SCOTUS and whatnot

[1984Echoes]

37 minutes ago, smr-nj said:

Ummm… this choice now is / SHOULD have been non-controversial. 

So, you know what? The hell with trying to appease that side of the aisle, because there’s NO ONE they won’t paint as extreme Commie-loving pinkos.

It’s disgusting.

You don't seem to understand what I am stating.

KBJ will get some Republican support because she's replacing a liberal judge.

The SCOTUS Nominee to replace Clarence Thomas, if Biden chooses, will get ZERO Republican support so it better be a centrist juror. There's no appeasement there. That's just political reality.

[1984Echoes]

1 hour ago, CMRivdogs said:

Doesn't matter, if Beijing Mitch is Senate Leader, he'll declare it's an election year somewhere and delay the selection. Biden should call Lady Linsey's bluff and nominate Michelle Childs (who Graham suggested this time around)

Before the next Senate electors are seated, Biden will still have the majority, 51-50. And if the Dems somehow hold onto the Senate after the 2022 elections, they will still have their 51-50 majority... save any Dem Senator deaths/ early retirements in a Republican controlled state.

I specifically stated that in my next post.

[gehringer_2]

So if Thompson vs Clark is any indication, the better description of the Supreme court should be the one of three camps, which I would call:  The libs (Sotomayor, Kagan, soon to be Brown), the conservatives (The Chief, Kavanaugh and Barrett), and the crazies (Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch). This was a sort of a narrow, maybe call it minor, ruling but it shows how really off the wall the three crazies are. This was about the bar for admitting claims of malicious/wrongful prosecution. The question was whether the claimant needed a positive disposition to his case, such as acquittal, to pursue a case. The crazy wing all said yes, which is clearly ..well crazy... since that means that any prosecutor could make themselves immune from any level of mal-practice as long as after they had finished abusing a citizen in all kinds of manner that a prosecutor can, they dismissed or withdrew the case before a trial verdict. How is this even a serious question? 6-3 with all the 'conservatives' with the libs.

And Buddha's supposition that Kavanaugh follows the Chief holds in this one.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/04/supreme-court-police-lawsuits/

Edited April 5, 2022 by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

11 hours ago, 1984Echoes said:

You don't seem to understand what I am stating.

KBJ will get some Republican support because she's replacing a liberal judge.

The SCOTUS Nominee to replace Clarence Thomas, if Biden chooses, will get ZERO Republican support so it better be a centrist juror. There's no appeasement there. That's just political reality.

If nominating a centrist justice will yield zero Republican votes anyway, then why had it better be a centrist justice?

[oblong]

59 minutes ago, chasfh said:

If nominating a centrist justice will yield zero Republican votes anyway, then why had it better be a centrist justice?

right.  If the Dems still have the 50/50 lead, or control, then Biden can do what he wants if one of the conservative openings comes up.  If the GOP has control then BIden won't be able to do anything.  McConnell will hold the seat open for as long as he needs to.  That precedent has been set.  That's one of the talking points that should be raised when discussing court expansion.  The Leader can now keep seats open until their party takes office and they can also rush through nominations  a few weeks before the election.  Because of that there should be more justices so that a single person can't have such a sway.

 

[smr-nj]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

If nominating a centrist justice will yield zero Republican votes anyway, then why had it better be a centrist justice?

 

2 minutes ago, oblong said:

right.  If the Dems still have the 50/50 lead, or control, then Biden can do what he wants if one of the conservative openings comes up.  If the GOP has control then BIden won't be able to do anything.  McConnell will hold the seat open for as long as he needs to.  That precedent has been set.  That's one of the talking points that should be raised when discussing court expansion.  The Leader can now keep seats open until their party takes office and they can also rush through nominations  a few weeks before the election.  Because of that there should be more justices so that a single person can't have such a sway.

 

That was my point with my previous answer. 

[oblong]

1 minute ago, smr-nj said:

 

That was my point with my previous answer. 

but we had to mansplain it 😍

 

a few weeks ago in one of our fitness classes the instructor was counting off and then wanted to check some people's form so she asked my wife to count.  My wife starts counting and then this other guy starts counting too.. I guess her counting wasn't good enough.  He had to "man count".

 

[buddha]

55 minutes ago, oblong said:

right.  If the Dems still have the 50/50 lead, or control, then Biden can do what he wants if one of the conservative openings comes up.  If the GOP has control then BIden won't be able to do anything.  McConnell will hold the seat open for as long as he needs to.  That precedent has been set.  That's one of the talking points that should be raised when discussing court expansion.  The Leader can now keep seats open until their party takes office and they can also rush through nominations  a few weeks before the election.  Because of that there should be more justices so that a single person can't have such a sway.

 

how many judges do you want on the supreme court?  19?  39?  should we just keep adding them whenever one side gets a majority?

[oblong]

23 minutes ago, buddha said:

how many judges do you want on the supreme court?  19?  39?  should we just keep adding them whenever one side gets a majority?

Why not?  We subtract them now when one side gets a majority.    So why not add?  What's the difference?

I don't know the answer to that and don't need to know the answer.  We don't make decisions based on extreme examples.  It's not prescribed in the constitution so it's up to the people to decide I guess.  Maybe the answer is recess appointments when a vacancy opens up due to death so that the games played by The Majority Leader have less of an impact.  

 

[gehringer_2]

7 minutes ago, oblong said:

Why not?  We subtract them now when one side gets a majority. 

 

right - the Dems should make one appointment in advance while they have the majority in anticipation of the GOP sitting on the Biden's next appointment. How could your argue it would not be justified? (well at least with a straight face....)

[oblong]

27 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

right - the Dems should make one appointment in advance while they have the majority in anticipation of the GOP sitting on the Biden's next appointment. How could your argue it would not be justified? (well at least with a straight face....)

Lindsey Graham even said he wouldn't vote for a nominee if Trump could make one in 2020 and explicity said to remind him he said that....then in 2020 changed his mind because they were mean to BK.

If Biden were to get another pick he should nominate the black judge from SC that Graham said he wanted.... then let him try to walk that back.  He will of course but for entertainment purposes.  Then I'd like to hear the GOP confirm their racism by saying that two black women on the court is just too much.... nevermind we are and have been fine with more than 2 white men.

 

[buddha]

39 minutes ago, oblong said:

Why not?  We subtract them now when one side gets a majority.    So why not add?  What's the difference?

I don't know the answer to that and don't need to know the answer.  We don't make decisions based on extreme examples.  It's not prescribed in the constitution so it's up to the people to decide I guess.  Maybe the answer is recess appointments when a vacancy opens up due to death so that the games played by The Majority Leader have less of an impact.  

 

what mcconnell did wasnt subtracting the number.  there arent 8 justices now even if there was for a very short period of time.

i think you open a big can of worms if you just increase the number of justices willy nilly because youre in charge temporarily.

it compunds mcconnell's error and would erode the legitimacy of the court, for those of us who care about such things.  i recognize that not everyone does.

[Mr.TaterSalad]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

how many judges do you want on the supreme court?  19?  39?  should we just keep adding them whenever one side gets a majority?

There needs to be two added to make up for McConnell stealing the Merrick Garland nomination. One for Garland not being added and one to ensure an odd number of justices remain. And the court has never had legitimacy as it excluded women and persons of color for generations. It's also proven itself a circus when it views corporate entities the same as living, breathing human beings, with the same rights.

Edited April 5, 2022 by Mr.TaterSalad

[oblong]

McConnell decided the court only needed 8 justices.  He made that decision on his own.  Then he decided it needed 9 again, all based on some made up standard that he then explicitly changed 4 years later.

The legitimacy of the court is already shot so just play the politics. 

[buddha]

1 minute ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

There needs to be two added to make up for McConnell stealing the Merrick Garland nomination. One for Garland not being added and one to ensure an odd number of justices remain.

and when president desantis comes into office in 2024, youre ok with him adding three more justices?  or 5 more?

[CMRivdogs]

I prefer an even dozen, why? No reason other than the day is split into 2 12 hour segments and it makes sense. I’m sure Ben Franklin would agree.

Also kill the lifetime appointments Make it 9 years. They can be reappointed if a President desires, but they have to go thru confirmation again.

[Mr.TaterSalad]

4 minutes ago, buddha said:

and when president desantis comes into office in 2024, youre ok with him adding three more justices?  or 5 more?

As many as he wants. And then when the next Dem comes in they add or subtract as well. The Supreme Court is a political hot potato thanks to both parties and that's just the way it is. We cannot just shrug our shoulders while women get arrested for having abortions, LGBTQ rights get reversed, marriage equality gets overturned, trans people get treated as lessthan or subhuman, voting rights get stripped away, union rights get stripped away, corporations are allowed run amuck on democracy and campaign finance, etc. I'm not going to hold up institutional norms for the sake of it when one political party, including many of their judicial appointments, don't even believe in the core principals of a free and democratic society anymore. I'm not watching Viktor Orban Jr. (Trump) and his minions turn us into an autocratic kleptocracy ala Hungary and destroy our democracy all for the sake of protecting "institutional norms" of years gone by.

I would also favor adding term limits to all judicial appointments, not just to one position. I think 20-25 (25 at most) years on a federal, judicial bench should be enacted. So if you do 19 years on an Appellate Court and 1 year on the Supreme Court, you've hit your 20 years and must resign at the end of the 20th year.

[buddha]

3 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

As many as he wants. And then when the next Dem comes in they add or subtract as well. The Supreme Court is a political hot potato thanks to both parties and that's just the way it is. We cannot just shrug our shoulders while women get arrested for having abortions, LGBTQ rights get reversed, marriage equality gets overturned, trans people get treated as lessthan or subhuman, voting rights get stripped away, union rights get stripped away, corporations are allowed run amuck on democracy and campaign finance, etc. I'm not going to hold up institutional norms for the sake of it when one political party, including many of their judicial appointments, don't even believe in the core principals of a free and democratic society anymore. I'm not watching Viktor Orban Jr. (Trump) and his minions turn us into an autocratic kleptocracy ala Hungary and destroy our democracy all for the sake of protecting "institutional norms" of years gone by.

I would also favor adding term limits to all judicial appointments, not just to one position. I think 20-25 (25 at most) years on a federal, judicial bench should be enacted. So if you do 19 years on an Appellate Court and 1 year on the Supreme Court, you've hit your 20 years and must resign at the end of the 20th year.

women are getting abortions all the time, trans people have more recognized rights than ever in the history of the world and now can bring discrimination cases thanks to....checks notes....neil gorsuch and the us supreme court, lgbtq++++ people have more rights in america now than ever.  that's only increasing, not decreasing.

institutional norms are what protects you from becoming an autocracy.

i'm fine with age limits for justices.  it might even stop the practice of ignoring good justices simply because they've reached the age of 60 (or 50...).

at the end of the day, for all the handwringing and apocalyptic talk, kentaji brown will be confirmed with more votes than coney barrett or kavanaugh.

[1984Echoes]

4 hours ago, chasfh said:

If nominating a centrist justice will yield zero Republican votes anyway, then why had it better be a centrist justice?

Because it would REQUIRE a Manchin AND Sinema sign-off.

So either those two centrists approve, or we get nothing.

[1984Echoes]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

... it compunds mcconnell's error and would erode the legitimacy of the court, for those of us who care about such things.  i recognize that not everyone does.

Escalate to deescalate.

I am fully on board with packing the SC with Liberal judges until: (A) A set number of judges is defined by law, and (B) MCConnell's shenanigans are ruled illegal and the Senate must follow specific rules to vote on a SCOTUS. No passing on a vote because "reasons", and no trying to jam a candidate through in under a month because... "reasons".

[oblong]

The problem is the senate gets to decide it's rules and as we have seen throughout history, even with LBJ, the Senate Majority Leader, has tremendous power in our country.

You'd need constitutional amendments and I am not sure our country will ever again produce one of those.

But in theory I'm on board with an amendment stating the # of justices and laying out specific timelines and requirements on when a justice can be brought forward relative to elections.  But what do you do with other types of judges?  Would it be a requirement that every nominee gets a judiciary hearing?  Question on the rules today:  If the judiciary doesn't recommend a justice does it still come to a vote?  Does the majority leader control that?  An amendment like this strips The Leader from having that power.    Do we just have the hearing, let them vote on their recommendation, then go to the full senate regardless of what happens?  I'm ok with that for just SC justices.

[buddha]

47 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

Escalate to deescalate.

I am fully on board with packing the SC with Liberal judges until: (A) A set number of judges is defined by law, and (B) MCConnell's shenanigans are ruled illegal and the Senate must follow specific rules to vote on a SCOTUS. No passing on a vote because "reasons", and no trying to jam a candidate through in under a month because... "reasons".

so youre fine with 5 new conservative judges in 2024 if a republican wins the presidency?  i'm not.  i'm happy with nine but maybe 11?  7?  

since its become so politicized, perhaps the best scenario is to term limits for sc judges?  the problem with that - of course - is that the side in power will not want to limit its next pick and it will take the side in power to enact the rule.  maybe writing the law so it goes into place in 8 years would help?

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

what mcconnell did wasnt subtracting the number.  there arent 8 justices now even if there was for a very short period of time.

i think you open a big can of worms if you just increase the number of justices willy nilly because youre in charge temporarily.

it compunds mcconnell's error and would erode the legitimacy of the court, for those of us who care about such things.  i recognize that not everyone does.

You notice it always comes down to asking the Dems not to respond in kind to make worse what the GOP has already felt free to break? Seems to be a game theory error in there somewhere.

[oblong]

30 years is a nice round number for a justice.  I looked it up and it only applied to:

Bushrod Washington

John Marshall

William Johnson

Joseph Story

John Mclean

James Moore wayne

Stephen Field

John Harlan

Hugo Black

William Douglas

William Brennan

Byron White

John Paul Stevens

Anthony Kennedy

Clarence Thomas

There were 11 more that served between 25-30 years.

 

[gehringer_2]

I would want the max JOTSC term to be at about 20 yrs. The theory is that time scales are the best way to smooth out transient political winds. The terms in the House are short, the Exec can serve as long 4 House terms, I would want Federal judges to have pretty much that same 4 to one ratio to a presidency - which would be a minimum of 16 yrs for one presidential term. But my take on this is a little different. I don't care that Federal judges can serve a long time, what I don't like is that each party is trying to nominate younger and younger judges to get longer effective terms and I would rather see people with deeper experience get to the SCOTUS. Term limits at about 20 yrs would at least remove the motivation to keep looking at inexperienced judges.