The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

[Uncle Ted]

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:

I can't wait!

[SCcoug]

Mitt is on board.

Embedded Tweet

[Moliere]

Mitt is on board.

Embedded Tweet

As he should be. He didn't hold up the vote in 2016 since he wasn't in the Senate. He's not bound to the stupid statements of the GOP. I'm sure the Dems will hate him for this, but he's being very consistent in how he looks at things and votes. Good for him.

I do also love to see the Dems triggered over a conservative filling in a vacancy left by RBG. It's almost as good as the Dems passing Obamacare and exploding GOP heads even though is was based on a policy from a conservative thinktank and was originally passed at hte state level by a Repub governor.

[beefytee]

Yep. I agree. Mitt shouldn't be held responsible for the stupidity of the 2016 Senators.

Fill that seat!

[Uncle Ted]

Mitt is on board.

Embedded Tweet

#MittHappens!

The constitution is hanging by a thread and Mitt is here to save it!

[Harry Tic]

I wonder what the over/under would be on Romney. I’m guessing he’ll go along with Collins and Murkowski. I don’t see polls or re-election prospects being the deciding factor for him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Looks like I have a bright future ahead of me as a political pundit.

Since it costs so little to be wrong, here's my next bit of punditry: if Trump seats someone on SCOTUS before the election, he may very well (1) energize the Democratic base in ways that would have otherwise been impossible; and (2) lose a small but not inconsiderable number of Trump supporters who recognize that he is obviously a dangerous clown and want to be rid of him but were nevertheless supporting him precisely so they could control the Supreme Court. Mission accomplished, so let's get rid of the lunatic.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Mitt's announcement doesn't surprise me. I listened to the press conference this morning. He had nothing to do with the nonsense in 2016 so he could legitimately go either way. His argument is basically that the party in power has the right to control the process. I can respect that logic.

Here we go.

[Uncle Ted]

Looks like I have a bright future ahead of me as a political pundit.

Since it costs so little to be wrong, here's my next bit of punditry: if Trump seats someone on SCOTUS before the election, he may very well (1) energize the Democratic base in ways that would have otherwise been impossible; and (2) lose a small but not inconsiderable number of Trump supporters who recognize that he is obviously a dangerous clown and want to be rid of him but were nevertheless supporting him precisely so they could control the Supreme Court. Mission accomplished, so let's get rid of the lunatic.

Yeah, I think we can survive one term (or less) of Joe Biden... good trade.

[Harry Tic]

Mitt's announcement doesn't surprise me. I listened to the press conference this morning. He had nothing to do with the nonsense in 2016 so he could legitimately go either way. His argument is basically that the party in power has the right to control the process. I can respect that logic.

Here we go.

If we've learned anything over the last few years, it is that unwritten norms are just that: they are not binding (call it the McConnell-Trump doctrine). Good chance that the Dems release holy hell if they control the presidency and Senate next year. All bets are off as to where this ends.

[Bo Diddley]

If we've learned anything over the last few years, it is that unwritten norms are just that: they are not binding (call it the McConnell-Trump doctrine). Good chance that the Dems release holy hell if they control the presidency and Senate next year. All bets are off as to where this ends.

Yeah, I think best case scenario is Biden wins and GOP holds the Senate.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Embedded Tweet

[Uncle Ted]

If we've learned anything over the last few years, it is that unwritten norms are just that: they are not binding (call it the McConnell-Trump doctrine). Good chance that the Dems release holy hell if they control the presidency and Senate next year. All bets are off as to where this ends.

I am betting if this happens they will end up losing the house and senate in the midterms after they try to increase the number of supreme court justices to 21.

[Harry Tic]

I am betting if this happens they will end up losing the house and senate in the midterms after they try to increase the number of supreme court justices to 21.

And so it goes, with each side expanding the court when it takes the reins back. Eventually, the entire US electorate is confirmed as Supreme Court justices and we all vote, Ross Perot-style, on every case. Jurisprudence assumes its final form, becoming indistinguishable from direct democracy.

You heard it here first.

[cowboy]

Come on. The rhetoric makes the actions hypocritical. You can't conveniently separate the two.

I agree with you that the republicans created this mess by their actions in 2016. They should have just said, "We have control of the senate so we refuse to confirm the appointment until next year." But no, not only did they use the "the american people deserve to decide" nonsense, they doubled down and insisted that if the tables were turned, they would do the right thing and wait. Tough to get more hypocritical than that.

The crazy thing is that Garland was nominated in March. March is too close to the election, but late September is OK? Yeesh.

There so much craziness to this that it's hard to list it all. I didn't understand at the time why they thought they'd get a better nominee than Garland if Clinton, who was the presumptive winner of the coming election, were to nominate someone else. The only differences between now and 2016 is that we were certain to get a new president then while an incumbent is running now, and the Presidency and Senate were controlled different parties than. Considering the GOP doubling down in 2016, those distinctions don't justify the GOP acting differently without being hypocrites. Had the GOP simply refused to vote because they held the majority in 2016, they could now cite the other 17 justices who were confirmed between Jan 1 of the election year and Inauguration Day.

Two more things really bother me about this whole mess:

1) Roe v. Wade won't be overturned. I don't even see the Trump nominees voting to overturn it, and I certainly don't see Roberts voting to overturn. I see the issue as a Dem straw man. The most likely landmark case to be overturned, imo is Heller, but I'm not a legal scholar and will readily admit I may be wrong.

2) This shouldn't matter as much as it does. If Congress actually did its job and made laws, and if the Executive Branch didn't have the authority to impose de facto laws through rulemaking, the courts wouldn't have to be the peoples' only recourse.

[UVACoug]

Yeah, I think best case scenario is Biden wins and GOP holds the Senate.

I agree that would be best case scenario. But Republicans had to go and nominate morons like Martha McSally, who will be personally be responsible for flipping two Senate seats and a House seat in Arizona from red to blue in a matter of 2 years.