The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

[Northwestcoug]

I don't really see that strong of a current need for S.Ct term limits but I don't hate the idea. I do think it's odd that one president can get more "lucky" than others by having a bunch of justices die on his (or her?) watch, giving the opportunity to leave an oversized legacy.

Finally. A lukewarm reaction to my hobby horse. Thank you!

[Moliere]

Seems like a solution looking for a problem. No one's gonna live that long. Not even Ginsberg.

Also, on that proposal, I don’t like building partisanship into the Constitution like that.

What about Ginsburg?

[Bo Diddley]

What about Ginsburg?

I wondered when I was typing that if I was spelling it correctly. Now I know.

[falafel]

I don't really see that strong of a current need for S.Ct term limits but I don't hate the idea. I do think it's odd that one president can get more "lucky" than others by having a bunch of justices die on his (or her?) watch, giving the opportunity to leave an oversized legacy.

I was thinking about how a lot of really rich people are trying to extend humanity's lifespan and that "the first person to live to 1,000 has already been born". How would you all feel about a justice that gets nominated at 50 and then serves for 950 years? I decided that for myself, a term limit of 30 years or so would be a good idea.

Chris Traeger?

[All-American]

Cory Gardner, R-Colorado, issued a statement on the vacancy. On my drive to work this morning, I heard it said he would be the focus of much attention as a purple-state senator up for re-election this year.

He will vote to confirm (assuming a qualified nominee).

[beefytee]

Momentum!!!

Embedded Tweet

I'm certainly no lawyer, but the phrasing of that text seems horrible to me.

...the Senate leader of the party to which the President who nominated the Justice belongs...

What party are we talking about here? A political party? Why would you introduce political parties into the constitution?

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't really see that strong of a current need for S.Ct term limits but I don't hate the idea. I do think it's odd that one president can get more "lucky" than others by having a bunch of justices die on his (or her?) watch, giving the opportunity to leave an oversized legacy.

I was thinking about how a lot of really rich people are trying to extend humanity's lifespan and that "the first person to live to 1,000 has already been born". How would you all feel about a justice that gets nominated at 50 and then serves for 950 years? I decided that for myself, a term limit of 30 years or so would be a good idea.

That article is funny.

[Northwestcoug]

I'm certainly no lawyer, but the phrasing of that text seems horrible to me.



What party are we talking about here? A political party? Why would you introduce political parties into the constitution?

I didn't pay much attention to section 3. Once I read section 2 I was too giddy to read further

I think it's referring to the political party.

[USUC]

I've been going back and forth on what outcome I would personally like to happen. In a strictly utilitarian view, stripping away all the claims of hypocrisy and threats to pack the court, I want the president to nominate a judge and have the senate hearings and a vote before the election. Even though conservative judges are by no means perfect and they don't always decide in the originalist interpretation I prefer, they do it much more frequently than the judges appointed by Democrats. I would prefer a judge vetted by the Federalist Society than someone who believes in a living constitution and legislating from the bench.

I am a voter, not a hypocritical politician. I'm not the one who acted unethically. I see a vacancy is open, a chance to make the court more originalist, and a completely constitutionally sound process to do it. I don't have time for accusations of hypocrisy or to worry about threats from the left having a tantrum. Those are hypotheticals.

[CardiacCoug]

I've been going back and forth on what outcome I would personally like to happen. In a strictly utilitarian view, stripping away all the claims of hypocrisy and threats to pack the court, I want the president to nominate a judge and have the senate hearings and a vote before the election. Even though conservative judges are by no means perfect and they don't always decide in the originalist interpretation I prefer, they do it much more frequently than the judges appointed by Democrats. I would prefer a judge vetted by the Federalist Society than someone who believes in a living constitution and legislating from the bench.

I am a voter, not a hypocritical politician. I'm not the one who acted unethically. I see a vacancy is open, a chance to make the court more originalist, and a completely constitutionally sound process to do it. I don't have time for accusations of hypocrisy or to worry about threats from the left having a tantrum. Those are hypotheticals.

Yep I agree with all that.

Ben Shapiro is a nutjob but I’ve gotta agree with his podcast today which said pretty much what you said. Conservative judges are much more likely to rein in the executive and legislative branches and has there ever been a time when that was more important, regardless of who wins.

Government by “executive order” and legislating “from the bench” has to stop and conservatives are far more likely to do stop or at least slow down those things.

[UVACoug]

Yep I agree with all that.

Ben Shapiro is a nutjob but I’ve gotta agree with his podcast today which said pretty much what you said. Conservative judges are much more likely to rein in the executive and legislative branches and has there ever been a time when that was more important, regardless of who wins.

Government by “executive order” and legislating “from the bench” has to stop and conservatives are far more likely to do stop or at least slow down those things.

I think Charlie Cooke from National Review nailed it on this podcast:

https://www.nationalreview.com/podcasts/the-editors/episode-256-judicial-melee/

[Pelado]

I'm certainly no lawyer, but the phrasing of that text seems horrible to me.



What party are we talking about here? A political party? Why would you introduce political parties into the constitution?

Pretty sure he's talking about political parties and my reaction was similar to yours.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Pelado]

For all you Ben Shapiro fans out there:

https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1308057217635987456?s=19

Embedded Tweet

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Moliere]

Looks like the Democrats are gearing up for a fight: https://www.newsweek.com/amy-coney-b...s-tale-1533293

Love this anecdote at the end:

Correction: This article's headline originally stated that People of Praise inspired 'The Handmaid's Tale'. The book's author, Margaret Atwood, has never specifically mentioned the group as being the inspiration for her work. A New Yorker profile of the author from 2017 mentions a newspaper clipping as part of her research for the book of a different charismatic Catholic group, People of Hope. Newsweek regrets the error.

[Northwestcoug]

For all you Ben Shapiro fans out there:

https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1308057217635987456?s=19

Embedded Tweet

Leave it to a one-trick media critic pony to overhype something in the media:

It was noted by more than one source that only one senator—Massachusetts Democrat Ed Markey—has, since Ginsburg’s death, explicitly endorsed the idea of adding Supreme Court seats.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/democrats-balk-at-using-their-biggest-weapon-in-supreme-court-fight

I wouldn’t call Shapiro a nut job. He’s just a fundamentally unserious person. Why anyone would listen to a podcast of his is beyond me.