The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

[Uncle Ted]

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgo...cies-to-trump/

McConnell took the obstructionism of judicial nominees to a new level.

It's good to be king... of the senate.

[PaloAltoCougar]

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgo...cies-to-trump/

McConnell took the obstructionism of judicial nominees to a new level.

That was interesting, thanks.

[Katy Lied]

C'mon, admit it-- Bill had the class eating out of his hand, didn't he?
That guy has a ton of charisma.

[PaloAltoCougar]

C'mon, admit it-- Bill had the class eating out of his hand, didn't he?
That guy has a ton of charisma.

We weren't allowed to chime in, but the two instructors/leaders (Jim Steyer and Pam Karlan) were VERY deferential, pitching softball after softball. But yes, putting aside the small matter of his sexual predations, he's a charming guy with lots of interesting insights--probably the most politically savvy of any president in decades.

[UVACoug]

I just finished an evening class about the current election, with Bill Clinton as this evening's guest. He discussed, among other things, how GOP judicial confirmation strategy has shifted in recent years. He mentioned Hatch specifically who, when asked to confirm multiple Dem-sponsored nominees, would counter with a GOP-sponsored candidate. As long as the GOP-nominee was qualified and honest (and they usually were) Cllnton was happy to do some horse trading to get most of his nominations through. That changed with McConnell, whose stated goal was to block as many Circuit Court and Supreme Court nominees as possible (that's why Trump has been able to nominate so many more than Obama was able to get through).

Lots of other interesting thoughts presented tonight, including "We've had to deal with lots of bigotries in our history, but perhaps the biggest bigotry is not wanting to be around people who disagree with us."

It started long before McConnell. After Bush's second election in 2005, Democrats started filibustering his judicial nominees. There was a lot of talk about Bill Frist (the majority leader) and the Republicans using the "nuclear option" (i.e., eliminate the filibuster on judicial nominees) to get them confirmed. That's when the "Gang of 14," (7 Dems and 7 Republicans) made a pact to stop the filibuster on the current judicial nominees. Reid ultimately changed the filibuster rules in 2013 and McConnell extended Reid's change to apply to Supreme Court nominees in 2017.

[wapiti]

It started long before McConnell. After Bush's second election in 2005, Democrats started filibustering his judicial nominees. There was a lot of talk about Bill Frist (the majority leader) and the Republicans using the "nuclear option" (i.e., eliminate the filibuster on judicial nominees) to get them confirmed. That's when the "Gang of 14," (7 Dems and 7 Republicans) made a pact to stop the filibuster on the current judicial nominees. Reid ultimately changed the filibuster rules in 2013 and McConnell extended Reid's change to apply to Supreme Court nominees in 2017.

Both sides acted like they would never lose power and have to be on the other side.

[UVACoug]

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgo...cies-to-trump/

McConnell took the obstructionism of judicial nominees to a new level.

That's an interesting article. Two things it doesn't address, that I think are worth considering, are first, that Reid had changed the filibuster rules before Republicans took the Senate in the last two years of Obama's final term. That changed the whole game and I think helps explains why Republicans weren't willing to play nice with judicial nominations anymore. Reid changed the rule to get through 7 nominees that Republicans were blocking, which is less than what Democrats were blocking during Bush's second term until the "Gang of 14" pact. Second, while there is some discussion of the nominees "qualifications," there is no discussion about how Obama chose nominees. I don't know what the truth is on this, to be honest, but I know that historically lower court nominees were usually chosen based on recommendations from the home state senators where the judges would sit. Thus, it would make sense that Republicans would have no problem confirming a judicial nominee that they had a hand in choosing, even where they were nominated by a President of the opposing party. I believe that Obama generally followed that same tradition during the early part of his Presidency, but in the later part ... he picked more ideological nominees sometimes against the wishes of home state senators. I could be wrong on that though. I'm just going off memory.

[USUC]

It started long before McConnell. After Bush's second election in 2005, Democrats started filibustering his judicial nominees. There was a lot of talk about Bill Frist (the majority leader) and the Republicans using the "nuclear option" (i.e., eliminate the filibuster on judicial nominees) to get them confirmed. That's when the "Gang of 14," (7 Dems and 7 Republicans) made a pact to stop the filibuster on the current judicial nominees. Reid ultimately changed the filibuster rules in 2013 and McConnell extended Reid's change to apply to Supreme Court nominees in 2017.

You could argue that the shenanigans started with Bork, but the nonsense when W Bush was in office started in his first term (see my post above).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appointment_controversies?wprov=sfla1

I'm not versed enough in the history of this stuff to definitively say this escalation was started by Dems. But this BS that Mitch is the outlier is nonsense.

[Uncle Ted]

So neither Biden or Harris will say if they will pack the court...

You are just going to have to trust Joe. He won't publish his list of supreme court picks and say if he is going to pack the court.

"Will you shut up, man."

Harris won't say either...

Embedded Tweet

So just shut up and get in, you stupid basturds... you're ride'n with Biden:

[falafel]

Biden hasn't said he won't nuke the moon either. WHY WON'T YOU SAY YOU WON'T NUKE THE MOON, JOE???

[Uncle Ted]

Sen. Feinstein, Dems formally ask for delay in Amy Coney Barrett confirmation
Barrett's confirmation hearing is set for Oct. 12

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., led a group of Democrats to formally call for a delay in the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett until after the presidential inauguration, saying the process is too rushed to properly vet President Trump's pick.
[...]
Graham and Senate Republicans believe Barrett is supremely qualified and there's enough time to vet her, especially since she recently went through the rigorous process when she was confirmed in 2017 to become a judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

"The question for the country is, is [Judge Barrett] ready to be promoted? I think the answer is yes," Graham said this week. "I think she’s done everything anybody could hope a nominee for the Supreme Court would do in their life.”

“I think [Judge Barrett] is one of the most qualified people to ever be nominated to the Supreme Court," he added.
[...]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sen-feinstein-dems-formally-ask-delay-amy-coney-barrett-confirmation

Nope...

[Now who’s the dean?]

The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

Oh goody! Soon we’ll have a handmaid justice!!
Eff me.

[falafel]

Oh goody! Soon we’ll have a handmaid justice!!
Eff me.

[emoji58]

[Moliere]

Oh goody! Soon we’ll have a handmaid justice!!
Eff me.

It’s ironic that Mormons have an issue with this


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Commando]

Oh goody! Soon we’ll have a handmaid justice!!
Eff me.

She'll make a fine compliment to Thomas and Alito.