their lesson from Harry Reid, who made emotional decisions in how Senatorial procedures are done, and it's come back to bite them in the ass quite hard.

If the GOP forgets that there's no such thing as a permanent majority, then there's nothing stopping the Democrats from playing nice with that facade up. The base will be furious if there's a new Justice before November 3rd. It's also a great threat into pressuring the GOP not to confirm whatever Justice is nominated, this is a very consequential game of political chicken.

If the GOP shoves their nom through, and the Democrats balk, then that's bad politics. Every threat the DNC that violates norms would be rendered empty immediately.

We can consider the possible actions and their consequences.

The GOP shoves their nom through - they lose the Senate and Presidency - Dems go ham on the court
The GOP shoves their nom through - retain one of the Senate or Presidency - Gamble paid off, good job Mitch!
The GOP doesn't shove their nom through - they win the Senate and the Presidency - They get a SCOTUS nominee anyway.
The GOP doesn't shove their nom through - they retain one of the Senate or Presidency - Compromise candidate, probably still conservative or less liberal than RBG, a good outcome.
No nom - they get wiped - a liberal justice appointed - Oh well still a 5/4 majority with Roberts as a swing, IE status quo.

[Aureumterra]

They won't I don't think, they learned their lesson from Harry Reid, who made emotional decisions in how Senatorial procedures are done, and it's come back to bite them in the ass quite hard.

If the GOP forgets that there's no such thing as a permanent majority, then there's nothing stopping the Democrats from playing nice with that facade up. The base will be furious if there's a new Justice before November 3rd. It's also a great threat into pressuring the GOP not to confirm whatever Justice is nominated, this is a very consequential game of political chicken.

If the GOP shoves their nom through, and the Democrats balk, then that's bad politics. Every threat the DNC that violates norms would be rendered empty immediately.

It would be smarter for the Republicans to appoint one right now so there is a right wing Supreme Court in the long run

[Valrifell]

If the GOP forgets that there's no such thing as a permanent majority, then there's nothing stopping the Democrats from playing nice with that facade up. The base will be furious if there's a new Justice before November 3rd. It's also a great threat into pressuring the GOP not to confirm whatever Justice is nominated, this is a very consequential game of political chicken.

If the GOP shoves their nom through, and the Democrats balk, then that's bad politics. Every threat the DNC that violates norms would be rendered empty immediately.

It would be smarter for the Republicans to appoint one right now so there is a right wing Supreme Court in the long run

But that's presuming the Democrats don't keep their good word and stuff the Court, which is weird because even the VP is open to it as a possibility and the base is embracing it. It's not a risk I would take regardless of what Biden says, and he can't control stuff like the legislative filibuster since that's Senate rules.

See above for my opinion on the options and their logical outcomes. It seems to me that the safest bet with still-good outcomes is to not slam your nominee through. This particular gamble only works out in one outcome of, like, five.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It would be smarter for the Republicans to appoint one right now so there is a right wing Supreme Court in the long run

But that's presuming the Democrats don't keep their good word and stuff the Court, which is weird because even the VP is open to it as a possibility and the base is embracing it. It's not a risk I would take regardless of what Biden says, and he can't control stuff like the legislative filibuster since that's Senate rules.

See above for my opinion on the options and their logical outcomes. It seems to me that the safest bet with still-good outcomes is to not slam your nominee through. This particular gamble only works out in one outcome of, like, five.

If full court packing becomes a thing we're pretty much doomed anyways as a nation tbh

[Valrifell]

But that's presuming the Democrats don't keep their good word and stuff the Court, which is weird because even the VP is open to it as a possibility and the base is embracing it. It's not a risk I would take regardless of what Biden says, and he can't control stuff like the legislative filibuster since that's Senate rules.

See above for my opinion on the options and their logical outcomes. It seems to me that the safest bet with still-good outcomes is to not slam your nominee through. This particular gamble only works out in one outcome of, like, five.

If full court packing becomes a thing we're pretty much doomed anyways as a nation tbh

Oh relax, people will realize that it would be more prudent to spite the other side to set a max SCOTUS limit after, like, two transfers of power. If Congress wouldn't pass it then the state houses would.

[Washington Resistance Army]

If full court packing becomes a thing we're pretty much doomed anyways as a nation tbh

Oh relax, people will realize that it would be more prudent to spite the other side to set a max SCOTUS limit after, like, two transfers of power. If Congress wouldn't pass it then the state houses would.

It won't really matter, the judiciary will have lost any remaining semblance of authority or legitimacy by that point. It'll just be a joke of an institution that I'd be willing to bet an ever growing number of people will just ignore.

I give Justice Roberts a lot of shit but his fears and concerns about the courts image aren't entirely unfounded, especially nowadays.

[Genivaria]

It seems like it's coming down to Barrett or Lagoa, since I'm sure not a ton of people know much about the latter Politico did a brief writeup on her.

Honestly I kind of think that politically Lagoa would be a safer bet. She's a minority woman who passed through with a bipartisan vote to become a federal judge and doesn't seem to have much controversy surrounding her. That'd complicate things for the Senate Dems.

A Hispanic woman? And she's being put forward by TRUMP?
Honestly that alone surprises me.

Seriously though if she has little political controversy around her than that sounds like my ideal SCJ tbh, call me crazy but I still hold to the view that SCJ's should be politically impartial legal experts, not political appointees,

[The Black Forrest]

But that's presuming the Democrats don't keep their good word and stuff the Court, which is weird because even the VP is open to it as a possibility and the base is embracing it. It's not a risk I would take regardless of what Biden says, and he can't control stuff like the legislative filibuster since that's Senate rules.

See above for my opinion on the options and their logical outcomes. It seems to me that the safest bet with still-good outcomes is to not slam your nominee through. This particular gamble only works out in one outcome of, like, five.

If full court packing becomes a thing we're pretty much doomed anyways as a nation tbh

Yes an no.

Yes. If you are only installing ideologues like Kav and Barret (Gorsuch is a question mark at this point, Barret looks like she will decide before the arguments begin) who will be only about the conservative cause.

No. If you are installing a conservative like Roberts who at times will go against the cause because of the law.

The problem? It’s probably ideologues from this point out. Especially if they force RBGs seat.

[Aclion]

How is the senate "blatantly" disregarding the Constitution?

... and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other ...

Do you think the authors of the Constitution meant "The President and Congress shall, sometime, at the time of their choice, or never within their term, as they see fit, appoint or reject (etc) Judges of the supreme Court" ...?

And don't resort to precedent. Two wrongs do not make a right.

The authors never even intended for the supreme court to be limited to nine members. Literally the only requirement is the president nominates someone and the senate consents to their appointment. That's it.

Yes an no.

Yes. If you are only installing ideologues like Kav...

kav is literally our most moderate justice.

[The Black Forrest]

It seems like it's coming down to Barrett or Lagoa, since I'm sure not a ton of people know much about the latter Politico did a brief writeup on her.

Honestly I kind of think that politically Lagoa would be a safer bet. She's a minority woman who passed through with a bipartisan vote to become a federal judge and doesn't seem to have much controversy surrounding her. That'd complicate things for the Senate Dems.

A Hispanic woman? And she's being put forward by TRUMP?
Honestly that alone surprises me.

Seriously though if she has little political controversy around her than that sounds like my ideal SCJ tbh, call me crazy but I still hold to the view that SCJ's should be politically impartial legal experts, not political appointees,

Lagoa does have baggage. I have a post with a link a page or two back.

The one who would look ok is Thapar. His problem is he doesn’t have any formal stances on many issues in their causes so he won’t make it.


-edit-

Just to be nice

https://www.afj.org/document/barbara-la ... nd-report/

[The Black Forrest]

... and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other ...

Do you think the authors of the Constitution meant "The President and Congress shall, sometime, at the time of their choice, or never within their term, as they see fit, appoint or reject (etc) Judges of the supreme Court" ...?

And don't resort to precedent. Two wrongs do not make a right.

The authors never even intended for the supreme court to be limited to nine members. Literally the only requirement is the president nominates someone and the senate consents to their appointment. That's it.

Yes an no.

Yes. If you are only installing ideologues like Kav...

kav is literally our most moderate justice.

Moderate? When has he joined the opposition on rulings?

[The Emerald Legion]

The authors never even intended for the supreme court to be limited to nine members. Literally the only requirement is the president nominates someone and the senate consents to their appointment. That's it.


kav is literally our most moderate justice.

Moderate? When has he joined the opposition on rulings?

.... Almost every chance he's had to. He's an incredibly moderate justice.

[Crockerland]

It seems like it's coming down to Barrett or Lagoa, since I'm sure not a ton of people know much about the latter Politico did a brief writeup on her.

Honestly I kind of think that politically Lagoa would be a safer bet. She's a minority woman who passed through with a bipartisan vote to become a federal judge and doesn't seem to have much controversy surrounding her. That'd complicate things for the Senate Dems.

I do hope it's not going to be the former.

The Chad 2017 Trump: "I will appoint qualified strict constructionists who will be impartial and fair"
The virgin 2020 Trump: "I will appoint an extremist ideologue diversity hire, who has been a judge for 3 years, and has no respect for your inalienable rights as an American, for no other reason than she is a STRONG INDEPENDENT WOMYN WHO DON'T NEED NO MAN"

[The Black Forrest]

Moderate? When has he joined the opposition on rulings?

.... Almost every chance he's had to. He's an incredibly moderate justice.

Examples?

When I have seen Robert’s swing vote I did not see Kav.

Got a couple examples?

[The Emerald Legion]

.... Almost every chance he's had to. He's an incredibly moderate justice.

Examples?

When I have seen Robert’s swing vote I did not see Kav.

Got a couple examples?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kav ... %93present)

[Washington Resistance Army]

The authors never even intended for the supreme court to be limited to nine members. Literally the only requirement is the president nominates someone and the senate consents to their appointment. That's it.


kav is literally our most moderate justice.

Moderate? When has he joined the opposition on rulings?

A bunch of times. The Justice he has sided with most is Roberts, at 90%+. Amusingly enough he's far less of an ideologue than RBG was.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

... and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other ...

Do you think the authors of the Constitution meant "The President and Congress shall, sometime, at the time of their choice, or never within their term, as they see fit, appoint or reject (etc) Judges of the supreme Court" ...?

And don't resort to precedent. Two wrongs do not make a right.

The authors never even intended for the supreme court to be limited to nine members. Literally the only requirement is the president nominates someone and the senate consents to their appointment. That's it.

Whatever about the numbers. I said nothing about that, it's totally irrelevant.

Yes, the constitution states that the Senate "shall" consent. It fucking did not, in 2016. The Senate failed in its duty to kick McConnell out and put in someone who would let the Senate do its constitutional duty.

[Loben III]

Moderate? When has he joined the opposition on rulings?

A bunch of times. The Justice he has sided with most is Roberts, at 90%+. Amusingly enough he's far less of an ideologue than RBG was.

strange that liberals lived in fear of him to the point they dragged up a rape accusation that didnt fly.