The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

[UVACoug]

Two more interesting (if you are into politics) things about the court-packing/nomination issue:

1. I thought Trump would slow roll this nomination, allowing this issue to carry the day and give him a boost on election day ("I hate the guy, but he nominates conservative justices and there is an opening now, so..."). The fact that repubs did the opposite and are high-tailing to get this through the senate tells me that they know that they are unlikely to retain the presidency and/or the senate so they have to act now. Otherwise, we wouldn't you let it play out a little bit?

2. Why aren't the dems saying that they won't support court-packing? I have briefly described why it is a twitter pipe dream to pack the court, but there must have been some backroom meeting two or three weeks ago when EVERY dem was instructed not to answer that question. Biden (who has consistently opposed court packing) is suddenly mum as are numerous senate candidates who previously disavowed it. And it's not popular--you aren't gaining any votes right now by not talking about it and letting fox news publish multiple stories a day about the topic. I can only speculate but I think it could be because democrats view 1. the presidency as all but sealed up () and 2. most senate seats as pretty much set how they are going to come out and 3. viewing it as a negotiating chip with the repubs--i.e., ok, we won't pack the court (even though we could) in exchange for X.

What is X? DC statehood!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with this too. I don't think Trump/Republicans are correct in saying a non-answer is an indication that Biden and the Democrats are set on packing the Court. I think the opposite is actually true. Packing the court is not popular with the electorate and I can see several Democratic senators taking a stand against it. But if Biden comes out against it now, it pisses off the Democratic base and gives up leverage against the Republicans in the future. So he really can't say he's for or against it right now. It may make for some uncomfortable moments in the remainder of the campaign, but overall I think it is the right strategy, even if I would prefer him to reaffirm his solid position against court packing.

[PaloAltoCougar]

fus, stick around. And FTR, I've always been fairly conservative--the only times in 48 years of voting that I haven't voted for the GOP presidential candidate was '08 and '16. But i opposed the Garland (and other nominations) blockade, as I did some of the Democrat obstructions over the years (Borked!). But on the list of things I'd consider doing before I die, "Voting for Trump" is pretty much at the bottom, just below "Pound my gonads flat with a wooden mallet."

In related news, I submitted my ballot earlier this afternoon. Based on known votes thus far in California, Biden is carrying the state unanimously. I'm not, nor have I ever been, a big fan of Biden, but I think one let's oneself off the hook by voting third party in an election like this one. There are only two people who can win this election, and I think one needs to take some responsibility for Biden if one rejects Trump, which I do enthusiastically. I fully expect to have a lot of problems with a Biden/Harris administration, but I also expect all of those problems to fall within the spectrum of normal political disagreements. I want to obliterate Trumpism.

[Now who’s the dean?]

The biggest difference in failing to fill seats vs court packing that I see is that one is easily reversible and the other is not.

If there are empty seats, they just get filled when someone is willing to fill them. There is no undoing court packing.

Of course there is a way to undo court packing. We just don’t do it. Like we used to not refuse to fill openings until our guy was nominating.

[Commando]

You know Trump would have been wicked smart to nominate Merrick Garland. Too bad (or good thing) smart is one thing he's not...

[Jeff Lebowski]

You know Trump would have been wicked smart to nominate Merrick Garland. Too bad (or good thing) smart is one thing he's not...

Haha. That would have been funny.

[Commando]

Haha. That would have been funny.

OMG can you imagine the swing state nightmares he'd cause for Biden? I'm glad it didn't happen. I can stomach another conservative judge. I can't stomach 4 more years of Trump policy-making.

[SCcoug]

OMG can you imagine the swing state nightmares he'd cause for Biden? I'm glad it didn't happen. I can stomach another conservative judge. I can't stomach 4 more years of Trump policy-making.

That would turn off all the "But Gorsuch" voters and be in a much bigger hole than he is now.

[Commando]

That would turn off all the "But Gorsuch" voters and be in a much bigger hole than he is now.

Maybe. I think Trump voters have an extremely strong stomach, though. I feel like they'll find a way to feel good about Trump no matter what.

[beefytee]

I agree with this too. I don't think Trump/Republicans are correct in saying a non-answer is an indication that Biden and the Democrats are set on packing the Court. I think the opposite is actually true. Packing the court is not popular with the electorate and I can see several Democratic senators taking a stand against it. But if Biden comes out against it now, it pisses off the Democratic base and gives up leverage against the Republicans in the future. So he really can't say he's for or against it right now. It may make for some uncomfortable moments in the remainder of the campaign, but overall I think it is the right strategy, even if I would prefer him to reaffirm his solid position against court packing.

Of course there is a way to undo court packing. We just don’t do it. Like we used to not refuse to fill openings until our guy was nominating.

Well, until the next guy comes in and fills it. You'd have to have a rollback law that prevented those positions from being filled in the future. You'd need similar control of the legislative and executive branch to undo it.

[wapiti]

wapiti electronically wearing a MAGA hat while saying he doesn’t support the president just policies

What the hell?

[Uncle Ted]

Also, as a historical matter, the Supreme Court used to be six, so just expanding the court is not something to be afraid of on a constitutional level.

Still is a bad idea.

We should increase the number to 50, one for each state. The president would still nominate someone to fill an empty seat but it has to be out of a pool that the state creates. In case of a tie the VP would cast the final vote.

As for DC, etc. becoming a state that is a dumbass idea.

[Jeff Lebowski]

We should increase the number to 50, one for each state. The president would still nominate someone to fill an empty seat but it has to be out of a pool that the state creates. In case of a tie the VP would cast the final vote.

As for DC, etc. becoming a state that is a dumbass idea.

Great idea.

Unless it gets too conservative. Then we should expand to 100.

[Applejack]

We should increase the number to 50, one for each state. The president would still nominate someone to fill an empty seat but it has to be out of a pool that the state creates. In case of a tie the VP would cast the final vote.

As for DC, etc. becoming a state that is a dumbass idea.

51 is coming

[Uncle Ted]

Great idea.

Unless it gets too conservative. Then we should expand to 100.

I have read the number of states that are considered to be conservative has dropped to 39... So that sounds about right.

[Moliere]

The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

We should increase the number to 50, one for each state. The president would still nominate someone to fill an empty seat but it has to be out of a pool that the state creates. In case of a tie the VP would cast the final vote.

As for DC, etc. becoming a state that is a dumbass idea.

Why should Wyoming get as much say as California?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk