Supreme Court of the United States

[cardboardbox]

I'm disappointed no one here is talking about the loony left's plan to pack the court in 2021

At a minimum, that will mean expanding the Supreme Court bench to 11 justices under the next Democratic president. Other reforms, including term limits to remove aging conservatives, may well be appropriate.

There is nothing magical about the number nine. It carries no great aesthetic appeal. Its crooked curl is stolen from the number six. It is audibly indistinguishable from the German word for “no” ― an unfortunate coincidence in an era of vitriolic far-right ultranationalism. Eleven, by contrast, is beautiful and symmetrical, a number so good it tells us twice. Ambitious reformers may even find reasons to love 13, 15 or 21.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0b5e692f3f3d4

[revo]

I'm disappointed no one here is talking about the loony left's plan to pack the court in 2021

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hey-democrats-pack-the-court_us_5b33f7a8e4b0b5e692f3f3d4

Because it's not "the loony left's plan" but just this columnist for a left-leaning site's idea.

[onejayhawk]

Or maybe she will?
https://www.pressherald.com/2018/06/...court-nominee/

President Trump had several Senators over to discuss the nomination--Judiciary Committee chairman Grassley, Collins R-Maine, Murkowski R-Alaska, Heitkamp D-ND, Joe Manchin D-WV, and Donnelly D-Ind. Collins and Murkowsky are potential defectors on the Republican side. Heitcamp, Manchin, and Donnelly were the only Democrats who voted in favor of Gorsuch.

Both women reportedly on the short list are pro-life.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-meets-with-lawmakers-to-discuss-supreme-court-vacancy/ar-AAzjySj

The short list reputed to be:

• Brett Kavenaugh
• Thomas Hardiman
• Amy Coney Barrett
• Amul Thapar
• Joan Larsen
• Raymond Kethledge

Feel free to rank them.

J

[Boone]

I'm disappointed no one here is talking about the loony left's plan to pack the court in 2021

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hey-democrats-pack-the-court_us_5b33f7a8e4b0b5e692f3f3d4

I'd have thought it was loony too, but why do only the Republicans get to play hardball where the Court is concerned?

If they wanted to be "conservative" (with a small c) they wouldn't have blocked the Garland nomination, and they wouldn't have dispensed with the filibuster to get Gorsuch past.

To the extent Democrats are thinking of new and creative options for winning, they're actually arriving late to the party.

[DMT]

I'd have thought it was loony too, but why do only the Republicans get to play hardball where the Court is concerned?

If they wanted to be "conservative" (with a small c) they wouldn't have blocked the Garland nomination, and they wouldn't have dispensed with the filibuster to get Gorsuch past.

To the extent Democrats are thinking of new and creative options for winning, they're actually arriving late to the party.

No, see when Republicans do it, it's just shrewd political maneuvering.

[onejayhawk]

No, see when Republicans do it, it's just shrewd political maneuvering.

Except Harry Reid did it in 2011. He's a Democrat.

At the time, the Republicans wailed it was horrible, so partial credit.

J

[dslaw]

Or did Reid have to do because, at the time, 168 filibusters had been started against presidential nominees. 82 of those were Obama nominees and 86 were all other presidents combined. Once more, for emphasis. 49% of all filibusters against nominees had been done in Obama's 5 years in office. This was Republican grandstanding at it's best, not caring about governing but simply doing their best to make Obama a one term president. And Reid's action explicitly did not include the Supreme Court. McConnell used this past action as a pretext to make the Supreme Court now a majority vote since the R's control congress. It is typical 5 year old stuff, you did this so I will do something you don't like. But just like the R's were crying against the action while they were the minority and they celebrating today, sooner or later the tables will turn and the D's will again be the majority.

[Bernie Brewer]

Or did Reid have to do because, at the time, 168 filibusters had been started against presidential nominees. 82 of those were Obama nominees and 86 were all other presidents combined. Once more, for emphasis. 49% of all filibusters against nominees had been done in Obama's 5 years in office. This was Republican grandstanding at it's best, not caring about governing but simply doing their best to make Obama a one term president. And Reid's action explicitly did not include the Supreme Court. McConnell used this past action as a pretext to make the Supreme Court now a majority vote since the R's control congress. It is typical 5 year old stuff, you did this so I will do something you don't like. But just like the R's were crying against the action while they were the minority and they celebrating today, sooner or later the tables will turn and the D's will again be the majority.

Yea, Ok. Once again, this is all on the GOP.

Truth is, Reid went a bridge too far. And, not to be out done, McConnel went even further. Neither is without sin, and if the Democratic want to place blame now, they damn well had better accept it for their past acts, as well. You reap what you sow. Reid’s miscalculation was that he thought the Dems would hold the White House for the foreseeable future.

[onejayhawk]

Or did Reid have to do because, at the time, 168 filibusters had been started against presidential nominees. 82 of those were Obama nominees and 86 were all other presidents combined. Once more, for emphasis. 49% of all filibusters against nominees had been done in Obama's 5 years in office. This was Republican grandstanding at it's best, not caring about governing but simply doing their best to make Obama a one term president. And Reid's action explicitly did not include the Supreme Court. McConnell used this past action as a pretext to make the Supreme Court now a majority vote since the R's control congress. It is typical 5 year old stuff, you did this so I will do something you don't like. But just like the R's were crying against the action while they were the minority and they celebrating today, sooner or later the tables will turn and the D's will again be the majority.

In one word--NO!

Yea, Ok. Once again, this is all on the GOP.

In two words--Be serious.

J

[TranaGreg]

Yea, Ok. Once again, this is all on the GOP.

Truth is, Reid went a bridge too far. And, not to be out done, McConnel went even further. Neither is without sin, and if the Democratic want to place blame now, they damn well had better accept it for their past acts, as well. You reap what you sow. Reid’s miscalculation was that he thought the Dems would hold the White House for the foreseeable future.

Just an observation (I've tried to stop posting in these political threads 'cause they go nowhere, but I guess I can't stop reading them), but I've seen this reasoning so much lately - both sides have done this, whatever it is, so nobody can criticize anyone anymore without being labelled a hypocrite for some past similar scenario ... seriously, that's where we're at? Nobody should be able to criticize anyone???

Baldgriff had a great post a while back about actions being judged on their own merits. It would be great to see some analysis or perspectives in that vein.

[Bernie Brewer]

Just an observation (I've tried to stop posting in these political threads 'cause they go nowhere, but I guess I can't stop reading them), but I've seen this reasoning so much lately - both sides have done this, whatever it is, so nobody can criticize anyone anymore without being labelled a hypocrite for some past similar scenario ... seriously, that's where we're at? Nobody should be able to criticize anyone???

Baldgriff had a great post a while back about actions being judged on their own merits. It would be great to see some analysis or perspectives in that vein.

It’s as equally frustrating for those of us now pushing back against the liberal hyperventilation in these threads, wherein there is nothing but droning on and on about how terrible everything the GOP or Trump does, touches, and/or proposes. Unfortunately, we don’t live in the vacuum of the present, although following the doom premise, everything until now was good and pure and right until Trump! As the Bard once wrote, “The past is prologue.” When Republicans voiced objections to Harry Reid’s badly throught our decision regarding judical appointments (although not the SCOTUS, is the excuse we often hear, as if it justifies the action somehow) they were right to do so. It set bad precedent and set in motion the very moment when McConnell would go another bridge too far. Did Reid have to do it, as Dslaw asked? Of course not, but it did justify a means to an end to get the backlog of appointments done. It was wrong then and it is still wrong. McConnell doubled down in wrong.

[Bernie Brewer]

In two words--Be serious.

I was being sarcastic. Apparently that’s what I do.

[dslaw]

I was being sarcastic. Apparently that’s what I do.

It's ok, i got the sarcastic part. When Reid did drop the vote down to majority I could see why he did it but knew it would come back to haunt the D party eventually. The R's shouldn't have blocked all the judges Obama appointed, Garland should be on the SC, and whoever Trump nominates now should be approved, assuming the nominee is qualified. As much as I don't think I will like Gorsuch's rulings he was qualified, not someone just pulled off the street that was Trump's friend. It looks like Congress has some unwritten rules like baseball has. Rule 1 - be a jerk just because you can. Rule 2 - see rule 1. I guess they are written now.

[In the Corn]

Here's an interesting article about Gorsuch, and his first year on the bench. The article looks at SCOTUSblog's stats about the different justices "spread" in disagreement on decisions. It looks at the judge you most align with and the judge you most descent against. As for Gorsuch...he came in third in with closest spreads, putting him more in the middle/swing area. While that may change in the coming years, I find it interesting...he may be more moderate that anticipated.

http://www.startribune.com/so-gorsuc...now/486989031/

And Gorsuch? His 32-percentage-point spread (Kennedy is his most like-minded colleague, Sotomayor his least) places him closer to Roberts and Kennedy, the swing votes on this court, than to any of the others. (His 85 percent agreement with Kennedy is the lowest top agreement rate for any justice.)

[B-Fly]

Yes, Gorsuch is more "moderate" than Thomas and Alito, but that's not a particularly high bar to clear. Gorsuch and Roberts are both very conservative. And Kennedy already was far more likely to vote with the four justices to his right than with the four justices to his left. I do think that if the liberals are to "win" any cases going forward, it would likely be in retaining a few precedents that both Roberts and Gorsuch might feel bad about outright overturning. I hope that will include both Obergfell and Roe (which would presumably include upholding Griswold, which begat Roe, and Lawrence, which begat Obergfell - and of course Loving).