The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

[Art Vandelay]

Garland wasn’t confirmed because of the GOP AND because the Dems were willing to wait for president Hilary.

[BlueK]

The GOP loves the constitution and believes it must be interpreted literally, well, except when it doesn't benefit them then we can throw it out.

Absolutely agree. That's how they've pushed me to to libertarianism.

[BlueK]

Garland wasn’t confirmed because of the GOP AND because the Dems were willing to wait for president Hilary.

What could the dems have done about it? The way the Senate works, there wasn't much, was there? They were the minority.

[Northwestcoug]

Well go ahead and continue to not remember where you heard that, because that idea is ridiculously stupid.

More stupid than what we have currently? Do tell.

[Art Vandelay]

What could the dems have done about it? The way the Senate works, there wasn't much, was there? They were the minority.

Good point. Perhaps it more public perception (mine included) that it was a mere formality, Hilary was going to get someone through, who likely was even more liberal leaning

[BlueK]

Good point. Perhaps it more public perception (mine included) that it was a mere formality, Hilary was going to get someone through, who likely was even more liberal leaning

They could have complained and screamed louder than they were, I guess, but that probably wouldn't have changed anything unless it would have moved public opinion to the point it would have scared the GOP into allowing hearings, which is highly doubtful. The GOP seemed pretty dug in on the extra-Constitutional and absurd idea that somehow the president didn't have a right to nominate someone in that situation.

[smokymountainrain]

Many people set out to drink because it lowers inhibitions. It plays out at closing time in millions of bars every night throughout the world. People hook up, men and women alike, and unfortunately sometimes guys confuse lowered inhibitions with license. When people are drunk, they don't ask permission and it only seems like sexual assault in the light of sobriety. I don't mean to trivialize sexual assault, but alcohol is a bastard and it brings out our most base thoughts and actions. So when I speak of people with drinking problems who regularly attend alcohol fueled parties I naturally assume there is an accompanying sexual component. Promiscuity goes hand in hand with alcohol abuse.

JS was indeed inspired. Praise to the Man!

[Donuthole]

The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

More stupid than what we have currently? Do tell.

If you really think allowing the president to unilaterally replace a SC justice each presidential term would create less of a judicial shit show, you probably need to think about that some more. Sure the nomination process would be smooth sailing, but I don't think I really have to spell out how volatile that would make pretty much every SC decision.

This nomination process is ugly. But you want a real shit show? Create a SC that flips-flops on issues every 4-8 years, depending on which party occupies the Oval Office.

[Northwestcoug]

If you really think allowing the president to unilaterally replace a SC justice each presidential term would create less of a judicial shit show, you probably need to think about that some more. Sure the nomination process would be smooth sailing, but I don't think I really have to spell out how volatile that would make pretty much every SC decision.

This nomination process is ugly. But you want a real shit show? Create a SC that flips-flops on issues every 4-8 years, depending on which party occupies the Oval Office.

I'm not just talking about the nomination process, but about the perception of what a life nomination does to the court in general. Diehards on both sides elevate picking a SC judge as the main reason to vote for immoral people for president, above all else. Making a SC justice decision less important takes some of the hysteria out of it. A single nomination shouldn't be perceived as being able to alter the course of the court for decades. A young judge will influence the court's decisions long past the political influence that brought him/her there. If there is a limited term, the influence on the court of 1 judge is limited.

If the court has staggered ~12-16 year appointments, and every president gets to nominate one, I fail to see how that would create a court that flip flops that suddenly. A conservative judge might replace a liberal one, and vice versa. But the next president can just as easily reverse that trend with the next pick.

[Northwestcoug]

Politics are the absolute worst. People are attacking Flake on an elevator because of his vote.

[creekster]

I'm not just talking about the nomination process, but about the perception of what a life nomination does to the court in general. Diehards on both sides elevate picking a SC judge as the main reason to vote for immoral people for president, above all else. Making a SC justice decision less important takes some of the hysteria out of it. A single nomination shouldn't be perceived as being able to alter the course of the court for decades. A young judge will influence the court's decisions long past the political influence that brought him/her there. If there is a limited term, the influence on the court of 1 judge is limited.

If the court has staggered ~12-16 year appointments, and every president gets to nominate one, I fail to see how that would create a court that flip flops that suddenly. A conservative judge might replace a liberal one, and vice versa. But the next president can just as easily reverse that trend with the next pick.

Your proposal would not only increase, rather than diminish, the politicization of the process, but it would likely play havoc with the processes of the Court and the stability of our jurisprudence.

[Jeff Lebowski]

If you really think allowing the president to unilaterally replace a SC justice each presidential term would create less of a judicial shit show, you probably need to think about that some more. Sure the nomination process would be smooth sailing, but I don't think I really have to spell out how volatile that would make pretty much every SC decision.

This nomination process is ugly. But you want a real shit show? Create a SC that flips-flops on issues every 4-8 years, depending on which party occupies the Oval Office.

Yeah. That would be a disaster.

[Northwestcoug]

Your proposal would not only increase, rather than diminish, the politicization of the process, but it would likely play havoc with the processes of the Court and the stability of our jurisprudence.

I’m not sure if it’s evident yet, but I’m arguing out of my element here. Still, I don’t see how nominating a term limited judge would be more political than nominating a lifetime appointment. By definition, the influence a term limited judge has on the court is less than what they have currently. If you decrease the potential influence a single judge pick has on the court, the politics surrounding that pick decrease.

I’ll take your word about the stability of jurisprudence. I have no idea about that.

[Babs]

In 12 years of ballet I never saw this much posturing.

[Bo Diddley]

I’m not sure if it’s evident yet, but I’m arguing out of my element here. Still, I don’t see how nominating a term limited judge would be more political than nominating a lifetime appointment. By definition, the influence a term limited judge has on the court is less than what they have currently. If you decrease the potential influence a single judge pick has on the court, the politics surrounding that pick decrease.

I’ll take your word about the stability of jurisprudence. I have no idea about that.

Think of it this way. You're increasing the number of political appointments. Also, what happens when two or more vacancies come up due to early retirement or death?