The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

[UVACoug]

Come on. The rhetoric makes the actions hypocritical. You can't conveniently separate the two.

I agree with you that the republicans created this mess by their actions in 2016. They should have just said, "We have control of the senate so we refuse to confirm the appointment until next year." But no, not only did they use the "the american people deserve to decide" nonsense, they doubled down and insisted that if the tables were turned, they would do the right thing and wait. Tough to get more hypocritical than that.

The crazy thing is that Garland was nominated in March. March is too close to the election, but late September is OK? Yeesh.

Whether the hypocritical rhetoric taints the actions or not, the actions are not at all surprising or unusual. What would be unusual would be for Republicans to sit on their hands and do nothing when they have the political power to fill a seat with their preferred candidate. I 100% agree that Republicans should have just said they were refusing to confirm Garland because they didn't want him seated and they had the power to stop it. It is obvious that that was the real motivation. I never understand what all the talk about the "Biden Rule" or leaving things up to the voters was about. Not surprising that that is coming back to bite them now.

Also, one prior example of hypocritical rhetoric/action does not establish a "norm" that can never be broken again. There is a long history of lame duck appointments to the Supreme Court. John Marshall was nominated by John Adams in January 1801 after Adams lost the general election to Jefferson. Marshall was confirmed unanimously within 7 days. Jefferson would have certainly picked someone else after he assumed office in March of that year. No one claims that Marshall's appointment was "illegitimate" because he was nominated and confirmed immediately following an election by a President that was leaving office. To the contrary, he is widely regarded as one of the greatest justices to ever sit on the Court.

[UVACoug]

I am really curious to see what Romney will do. He was not a senator in 2016, so he could legitimately go either way on this and keep his hands clean.

I don't think he'll block confirmation. If he does, I think it is a signal that he's not running again in 2020. It would not go over well in Utah and there really is no reason for him to do it. He's consistently voted with Trump on most issues, even after impeachment. I see Collins and Murkowski's statements as being more about abortion than anything else. Even if Romney personally wanted to protect Roe vs. Wade, it would make no sense for him politically in Utah.

[Harry Tic]

I don't think he'll block confirmation. If he does, I think it is a signal that he's not running again in 2020. It would not go over well in Utah and there really is no reason for him to do it. He's consistently voted with Trump on most issues, even after impeachment. I see Collins and Murkowski's statements as being more about abortion than anything else. Even if Romney personally wanted to protect Roe vs. Wade, it would make no sense for him politically in Utah.

I wonder what the over/under would be on Romney. I’m guessing he’ll go along with Collins and Murkowski. I don’t see polls or re-election prospects being the deciding factor for him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UVACoug]

On a different note (sorry for all the serial posts), I think Democrats need to be careful in how they respond to whoever Trump nominates. I think there is some decent evidence that their all out war/smear campaign on Kavanaugh in 2018 hurt them in certain Senate elections in the 2018 midterms. If they take the same approach this time, it could hurt them and galvanize potential Trump supporters in some swing states. I also think that if Trump nominates a woman, which seems likely, engaging in a full throated attack campaign could turn off a lot of voters. Even if the attacks are only made by lower level surrogates, Biden will have to answer questions about whether such attacks are justified or not. I'm kind of dreading the next 6 weeks, but also looking forward to the theater of it all.

[Bo Diddley]

I wonder what the over/under would be on Romney. I’m guessing he’ll go along with Collins and Murkowski. I don’t see polls or re-election prospects being the deciding factor for him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, who knows if he wants to even serve another term? After the whole impeachment thing, anything else is chump change. He's going to vote his conscience.

[Uncle Ted]

Yeah, who knows if he wants to even serve another term? After the whole impeachment thing, anything else is chump change. He's going to vote his conscience.

Speaking of impeachment... Time to start that sh*tshow up again!

Pelosi won't rule out using impeachment as option to stop Trump Supreme Court pick
'We have a resonsibility to meet the needs of the American people.'

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday would not rule out impeachment as an option to stop President Trump’s U.S. Supreme Court pick from being confirmed to the bench, saying Democrats will “use every arrow in our quiver” to block the eventual nominee.
[...]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pel...eme-court-pick

BTW, the Nancy bot needs to be rebooted or something...

Embedded Tweet

[Jeff Lebowski]

Speaking of impeachment... Time to start that sh*tshow up again!


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pel...eme-court-pick

Lol. Stop. That isn't going to happen.

[All-American]

I wonder what the over/under would be on Romney. I’m guessing he’ll go along with Collins and Murkowski. I don’t see polls or re-election prospects being the deciding factor for him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe I'm wrong-- goodness knows it wouldn't be the first time-- but I think Romney voting "no" is less likely than Collins and Murkowski eventually voting "yes." Sure, they say now that there should not be a vote, but there is going to be a vote. So the question is not going to be, should there be a vote or not, but whether, in the vote that will be held, they should vote "yes" or "no." And it wouldn't shock me if, forced to cast a vote one way or the other, they vote to confirm.

[BigFatMeanie]

Lol. Stop. That isn't going to happen.

That's what people thought about The Dump getting elected.

[Northwestcoug]

Momentum!!!

Embedded Tweet

[Applejack]

For the record, I think packing the court is a terrible idea and I highly doubt the dems even seriously consider it. It's bluster.

But if we are talking about "legality" as the standard for conduct in the Senate (as some on this site suggest), McConnell's actions are perfectly legal, but so too is court-packing; the size of the court is controlled by Congress (it used to be 6, for reference).

[Applejack]

Momentum!!!

Embedded Tweet

Lol. A law professor with an idea?!?!?!?! Tell the world!!!!!!!!

[Lost Student]

Momentum!!!

Embedded Tweet

I don't really see that strong of a current need for S.Ct term limits but I don't hate the idea. I do think it's odd that one president can get more "lucky" than others by having a bunch of justices die on his (or her?) watch, giving the opportunity to leave an oversized legacy.

I was thinking about how a lot of really rich people are trying to extend humanity's lifespan and that "the first person to live to 1,000 has already been born". How would you all feel about a justice that gets nominated at 50 and then serves for 950 years? I decided that for myself, a term limit of 30 years or so would be a good idea.

[Pelado]

I don't really see that strong of a current need for S.Ct term limits but I don't hate the idea. I do think it's odd that one president can get more "lucky" than others by having a bunch of justices die on his (or her?) watch, giving the opportunity to leave an oversized legacy.

I was thinking about how a lot of really rich people are trying to extend humanity's lifespan and that "the first person to live to 1,000 has already been born". How would you all feel about a justice that gets nominated at 50 and then serves for 950 years? I decided that for myself, a term limit of 30 years or so would be a good idea.

I don't think your Supreme Court term should be artificially limited. If, after 30 years, you decide to retire, then current law allows you to do so.

[Bo Diddley]

I don't really see that strong of a current need for S.Ct term limits but I don't hate the idea. I do think it's odd that one president can get more "lucky" than others by having a bunch of justices die on his (or her?) watch, giving the opportunity to leave an oversized legacy.

I was thinking about how a lot of really rich people are trying to extend humanity's lifespan and that "the first person to live to 1,000 has already been born". How would you all feel about a justice that gets nominated at 50 and then serves for 950 years? I decided that for myself, a term limit of 30 years or so would be a good idea.

Seems like a solution looking for a problem. No one's gonna live that long. Not even Ginsberg.

Also, on that proposal, I don’t like building partisanship into the Constitution like that.