The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

[Sullyute]

Embedded Tweet

Not sure why he used red to highlight those few lines. First, aesthetically speaking it looks like it was a draft version or was supposed to be crossed out. Second, the statements are already concise, no need to highlight anything.

[Pelado]

I agree that would be best case scenario. But Republicans had to go and nominate morons like Martha McSally, who will be personally be responsible for flipping two Senate seats and a House seat in Arizona from red to blue in a matter of 2 years.

Impressive. Secret agent Democrat?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[UVACoug]

There so much craziness to this that it's hard to list it all. I didn't understand at the time why they thought they'd get a better nominee than Garland if Clinton, who was the presumptive winner of the coming election, were to nominate someone else. The only differences between now and 2016 is that we were certain to get a new president then while an incumbent is running now, and the Presidency and Senate were controlled different parties than. Considering the GOP doubling down in 2016, those distinctions don't justify the GOP acting differently without being hypocrites. Had the GOP simply refused to vote because they held the majority in 2016, they could now cite the other 17 justices who were confirmed between Jan 1 of the election year and Inauguration Day.

Two more things really bother me about this whole mess:

1) Roe v. Wade won't be overturned. I don't even see the Trump nominees voting to overturn it, and I certainly don't see Roberts voting to overturn. I see the issue as a Dem straw man. The most likely landmark case to be overturned, imo is Heller, but I'm not a legal scholar and will readily admit I may be wrong.

2) This shouldn't matter as much as it does. If Congress actually did its job and made laws, and if the Executive Branch didn't have the authority to impose de facto laws through rulemaking, the courts wouldn't have to be the peoples' only recourse.

I think you're probably right on that, which may be counterproductive to what the left actually wants. With Roe v. Wade on the books, abortion policy remains largely in the hands of a 6-3, conservative leaning Supreme Court. If Roe v. Wade is tossed out, Democrats would have a lot more leeway to pass legislation protecting it (including on the federal level). If Roe v. Wade is not overturned, the Court is likely to significantly limit its scope while interfering with the ability to pass contrary policy through the democratic process.

[Uncle Ted]

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.

In 2016 the Gop'ers controlled the senate... they were just going to shoot down Garland anyways. They just were saving the tax payers money.

[Moliere]

Not sure why he used red to highlight those few lines.

Agreed, he should only use blue

[Jeff Lebowski]

Not sure why he used red to highlight those few lines. First, aesthetically speaking it looks like it was a draft version or was supposed to be crossed out. Second, the statements are already concise, no need to highlight anything.

Agreed. I thought that was odd.

[SeattleUte]

We’re hearing this talk about how democrats don’t respect the Constitution because they just want to write their own narrative. Sigh. Senator Lee is especially annoying to me when he does this, all breathlessly and halting.

It's not that democrats don't respect the Supreme Court and just want to use it as a tool to achieve political ends. It's about differing perceptions of the Constitution. Is it a static, "dead" document, or a living one given life by evolving judicial interpretation. (Scalia himself said it's dead not alive.) The conservative justices are just as disingenuous, maybe even more. They use the original intent doctrine as purported self-restraint on their purported unchecked power, but the political ends they seek are very apparent. Also, the Constitution is indeed 230 years old, and a document shot through with vagueness, ambiguity and gaps--maybe intentionally, but still a flawed document that is old. We also have seen that their power is not unchecked. Fortunately, the Supreme Court too is constrained by political power and will of the people. Its current level of importance and current form are not guaranteed. All of the Supreme Court's great civil rights opinions have occurred through liberal majorities. On the other hand, before 1954 the Supreme Court was mostly benighted with respect to civil rights. There are some downright evil opinions. That is where original intent had us.

[Brian]

It seems that the desire for judicial change is more important than anything else. As long as the orange menace gives them the judges they want, he can do as he pleases.
I get that they are ramrodding this through because they can. I also wonder if they are doing it now because they are afraid they will lose both the whitehouse and senate in nov. But then, nothing from Mitch would surprise me.

[USUC]

It seems that the desire for judicial change is more important than anything else. As long as the orange menace gives them the judges they want, he can do as he pleases.
I get that they are ramrodding this through because they can. I also wonder if they are doing it now because they are afraid they will lose both the whitehouse and senate in nov. But then, nothing from Mitch would surprise me.

The latest odds I'm seeing is that the Dems have a 75% chance to take the Senate and an 85% chance to take the White House. So they probably know that chances aren't in their favor either way. But I concur with what others have said, my wish is for a Biden victory but a GOP controlled Senate.

[SeattleUte]

If Repulicans ram this through, and democrats win the presidency and the senate, democrat majority may expand the court. I doubt it will happen. But I never imagined Trump would be elected. The world is more fluid than we perceive. It wouldn't be the end of the world, though. Judges are by their very nature essentially conservative, believing in incremental change and sticking with precedent.

[PaloAltoCougar]

The latest odds I'm seeing is that the Dems have a 75% chance to take the Senate and an 85% chance to take the White House. So they probably know that chances aren't in their favor either way. But I concur with what others have said, my wish is for a Biden victory but a GOP controlled Senate.

Mine is for the GOP retaining control but without McConnell and Graham. Perchance to dream...

[Now who’s the dean?]

We’re hearing this talk about how democrats don’t respect the Constitution because they just want to write their own narrative. Sigh. Senator Lee is especially annoying to me when he does this, all breathlessly and halting.

It's not that democrats don't respect the Supreme Court and just want to use it as a tool to achieve political ends. It's about differing perceptions of the Constitution. Is it a static, "dead" document, or a living one given life by evolving judicial interpretation. (Scalia himself said it's dead not alive.) The conservative justices are just as disingenuous, maybe even more. They use the original intent doctrine as purported self-restraint on their purported unchecked power, but the political ends they seek are very apparent. Also, the Constitution is indeed 230 years old, and a document shot through with vagueness, ambiguity and gaps--maybe intentionally, but still a flawed document that is old. We also have seen that their power is not unchecked. Fortunately, the Supreme Court too is constrained by political power and will of the people. Its current level of importance and current form are not guaranteed. All of the Supreme Court's great civil rights opinions have occurred through liberal majorities. On the other hand, before 1954 the Supreme Court was mostly benighted with respect to civil rights. There are some downright evil opinions. That is where original intent had us.

[emoji106][emoji106][emoji106]

[SeattleUte]

Mine is for the GOP retaining control but without McConnell and Graham. Perchance to dream...

I'm ready For the democrats to be in charge. They're more moderate than Republicans when they are in control of the executive and Congress. Republicans blew it.

[Brian]

Mine is for the GOP retaining control but without McConnell and Graham. Perchance to dream...

I hope. Those bastards need to pay for their treason. I hope getting their judges was worth how the history books will view them.
I hope the GOP has some spine left to replace their leadership.

[Brian]

The latest odds I'm seeing is that the Dems have a 75% chance to take the Senate and an 85% chance to take the White House. So they probably know that chances aren't in their favor either way. But I concur with what others have said, my wish is for a Biden victory but a GOP controlled Senate.

I know, I know.
But fool me once....