The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

[Harry Tic]

The scotus has suffered tremendous damage? Why? From what I can remember from the latest round of opinions was that they did a good job and most people seemed pleased except for the far, far right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This piece from 538 is a bit dated (2018) but worth a read. "Tremendous damage" might be an overstatement. But it's not trending in the right direction. And if a hardline conservative is rushed on to the stage in pursuit of the ultimate prize—dismantling Roe V. Wade—SCOTUS will be widely perceived by both sides as nothing more than a political prize to be captured (not that it isn't seen that way right now).

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...timacy-crisis/

EDIT: I think that one of the reasons a lot of people were mollified (minus the hardline conservatives) by the last round of rulings is that CJ Roberts seemed to move to the middle: again, it suggests to me he is as interested in the public perception of legitimacy as he is in ideological purity. But that's a layman's perspective, of course.

[All-American]

Do you think the Senate hitting snooze on an appointment for 11 months until another president gets a crack at it is 'filling a vacancy' or 'court packing?' Super curious about your answer.

By definition it is neither. Not sure what you are getting at.

[All-American]

If you can’t see the difference between reality and “what my democratic friends” say they will do, then let’s just go back to talk about sports.

Biden has not endorsed expanding the court.

Sorry. I’ve seen enough to believe we are on notice.

[CardiacCoug]

So it was wrong to deny Merrick Garland an up or down vote but does that mean it’s wrong for the Repubs to try to get a justice confirmed here?

These institutions have been around for 200+ years and I don’t think the 2016 bad act by Mitch and his buddies necessarily has to bear on 2020.

Also I guess this is insensitive but why the hell didn't RBG retire at age 83 during the Obama presidency if she was so concerned about being replaced by another progressive judge?

[BigPiney]

So it was wrong to deny Merrick Garland an up or down vote but does that mean it’s wrong for the Repubs to try to get a justice confirmed here?

These institutions have been around for 200+ years and I don’t think the 2016 bad act by Mitch and his buddies necessarily has to bear on 2020.

Also I guess this is insensitive but why the hell didn't RBG retire at age 83 during the Obama presidency if she was so concerned about being replaced by another progressive judge?

I agree on her retiring. I think it was selfishness on her part to think she should stay on.

[All-American]

So it was wrong to deny Merrick Garland an up or down vote but does that mean it’s wrong for the Repubs to try to get a justice confirmed here?

These institutions have been around for 200+ years and I don’t think the 2016 bad act by Mitch and his buddies necessarily has to bear on 2020.

Also I guess this is insensitive but why the hell didn't RBG retire at age 83 during the Obama presidency if she was so concerned about being replaced by another progressive judge?

An interesting rebuttal of that last question.


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...iyZfVNfC_WyEmI

[Pelado]

https://twitter.com/TheBabylonBee/st...440119811?s=19

Embedded Tweet

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[wapiti]

I agree on her retiring. I think it was selfishness on her part to think she should stay on.

She and everyone else thought Hillary was a slam dunk. Big miscalculation on her part.

[Now who’s the dean?]

If you can’t see the difference between filling a vacancy and court packing then let’s just talk about brisket.

Could you explain the difference between refusing to add justices when your guy ain’t in charge and adding extra justices when your guy is in charge? Also, if whoever is in power should do whatever they can get away with, why shouldn’t either side start adding justices when they have the WH and the senate. Anything goes for the Trump humper crowd, right?

[wapiti]

The court has maintained a 5-4 slightly conservative bent for decades. Scalia's death threatened to upset that and the Senate played hardball to avoid it. Now we have another death that threatens to upset that balance but in the other direction. The cleanest way out of this is for Trump to nominate Merrick Garland. Such a move, of course, would at a minimum require a commitment from the dems that they won't pack the court. A compromise like this could put an end to the partisan fight that began when Harry Reid nuked the filibuster to get Obama's lower court judges through.

I realize it's silly for me to suggest that the word "compromise" is in Trump's very limited vocabulary.

[beefytee]

Also, if whoever is in power should do whatever they can get away with, why shouldn’t either side start adding justices when they have the WH and the senate. Anything goes for the Trump humper crowd, right?

Well, there is a law from the 1800's that says there are 9 justices. They would have to overturn the law, so it would take more than just the WH and the senate.

[SCcoug]

Could you explain the difference between refusing to add justices when your guy ain’t in charge and adding extra justices when your guy is in charge?

One requires control of the Senate. The other requires control of both houses of Congress + WH to update the statute.

Also, if whoever is in power should do whatever they can get away with, why shouldn’t either side start adding justices when they have the WH and the senate. Anything goes for the Trump humper crowd, right?

Most politicians want to stay in power. If they have the chance to pack the court and think they won't face a massive backlash or think it is worth the backlash they'll do it. McConnell's 2016 gambit didn't draw punishment from the voters in 2016 or 2018.

[Jeff Lebowski]

One requires control of the Senate. The other requires control of both houses of Congress + WH to update the statute.

Most politicians want to stay in power. If they have the chance to pack the court and think they won't face a massive backlash or think it is worth the backlash they'll do it. McConnell's 2016 gambit didn't draw punishment from the voters in 2016 or 2018.

The problem with packing the court is once you open that box, where does it end? No way are they going to take that chance.

[SCcoug]

The problem with packing the court is once you open that box, where does it end? No way are they going to take that chance.

I tend to agree.

[Non Sequitur]

Could you explain the difference between refusing to add justices when your guy ain’t in charge and adding extra justices when your guy is in charge? Also, if whoever is in power should do whatever they can get away with, why shouldn’t either side start adding justices when they have the WH and the senate. Anything goes for the Trump humper crowd, right?

Mitch McConnell is a piece of shit. An unholy piece of shit. Why should that be the standard? If a person's sole defense is that they're only being an asshole because their opponent would be a similar asshole given the chance, then that person is still an asshole. Why deliberately choose to be an asshole?