RIP Ruth

[GuitarStv]

If the Democrats win the Presidency, the Senate and the House, and they don't immediately get rid of the filibuster, make Puerto Rico and DC states, and put 30 more judges on the Supreme and appellate courts, they deserve to lose every election forever from then on.

There's almost no chance of that happening though.  The senate is seriously slanted towards Republicans because of it's massively outsized slant towards rural areas.  Democrats will require about 7 points more of the popular vote to break even with Republicans, let alone pull ahead.

[FIPurpose]

If the Democrats win the Presidency, the Senate and the House, and they don't immediately get rid of the filibuster, make Puerto Rico and DC states, and put 30 more judges on the Supreme and appellate courts, they deserve to lose every election forever from then on.

There's almost no chance of that happening though.  The senate is seriously slanted towards Republicans because of it's massively outsized slant towards rural areas.  Democrats will require about 7 points more of the popular vote to break even with Republicans, let alone pull ahead.

That would be the entire point of adding additional small states that lean D. DC is a no brainer, Puerto Rico is a harder sell.

[FIPurpose]

Let's say I'm playing 3 person scrabble and I attempt to play a letter of the Greek alphabet. Another player disputes and lacking the official rule book we vote on it's validity, I'm ruled against 2:1. In this scenario I disagree with the ruling but must comply with majority rule.

Later in the game the player who disputed my Greek letter plays one of their own. So it would be hypocritical of me to point out their hypocrisy?

The twisted logic born from political bias never ceases to amaze me.

Your analogy doesn't work: the attempt to play outside the rules in 2016 was successful.

Greek letters are allowed in Scrabble. The vote to disallow was going outside of the rules.

But that's really beside the point, the point is that the majority set precedent so my asking for precedent to be maintained is not hypocritical regardless of my original opinion as to whether or not Greek letters should be allowed.

Meh.  This day and age it really depends on your political persuasions.

If you're democratic you need to to everything perfectly every time.

If you're republican there exist no rules of any sort, and you will never be held accountable for anything.  If you pulled out a gun and shot the scrabble players who disagreed with you, republican supporters would drown the conversation telling everyone that you did nothing wrong, that you were justified, and maybe eventually will agree that there were mistakes made 'on both sides'.

Cute, but you probably don’t know or care that the original rules change was made by the Dems. They changed confirming judges from 2/3rds to simple majority. Repubs just extended it to SC justices.


Yes, both sides change the rules (or try/want to) when they think it suits them. See: do away with Electoral college because we’re bad at it, expand how many judges there are because we are losing, etc etc.

Are Dems complaining about there no longer being a 2/3 requirement? No.

No one is complaining about the majority getting to make the rules. The complaint is that rules are being applied inconsistently and pointlessly.

And yes, when there are anti-democratic processes and conventions (see: Electoral College; lifetime appointment judges) the proper response is to do away with them as swiftly as possible.

[redbirdfan]

Why do you prefer a more conservative Court?

I prefer a more conservative court because I fundamentally disagree with the court standing in place of the legislature.  I believe the majority of the fights taking place in the Supreme Court should be fought at the local and state level.  I believe deference should be given to legislation that actually passed so long as it is not blatantly unconstitutional.  I have a huge problem with the court making up constitutional rights by stretching the interpretation of the constitution - even when I don't have a problem with the outcome (some of the cases interpreting the interstate commerce clause come to mind).  Punting to the Supreme Court makes legislatures lazy.  It creates "gotcha" litigation to try to force the court to do something that should only be within the purview of the legislature.  People should fight for the legislation they want.  They should persuade voters and hold elected officials accountable for representing the views of their constituents.  I prefer more restraint from the judicial branch to preserve the ability of localities to have laws that reflect the values of their constituents.  When laws are passed at the local level, there is more "buy-in".  It doesn't feel like something is being imposed on you by people you didn't elect.  You have the ability to hold those who passed the laws accountable. 

If there is a law that is expressly unconstitutional, THEN it is the role of the court to strike it down.  I do not believe it is the role of the courts to create new rights.  That is the job of the legislative branch.  Now, sometimes striking down a law can create a new right (i.e. Kennedy's analysis in the same-sex litigation cases).  I don't have a problem with fights about the judicial interpretation of specific phrases or clauses of the constitution.  That is within the purview of the courts.  I don't have a problem with a genuine dispute about the interpretation of "on the basis of sex".  I do have a problem with creating a "right to privacy" out of whole cloth. 

To torture an analogy, I want courts to call balls and strikes.  I don't want them throwing the pitches. 

[J Boogie]

There's almost no chance of that happening though.  The senate is seriously slanted towards Republicans because of it's massively outsized slant towards rural areas.

How do you figure? If I remember correctly the senate was controlled by dems throughout Obama's time in office. Are there some districts that have been recently gerrymandered?

[MDM]

There's almost no chance of that happening though.  The senate is seriously slanted towards Republicans because of it's massively outsized slant towards rural areas.

How do you figure? If I remember correctly the senate was controlled by dems throughout Obama's time in office. Are there some districts that have been recently gerrymandered?

Senate races are statewide.  Short of changing state boundaries, no gerrymandering possible.

[GuitarStv]

There's almost no chance of that happening though.  The senate is seriously slanted towards Republicans because of it's massively outsized slant towards rural areas.

How do you figure? If I remember correctly the senate was controlled by dems throughout Obama's time in office. Are there some districts that have been recently gerrymandered?

The senate can't be gerrymandered unless Republicans start playing with state borders.

I'm just talking about the current composition of the senate.  It's pretty heavily slanted towards Republicans.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-senates-rural-skew-makes-it-very-hard-for-democrats-to-win-the-supreme-court/

[redbirdfan]

If the Democrats win the Presidency, the Senate and the House, and they don't immediately get rid of the filibuster, make Puerto Rico and DC states, and put 30 more judges on the Supreme and appellate courts, they deserve to lose every election forever from then on.

This sentiment is exactly why Democrats lose.  This does nothing to convince independents and Republicans on the fence that they should vote for Democrats.  You will not win without them.  Democrats are calling for the same things you are proposing all across national media.  It's political malpractice.  First, you shouldn't be lobbing this out there until you actually win the presidency AND Senate. Both are less likely the more you start proposing radical changes before the election.  Second, take a look at the seats that are up in 2022.  There are some pretty competitive Senate races next time around.  Any Senate majority for the Democrats would be razor thin.  You will likely need to replace Breyer between 2022 and 2024 (assuming Biden wins).  If you think a 6-3 court is bad, a 7-2 court would be worse.  IF you win the Senate, you will have democrats from Arizona, North Carolina, Montana possibly Iowa, and South Carolina.  These places do not have wholly liberal constituents.  The easiest way to make them regret their vote is to start off by packing the court and changing the flag.  You have two years to get though your most important legislation.  Act accordingly. 

The demographics are on your side.  There is no need to do something so drastic (certainly not to broadcast it), when the winds of change favor your side.  You are planning your touchdown celebration with the ball on the 10 yard line.  Play chess instead of checkers. 

[ctuser1]

Why do you prefer a more conservative Court?

I prefer a more conservative court because I fundamentally disagree with the court standing in place of the legislature.  I believe the majority of the fights taking place in the Supreme Court should be fought at the local and state level.  I believe deference should be given to legislation that actually passed so long as it is not blatantly unconstitutional.  I have a huge problem with the court making up constitutional rights by stretching the interpretation of the constitution - even when I don't have a problem with the outcome (some of the cases interpreting the interstate commerce clause come to mind).  Punting to the Supreme Court makes legislatures lazy.  It creates "gotcha" litigation to try to force the court to do something that should only be within the purview of the legislature.  People should fight for the legislation they want.  They should persuade voters and hold elected officials accountable for representing the views of their constituents.  I prefer more restraint from the judicial branch to preserve the ability of localities to have laws that reflect the values of their constituents.  When laws are passed at the local level, there is more "buy-in".  It doesn't feel like something is being imposed on you by people you didn't elect.  You have the ability to hold those who passed the laws accountable. 

If there is a law that is expressly unconstitutional, THEN it is the role of the court to strike it down.  I do not believe it is the role of the courts to create new rights.  That is the job of the legislative branch.  Now, sometimes striking down a law can create a new right (i.e. Kennedy's analysis in the same-sex litigation cases).  I don't have a problem with fights about the judicial interpretation of specific phrases or clauses of the constitution.  That is within the purview of the courts.  I don't have a problem with a genuine dispute about the interpretation of "on the basis of sex".  I do have a problem with creating a "right to privacy" out of whole cloth. 

To torture an analogy, I want courts to call balls and strikes.  I don't want them throwing the pitches.

You imply that the conservative court will be less likely to legislate compared to a more "liberal" one.

Why?

Opinions written with an "originalist" ideology (as opposed to a textualist ideology) seem to be pretty blatant legislations from the bench (at least based on a few - single digit number - I have tried to read)!!

[J Boogie]

There's almost no chance of that happening though.  The senate is seriously slanted towards Republicans because of it's massively outsized slant towards rural areas.

How do you figure? If I remember correctly the senate was controlled by dems throughout Obama's time in office. Are there some districts that have been recently gerrymandered?

The senate can't be gerrymandered unless Republicans start playing with state borders.

I'm just talking about the current composition of the senate.  It's pretty heavily slanted towards Republicans.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-senates-rural-skew-makes-it-very-hard-for-democrats-to-win-the-supreme-court/

Ah, I see. I became of a political age during the Obama era (I'm 34) and I had begun to interpret that as normal - but now I'm realizing he was extraordinarily effective when it comes to getting people out to vote. He's obviously more charismatic and compelling politically than Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton - but I didn't realize how much that materialized in the vote until I took a closer look at the structural difficulties faced by the democrats.

[rantk81]

I'm just talking about the current composition of the senate.  It's pretty heavily slanted towards Republicans.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-senates-rural-skew-makes-it-very-hard-for-democrats-to-win-the-supreme-court/

I just read that whole piece.  Wow. I knew the Senate gave the red states an advantage -- but I didn't know it was THAT huge.  Democrats basically can only barely pull ahead in the Senate if they win overall in a huge landslide.  The deck is stacked.

[MDM]

I just read that whole piece.  Wow. I knew the Senate gave the red states an advantage -- but I didn't know it was THAT huge.  Democrats basically can only barely pull ahead in the Senate if they win overall in a huge landslide.  The deck is stacked.

And yet, less than 10 years ago Republicans had only 41 seats.

U.S. Senate: Party Division is one source if one wants to look at the history of that topic.

[redbirdfan]

It's not as bad as it looks.  There is a good chance that either Montana or Arizona (or both) will have two Democrats in the Senate.  Ohio has Brown.  West VA has Manchin.  Kentucky's governor is a Democrat and Mitch McConnell will be 84 the next time his seat is up.  North Carolina is leaning blue.  Maine is leaning blue.  South Carolina and Iowa are tied.  Pennsylvania is split.  Missouri, Indiana, North Dakota, and Florida each had a Democratic senator until 2018.  There are surprisingly high percentages of minorities in the rural south.  The younger generations in many of the currently close states are more liberal than their parents on average. 

[rantk81]

I just read that whole piece.  Wow. I knew the Senate gave the red states an advantage -- but I didn't know it was THAT huge.  Democrats basically can only barely pull ahead in the Senate if they win overall in a huge landslide.  The deck is stacked.

And yet, less than 10 years ago Republicans had only 41 seats.

U.S. Senate: Party Division is one source if one wants to look at the history of that topic.

Yeah, and all that took was the Democrat president getting almost 10 million more popular votes than the Republican presidential candidate.

[MDM]

I just read that whole piece.  Wow. I knew the Senate gave the red states an advantage -- but I didn't know it was THAT huge.  Democrats basically can only barely pull ahead in the Senate if they win overall in a huge landslide.  The deck is stacked.

And yet, less than 10 years ago Republicans had only 41 seats.

U.S. Senate: Party Division is one source if one wants to look at the history of that topic.

Yeah, and all that took was the Democrat president getting almost 10 million more popular votes than the Republican presidential candidate.

Of course, excess popular presidential votes in places where the outcome is a foregone conclusion aren't much relevant to other states' senatorial races.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Cute, but you probably don’t know or care that the original rules change was made by the Dems. They changed confirming judges from 2/3rds to simple majority. Repubs just extended it to SC justices.

It was mentioned upthread.

I'm not as interested in which group started against which group - we could go back for ages, and spread plenty of blame (and yes, the Democrats aren't blameless in it). I'm more interested in when it would stop. If everyone one-ups everyone else, what will we end up with...a court of 75 with Tucker Carlson on one side and Michael Moore on the other? This pendulum is swinging wider and wider on each side, and I'm afraid of where it will go. Of course, the Democrats do tend to not be quite as likely to go to the extra measures, so it might just not happen even if Trump pushes through the justice.

[bacchi]

Cute, but you probably don’t know or care that the original rules change was made by the Dems. They changed confirming judges from 2/3rds to simple majority. Repubs just extended it to SC justices.

It was mentioned upthread.

I'm not as interested in which group started against which group - we could go back for ages, and spread plenty of blame (and yes, the Democrats aren't blameless in it). I'm more interested in when it would stop. If everyone one-ups everyone else, what will we end up with...a court of 75 with Tucker Carlson on one side and Michael Moore on the other? This pendulum is swinging wider and wider on each side, and I'm afraid of where it will go. Of course, the Democrats do tend to not be quite as likely to go to the extra measures, so it might just not happen even if Trump pushes through the justice.

So you're suggesting that if the Republicans act like adults and wait until the next Congress and Presidency to vote on a Justice, then this political quagmire and tension can be resolved without further causing divisions within the electorate?* That we should to see what the voters decide?

Agreed.


* Obligatory "Both sides are to blame but..." disclaimer.

[darkadams00]

I'm not as interested in which group started against which group - we could go back for ages, and spread plenty of blame (and yes, the Democrats aren't blameless in it)....This pendulum is swinging wider and wider on each side, and I'm afraid of where it will go. Of course, the Democrats do tend to not be quite as likely to go to the extra measures, so it might just not happen even if Trump pushes through the justice.

So you're suggesting that if the Republicans act like adults and wait until the next Congress and Presidency to vote on a Justice, then this political quagmire and tension can be resolved without further causing divisions within the electorate?* That we should to see what the voters decide?

Agreed.

When a party in power has a decision to make, it makes the choice in its own best interest, often not in the best interest of the electorate and not necessarily in the interest of preserving unity. At any point in time, I can find numerous articles spelling out grossly unprofessional behaviors on either side. If I exhibited those same behaviors on my job, I would be put on the street in less than a month.

Not interested in specific issues/situations in this thread. Just saying that over a couple decades, as power and control shifts from one side to the other and back again, both have been guilty of using that power to their own ends, and the lesser party in the moment kicks and screams and cries foul. And to say that any single decision made today or at any time past or present will either “break democracy” and “create irreparable division” (exact words used this week) or will completely fix all such issues and help the parties work in harmony has not been paying attention for enough years. Both of the comments above use disclaimers to say “both parties” and then point at the Repubs, either through personal biases or observation of the current situation at hand. I couldn’t care less which party actually works for us. Just noting the inconsistency and short-sightedness.

[bacchi]

I'm not as interested in which group started against which group - we could go back for ages, and spread plenty of blame (and yes, the Democrats aren't blameless in it)....This pendulum is swinging wider and wider on each side, and I'm afraid of where it will go. Of course, the Democrats do tend to not be quite as likely to go to the extra measures, so it might just not happen even if Trump pushes through the justice.

So you're suggesting that if the Republicans act like adults and wait until the next Congress and Presidency to vote on a Justice, then this political quagmire and tension can be resolved without further causing divisions within the electorate?* That we should to see what the voters decide?

Agreed.

When a party in power has a decision to make, it makes the choice in its own best interest, often not in the best interest of the electorate and not necessarily in the interest of preserving unity. At any point in time, I can find numerous articles spelling out grossly unprofessional behaviors on either side. If I exhibited those same behaviors on my job, I would be put on the street in less than a month.

Not interested in specific issues/situations in this thread. Just saying that over a couple decades, as power and control shifts from one side to the other and back again, both have been guilty of using that power to their own ends, and the lesser party in the moment kicks and screams and cries foul. And to say that any single decision made today or at any time past or present will either “break democracy” and “create irreparable division” (exact words used this week) or will completely fix all such issues and help the parties work in harmony has not been paying attention for enough years. Both of the comments above use disclaimers to say “both parties” and then point at the Repubs, either through personal biases or observation of the current situation at hand. I couldn’t care less which party actually works for us. Just noting the inconsistency and short-sightedness.

That's funny. I made my comment to point out that most of the "Both sides" people in this thread are asking the Democrats to be the adult in the room while ignoring that the Republicans can also be the adult in the room.

But maybe that's too subtle when people have personal biases that lean to the more Republican side of things.

[darkadams00]

I'm not as interested in which group started against which group - we could go back for ages, and spread plenty of blame (and yes, the Democrats aren't blameless in it)....This pendulum is swinging wider and wider on each side, and I'm afraid of where it will go. Of course, the Democrats do tend to not be quite as likely to go to the extra measures, so it might just not happen even if Trump pushes through the justice.

So you're suggesting that if the Republicans act like adults and wait until the next Congress and Presidency to vote on a Justice, then this political quagmire and tension can be resolved without further causing divisions within the electorate?* That we should to see what the voters decide?

Agreed.

When a party in power has a decision to make, it makes the choice in its own best interest, often not in the best interest of the electorate and not necessarily in the interest of preserving unity. At any point in time, I can find numerous articles spelling out grossly unprofessional behaviors on either side. If I exhibited those same behaviors on my job, I would be put on the street in less than a month.

Not interested in specific issues/situations in this thread. Just saying that over a couple decades, as power and control shifts from one side to the other and back again, both have been guilty of using that power to their own ends, and the lesser party in the moment kicks and screams and cries foul. And to say that any single decision made today or at any time past or present will either “break democracy” and “create irreparable division” (exact words used this week) or will completely fix all such issues and help the parties work in harmony has not been paying attention for enough years. Both of the comments above use disclaimers to say “both parties” and then point at the Repubs, either through personal biases or observation of the current situation at hand. I couldn’t care less which party actually works for us. Just noting the inconsistency and short-sightedness.

That's funny. I made my comment to point out that most of the "Both sides" people in this thread are asking the Democrats to be the adult in the room while ignoring that the Republicans can also be the adult in the room.

But maybe that's too subtle when people have personal biases that lean to the more Republican side of things.

Not at all. Your whole comment read of “both sides” until the end when you landed on “Democrats do tend to not be quite as likely to go to the extra measures...” My point is that both sides will go to whatever end they think feasible to serve their purpose. And there are article quotes essentially stating as such. Both spin wheels on dead horse issues and topics and will promote agendas that help shore up their perception of likely perpetual control, eg proposing term limits for SC? (judicial), existing limits for Pres (executive), but not including limits for legislators? Where’s the person on either side saying, “Hey, that doesn’t make sense. All branches should have term limits.” As soon as one side presents a play, the other plans the counter. “If I have to concede power now, I’ll make sure that loss of power is as potentially short as possible,” even if it means changing the institution (as you accurately pointed out). Ongoing political war games, if you will. And, yes, I’m confident that the Repubs would be saying/proposing the same if Hillary were in this situation with a Dem Senate—it’s completely frustrating to me honestly. I miss statesmen (not politicians) and journalists (not propagandists).

[LaineyAZ]

I'm not as interested in which group started against which group - we could go back for ages, and spread plenty of blame (and yes, the Democrats aren't blameless in it)....This pendulum is swinging wider and wider on each side, and I'm afraid of where it will go. Of course, the Democrats do tend to not be quite as likely to go to the extra measures, so it might just not happen even if Trump pushes through the justice.

So you're suggesting that if the Republicans act like adults and wait until the next Congress and Presidency to vote on a Justice, then this political quagmire and tension can be resolved without further causing divisions within the electorate?* That we should to see what the voters decide?

Agreed.

When a party in power has a decision to make, it makes the choice in its own best interest, often not in the best interest of the electorate and not necessarily in the interest of preserving unity. At any point in time, I can find numerous articles spelling out grossly unprofessional behaviors on either side. If I exhibited those same behaviors on my job, I would be put on the street in less than a month.

Not interested in specific issues/situations in this thread. Just saying that over a couple decades, as power and control shifts from one side to the other and back again, both have been guilty of using that power to their own ends, and the lesser party in the moment kicks and screams and cries foul. And to say that any single decision made today or at any time past or present will either “break democracy” and “create irreparable division” (exact words used this week) or will completely fix all such issues and help the parties work in harmony has not been paying attention for enough years. Both of the comments above use disclaimers to say “both parties” and then point at the Repubs, either through personal biases or observation of the current situation at hand. I couldn’t care less which party actually works for us. Just noting the inconsistency and short-sightedness.

Actually, we only have to go back to President Nixon resigning to see when the Republican congress acted more in the interest of the country than their own party.  The impeachment process had begun to address his abuses of power and participation in the coverup of the burglary of the Democratic headquarters.  One Republican leader said that it was at the point where it would be in the national interest and Nixon's own interest for him to resign, which he later did.

Sadly, if that same scenario played out today, I can't think of a single Republican leader who would now say the same thing - they have sacrificed their principles to make the Republican party's power the only thing that matters.

[cooking]

Does anyone out there who is upset about the direction this country is moving in, and especially the events following the death of RBG, have a considered opinion of how best to deploy a smallish donation to help turn things around to best effect in the coming election?  I'm generally against all the money which sloshes around politics, and have never made a political donation before.  However, I feel this election and these recent events have made this election the most consequential of my lifetime, and I feel moved to do whatever little I am able to do and give to make as much difference as an average citizen is able.  Time is short at this point, and I don't personally have the time to research every organization.  Should I give to an organization that works to gain a particular progressive goal, or donate to the senate campaigns where there is a good chance that a progressive candidate can win and tip the balance in the Senate?  Are there any progressives here who have researched this and are willing to share their thoughts on this?

[LetItGrow]

I miss statesmen (not politicians) and journalists (not propagandists).

Goodness, how old are you? Ain’t been any of them around these parts in quite some time.

[former player]

Does anyone out there who is upset about the direction this country is moving in, and especially the events following the death of RBG, have a considered opinion of how best to deploy a smallish donation to help turn things around to best effect in the coming election?  I'm generally against all the money which sloshes around politics, and have never made a political donation before.  However, I feel this election and these recent events have made this election the most consequential of my lifetime, and I feel moved to do whatever little I am able to do and give to make as much difference as an average citizen is able.  Time is short at this point, and I don't personally have the time to research every organization.  Should I give to an organization that works to gain a particular progressive goal, or donate to the senate campaigns where there is a good chance that a progressive candidate can win and tip the balance in the Senate?  Are there any progressives here who have researched this and are willing to share their thoughts on this?

paging @MonkeyJenga for detailed advice.

My thought would be a donation to a voter registration/Get Out The Vote organisation in a State which is both a swing State for the Presidency and has the potential to turn a Senate seat Democratic.

[former player]

Cute, but you probably don’t know or care that the original rules change was made by the Dems. They changed confirming judges from 2/3rds to simple majority. Repubs just extended it to SC justices.

It was mentioned upthread.

I'm not as interested in which group started against which group - we could go back for ages, and spread plenty of blame (and yes, the Democrats aren't blameless in it). I'm more interested in when it would stop. If everyone one-ups everyone else, what will we end up with...a court of 75 with Tucker Carlson on one side and Michael Moore on the other? This pendulum is swinging wider and wider on each side, and I'm afraid of where it will go. Of course, the Democrats do tend to not be quite as likely to go to the extra measures, so it might just not happen even if Trump pushes through the justice.

Expanding the court would probably make it less political, not more.  With a court of say 15 justices most cases which went to the court would probably be heard by a bench of say 5, probably chosen randomly, subject to review by the whole court.  The court could take on a lot more cases that way, which would be good for the legal system, creating more certainty over a wider range of cases.  And there would likely be more of an emphasis on legal reasoning and less on extreme political positions.  It could be a big boon both to the court and to political life in the USA as a whole.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Cute, but you probably don’t know or care that the original rules change was made by the Dems. They changed confirming judges from 2/3rds to simple majority. Repubs just extended it to SC justices.

It was mentioned upthread.

I'm not as interested in which group started against which group - we could go back for ages, and spread plenty of blame (and yes, the Democrats aren't blameless in it). I'm more interested in when it would stop. If everyone one-ups everyone else, what will we end up with...a court of 75 with Tucker Carlson on one side and Michael Moore on the other? This pendulum is swinging wider and wider on each side, and I'm afraid of where it will go. Of course, the Democrats do tend to not be quite as likely to go to the extra measures, so it might just not happen even if Trump pushes through the justice.

So you're suggesting that if the Republicans act like adults and wait until the next Congress and Presidency to vote on a Justice, then this political quagmire and tension can be resolved without further causing divisions within the electorate?* That we should to see what the voters decide?

Agreed.


* Obligatory "Both sides are to blame but..." disclaimer.

I was not suggesting that the Republicans do anything or the Democrats do anything. I was commenting on where I saw things going. The Republicans could wait, but (despite my initial thoughts) it seems clear they won't. They won't because they are in power and they can.

I will say this. Yes, the both sides argument is not always true. In this case, however, it very much is.

If we want to talk about which side is the adults in the room or which side is or is not dabbling in hypocrisy, let's remove the hypocrisy from our own arguments first. Let's break it down.

The Republicans hypocrisy was not in what they did - in not holding a hearing from Garland. The Democrats acted like that was the concern. No, the Democrats were actually mad because the Republicans didn't approve him, not because they didn't hold a hearing for him. The Republicans were hypocritical on the Garland appointment. Not because they didn't approve him but because they gave a false reason for why they didn't approve him. That was the hypocrisy. They didn't want to say, we have the power in the Senate to not approve him, and we're going to vote him down. The hypocrisy was in not calling out their true reasonings for this.

That's not a whole lot different from what I'm seeing from liberals now. They are focusing almost all of what they're arguing about on how the Republicans aren't being consistent. Well, shoot, they're not being consistent either. Democrats said no one should refuse to vote on a nomination if the president put it out there. Do your job they said. Etc. etc. If that was truly the principle, then they woudl stay consistent on it (at least for the leadership, not saying all liberals said this). Liberals now act like it's the inconsistency that's the real issue. This is what it's all about. Hold the Republicans accountable. Etc. etc. That's not the real reason, and it's no more hypocritical of the Republicans to act like they're not voting because it's the end of Obama's term than it is for liberals to act like the big issue is consistency. If RBG had died a year ago, there would be tons of clamor about how are we going to swing the court back from to a liberal majority. It might have been a tad less, but it would still have been there because the liberals' main concern is a conservative court not that certain procedures are not followed. That's the hypocrisy that's been getting me these last few days. Don't waste your breath on complaining that the other side is hypocrites. You are just as much. Just say, we are only concerned that our opinions are the ones that are in power. We will do whatever we can to make sure of this. Everybody is doing this and will continue to do this as best as I can see. So yes, obligatory both sides argument right here

[GuitarStv]

Just say, we are only concerned that our opinions are the ones that are in power.

I don't think this is true, and know that it's not true for a great many people.

Everyone should be concerned when government swings far away from representing the people it governs.  With this appointment, it is extremely likely that the supreme court will swing much farther right than the people it governs.  It will make more and more decisions that do not represent what the electorate want because of this bias.  Ultimately, the government should represent the people - and a minority group should generally not be able to enforce it's will on the majority.  The basic unfairness of this type of scenario is always a problem.

If the situations were reversed, and the supreme court was significantly more left wing than the voting populace (while I may personally agree with the court more) I'd have similar concerns.

[ctuser1]

Just say, we are only concerned that our opinions are the ones that are in power.

I don't think this is true, and know that it's not true for a great many people.

Everyone should be concerned when government swings far away from representing the people it governs.  With this appointment, it is extremely likely that the supreme court will swing much farther right than the people it governs.  It will make more and more decisions that do not represent what the electorate want because of this bias.  Ultimately, the government should represent the people - and a minority group should generally not be able to enforce it's will on the majority.  The basic unfairness of this type of scenario is always a problem.

If the situations were reversed, and the supreme court was significantly more left wing than the voting populace (while I may personally agree with the court more) I'd have similar concerns.

That is NOT the only problem!!

Re: Garland appointment
"No, the Democrats were actually mad because the Republicans didn't approve him, not because they didn't hold a hearing for him."

This is putting thoughts in people's heads where none may have existed and no indication/proof exists for it. It's similar to gaslighting - just with an aim to confuse people (and not drive them mad).

If republicans held the hearing and then voted to reject Garland, then they would have gone on record with their yes/no. Republican's in moderate states (yes there were many, e.g. Susan Collins today) would have been unmasked sooner!!

Voting to reject Garland would have driven some partisan liberals mad, but McConnel's hypocritical gambit was universally seen as breaking democratic norms by everyone following logic 101.

That is just one example. The entire post builds up from the flawed premises of biased "both sides" framing, and hence not salvageable.

[Freedom2016]

I see this through a game theory lens. The best strategy (defined as a strategy that produces the most value over the long term) in a prisoner's dilemma situation is to start cooperative - send a positive, collaborative signal more than once to let your counterpart know what kind of game you'd like to play. This is akin to people saying Democrats should take the high road and continue respecting norms, traditions, laws, etc. even if Republicans don't.

However, unbounded cooperation is not the only move. As you can imagine, unconditional cooperation sets up the cooperative player to lose badly over time as the competitive player simply repeats their competitive moves over and over and over again - because they keep winning with no negative consequences to themselves. Many see the GOP as doing this right now. So, the best prisoner's dilemma strategy says a cooperative player also needs to be provokeable. This means that, in the face of repeated/ongoing defections & competitive behavior by the other party, the rational decision is to stop playing cooperatively and go to a competitive/defensive stance to limit losses/reduce risk/introduce costs to the other side.  This is the approach some are suggesting that if/when Dems gain control of the executive and legislative branches: expand the court / eliminate the filibuster / impeach Kavanaugh or other justices, etc. Tit for tat.

Of course this raises the concern or lament of where we will all be if both parties destroy processes and norms that used to provide guardrails to naked power-grabbing behavior.

And thus, the third leg of the most successful prisoner's dilemma strategy: be willing to forgive, i.e. get back to collaborative problem solving. Typically this happens once there is a hurting stalemate and both parties see they will be better off if they can work together instead of against each other. I'm not sure what it will take to produce this hurting stalemate - but I am 100% certain we are not there.

[rantk81]

We may have already witnessed the last time there will ever be a successful SC appointment when the same party does not control the Senate and the White House.  Sad.

[ctuser1]

I see this through a game theory lens. The best strategy (defined as a strategy that produces the most value over the long term) in a prisoner's dilemma situation is to start cooperative - send a positive, collaborative signal more than once to let your counterpart know what kind of game you'd like to play. This is akin to people saying Democrats should take the high road and continue respecting norms, traditions, laws, etc. even if Republicans don't.

However, unbounded cooperation is not the only move. As you can imagine, unconditional cooperation sets up the cooperative player to lose badly over time as the competitive player simply repeats their competitive moves over and over and over again - because they keep winning with no negative consequences to themselves. Many see the GOP as doing this right now. So, the best prisoner's dilemma strategy says a cooperative player also needs to be provokeable. This means that, in the face of repeated/ongoing defections & competitive behavior by the other party, the rational decision is to stop playing cooperatively and go to a competitive/defensive stance to limit losses/reduce risk/introduce costs to the other side.  This is the approach some are suggesting that if/when Dems gain control of the executive and legislative branches: expand the court / eliminate the filibuster / impeach Kavanaugh or other justices, etc. Tit for tat.

Of course this raises the concern or lament of where we will all be if both parties destroy processes and norms that used to provide guardrails to naked power-grabbing behavior.

And thus, the third leg of the most successful prisoner's dilemma strategy: be willing to forgive, i.e. get back to collaborative problem solving. Typically this happens once there is a hurting stalemate and both parties see they will be better off if they can work together instead of against each other. I'm not sure what it will take to produce this hurting stalemate - but I am 100% certain we are not there.

Ideology upsets this model, because ideologues no longer respond to "incentives" or "consequences". How many Trump voters, do you think, care for the fact that their health insurance may be in jeopardy because of the way they vote??

The best way forward, IMO, is for democrats to follow a "principled" strategy with no assumption of good faith by the conservatives. The "rules" of the old game are anyway shot when a cooperative game has broken down and hence should be disregarded. So, go back to the basics of democracy and try to return power to the American people and break the tyranny of the rural residents over all American's. If that takes more states, expanding the court, new set of democratic rights legislation etc. etc. etc., then do whatever is appropriate for "Americans", and be prepared that the ideologues used to imposing their tyranny over the American people will cry foul.

[John Galt incarnate!]

When a party in power has a decision to make, it makes the choice in its own best interest, often not in the best interest of the electorate and not necessarily in the interest of preserving unity. At any point in time, I can find numerous articles spelling out grossly unprofessional behaviors on either side. If I exhibited those same behaviors on my job, I would be put on the street in less than a month.

Not interested in specific issues/situations in this thread. Just saying that over a couple decades, as power and control shifts from one side to the other and back again, both have been guilty of using that power to their own ends, and the lesser party in the moment kicks and screams and cries foul. And to say that any single decision made today or at any time past or present will either “break democracy” and “create irreparable division” (exact words used this week) or will completely fix all such issues and help the parties work in harmony has not been paying attention for enough years.
[/quote]

I emphatically agree.

Expediency is the touchstone of politics.

If right now the president were a Democrat and the  Democrats held a majority in the Senate they would confirm  "their" president's nominee.

"Strike while the iron is hot."

Mendacious politicians seize the expediency of the moment to advance their agenda.

"If the shoe were on the other foot __________."

[Samuel]

We may have already witnessed the last time there will ever be a successful SC appointment when the same party does not control the Senate and the White House.  Sad.

The last time a Republican Senate confirmed a Democratic President's Supreme Court pick was in 1895.

Maybe McConnell is just following precedent after all...

[LWYRUP]

Everyone should be concerned when government swings far away from representing the people it governs.  With this appointment, it is extremely likely that the supreme court will swing much farther right than the people it governs.  It will make more and more decisions that do not represent what the electorate want because of this bias.  Ultimately, the government should represent the people - and a minority group should generally not be able to enforce it's will on the majority.  The basic unfairness of this type of scenario is always a problem.

If the situations were reversed, and the supreme court was significantly more left wing than the voting populace (while I may personally agree with the court more) I'd have similar concerns.

Are you uncomfortable with the precedents established by the Warren court between 1953-1969 due to this issue?  I'm thinking Miranda, Griswold and Roe, specifically, and not arguing outcome but based on the paucity of textual support for the conclusions the Court reached. 

[LWYRUP]

We may have already witnessed the last time there will ever be a successful SC appointment when the same party does not control the Senate and the White House.  Sad.

The last time a Republican Senate confirmed a Democratic President's Supreme Court pick was in 1895.

Maybe McConnell is just following precedent after all...

What about the inverse (Dem Senate, Rep Pres)? 

[Davnasty]

That's not a whole lot different from what I'm seeing from liberals now. They are focusing almost all of what they're arguing about on how the Republicans aren't being consistent. Well, shoot, they're not being consistent either. Democrats said no one should refuse to vote on a nomination if the president put it out there. Do your job they said. Etc. etc. If that was truly the principle, then they woudl stay consistent on it (at least for the leadership, not saying all liberals said this). Liberals now act like it's the inconsistency that's the real issue. This is what it's all about. Hold the Republicans accountable. Etc. etc. That's not the real reason, and it's no more hypocritical of the Republicans to act like they're not voting because it's the end of Obama's term than it is for liberals to act like the big issue is consistency.

This completely ignores the concept of precedent. Asking for consistency when the other side changed the rules seems like some sort of twisted joke.

Interesting that no one taking the "Democrats are hypocrites too" stance responded to the Scrabble analogy. Probably because calling the player who asked for consistent (even if incorrect) rules a hypocrite would be laughable.

[bacchi]

I see this through a game theory lens. The best strategy (defined as a strategy that produces the most value over the long term) in a prisoner's dilemma situation is to start cooperative - send a positive, collaborative signal more than once to let your counterpart know what kind of game you'd like to play. This is akin to people saying Democrats should take the high road and continue respecting norms, traditions, laws, etc. even if Republicans don't.

However, unbounded cooperation is not the only move. As you can imagine, unconditional cooperation sets up the cooperative player to lose badly over time as the competitive player simply repeats their competitive moves over and over and over again - because they keep winning with no negative consequences to themselves. Many see the GOP as doing this right now. So, the best prisoner's dilemma strategy says a cooperative player also needs to be provokeable. This means that, in the face of repeated/ongoing defections & competitive behavior by the other party, the rational decision is to stop playing cooperatively and go to a competitive/defensive stance to limit losses/reduce risk/introduce costs to the other side.  This is the approach some are suggesting that if/when Dems gain control of the executive and legislative branches: expand the court / eliminate the filibuster / impeach Kavanaugh or other justices, etc. Tit for tat.

Of course this raises the concern or lament of where we will all be if both parties destroy processes and norms that used to provide guardrails to naked power-grabbing behavior.

And thus, the third leg of the most successful prisoner's dilemma strategy: be willing to forgive, i.e. get back to collaborative problem solving. Typically this happens once there is a hurting stalemate and both parties see they will be better off if they can work together instead of against each other. I'm not sure what it will take to produce this hurting stalemate - but I am 100% certain we are not there.

Ideology upsets this model, because ideologues no longer respond to "incentives" or "consequences". How many Trump voters, do you think, care for the fact that their health insurance may be in jeopardy because of the way they vote??

The best way forward, IMO, is for democrats to follow a "principled" strategy with no assumption of good faith by the conservatives. The "rules" of the old game are anyway shot when a cooperative game has broken down and hence should be disregarded. So, go back to the basics of democracy and try to return power to the American people and break the tyranny of the rural residents over all American's. If that takes more states, expanding the court, new set of democratic rights legislation etc. etc. etc., then do whatever is appropriate for "Americans", and be prepared that the ideologues used to imposing their tyranny over the American people will cry foul.

Great explanation, Freedom2016.

The rules exist, though they haven't been used much lately. The Court size was adjusted more than once in the 1800s. Adding states was done to gain Senate power in the 1800s as well.

[ctuser1]

Everyone should be concerned when government swings far away from representing the people it governs.  With this appointment, it is extremely likely that the supreme court will swing much farther right than the people it governs.  It will make more and more decisions that do not represent what the electorate want because of this bias.  Ultimately, the government should represent the people - and a minority group should generally not be able to enforce it's will on the majority.  The basic unfairness of this type of scenario is always a problem.

If the situations were reversed, and the supreme court was significantly more left wing than the voting populace (while I may personally agree with the court more) I'd have similar concerns.

Are you uncomfortable with the precedents established by the Warren court between 1953-1969 due to this issue?  I'm thinking Miranda, Griswold and Roe, specifically, and not arguing outcome but based on the paucity of textual support for the conclusions the Court reached.

Has it been clearly established that the population had a different set of values incompatible with these decisions from the Warren court??

My impression (and I may be wrong) is that the situation was similar to today. The majority of the people were quite liberal (look at the support for FDR's policies in 1930 and the civil rights movement in 1960's) and aligned to the Warren court!! Of course, the dixiecrats (who later became "southern strategy republicans") made outsized noise.

-------------------

In theory, if a court starts issuing decisions that infringes on someone's fundamental rights based on a value system incompatible with that of the populace - then I would be uncomfortable, whatever be the direction of that disconnect.

e.g.1 - Fundamental rights are not negotiable: A women's right of autonomy over her body is not negotiable - whatever the "populace" thinks.
e.g.2 - Conflicting rights should follow values of the polity: a gay couple's right to force an artist to work for them should depend on values of the people. No such exemption, however, should be present for corporations (i.e. no Hobby Lobby exemption). If a corporation can't serve people and employees without discrimination then it has no business being in business.

[FIPurpose]

We may have already witnessed the last time there will ever be a successful SC appointment when the same party does not control the Senate and the White House.  Sad.

The last time a Republican Senate confirmed a Democratic President's Supreme Court pick was in 1895.

Maybe McConnell is just following precedent after all...

What about the inverse (Dem Senate, Rep Pres)?

Anthony Kennedy 88
David Souter 90
Clarence Thomas 91

There were no vacancies with a Dem majority during Bush II.

[Davnasty]

We may have already witnessed the last time there will ever be a successful SC appointment when the same party does not control the Senate and the White House.  Sad.

The last time a Republican Senate confirmed a Democratic President's Supreme Court pick was in 1895.

Maybe McConnell is just following precedent after all...

What about the inverse (Dem Senate, Rep Pres)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

I count 12 instances of Dem senates approving nominees of Republican presidents in that time frame

ETA: the original comment is a bit misleading as there has only been one instance where a Republican senate had the opportunity to vote on someone nominated by a Democratic president since 1895 and that was Garland.

[LWYRUP]

We may have already witnessed the last time there will ever be a successful SC appointment when the same party does not control the Senate and the White House.  Sad.

The last time a Republican Senate confirmed a Democratic President's Supreme Court pick was in 1895.

Maybe McConnell is just following precedent after all...

What about the inverse (Dem Senate, Rep Pres)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

I count 12 instances of Dem senates approving nominees of Republican presidents in that time frame

In the last year of a term?

I just ask out of curiosity.  My personal view of all this is that the seat should have been filled last time, should be filled this time, and McConnell is playing hardball politics.  But I also agree largely with the "both sides" thesis as there are plenty of examples of both sides of the aisle of hardball politics.  And plenty examples of it all the way back to the founding of the Republic.  It is what it is, and for sure the Democrats will do the same if and when they take power. 

[GuitarStv]

Everyone should be concerned when government swings far away from representing the people it governs.  With this appointment, it is extremely likely that the supreme court will swing much farther right than the people it governs.  It will make more and more decisions that do not represent what the electorate want because of this bias.  Ultimately, the government should represent the people - and a minority group should generally not be able to enforce it's will on the majority.  The basic unfairness of this type of scenario is always a problem.

If the situations were reversed, and the supreme court was significantly more left wing than the voting populace (while I may personally agree with the court more) I'd have similar concerns.

Are you uncomfortable with the precedents established by the Warren court between 1953-1969 due to this issue?  I'm thinking Miranda, Griswold and Roe, specifically, and not arguing outcome but based on the paucity of textual support for the conclusions the Court reached.

I support women's rights, think that what two adults want to do in the privacy of their bedroom is their own business, don't like racism, and believe that police need controls on their powers - that's why I don't align well with the modern Republican party . . . so I'm happy and comfortable that those decisions were made.  The world is demonstrably a better place because of that.

But I'd still argue that the supreme court should more closely represent the people it is serving.

[LWYRUP]

Everyone should be concerned when government swings far away from representing the people it governs.  With this appointment, it is extremely likely that the supreme court will swing much farther right than the people it governs.  It will make more and more decisions that do not represent what the electorate want because of this bias.  Ultimately, the government should represent the people - and a minority group should generally not be able to enforce it's will on the majority.  The basic unfairness of this type of scenario is always a problem.

If the situations were reversed, and the supreme court was significantly more left wing than the voting populace (while I may personally agree with the court more) I'd have similar concerns.

Are you uncomfortable with the precedents established by the Warren court between 1953-1969 due to this issue?  I'm thinking Miranda, Griswold and Roe, specifically, and not arguing outcome but based on the paucity of textual support for the conclusions the Court reached.

Has it been clearly established that the population had a different set of values incompatible with these decisions from the Warren court?? 

 

I am not sure these things can be clearly established, I think they are in the eye of the beholder.  I can say that the Warren court took a very expansive view of its role in Constitutional interpretation, in a way that wasn't really done in the past and rarely has been done since then.  So while Miranda, for example, is generally popular today, the support (either in the text of the Constitution, or in established precedent) for the Court's reasoning was... weak, in my view.  A lot of the talk of the recent decades has been about stare decisis, which is sort of an implicit admission that some of these decisions would be difficult to justify without the extra thumb on the scale of "let's not upset the apple cart now." 

If I were you, I would be hesitant about unreserved support for all Warren court type decisions.  What if a group of right wingers decide in the future that they don't care about textualism anymore, and they agree with the Warren court method, they just want to use it to establish right wing precedent?  I imagine you would not like that very much. 

A lot of the tale of the modern era has been the legislature being gridlocked and incompetent, and the executive and judiciary using that (often without opposition from the legislature) to expand their power relative to the legislature.  The best solution would be for the legislature to not suck, which basically means the leaders of Congress need to hammer out some mutually disagreeable compromises.  But I don't have much confidence in that happening right now. 

My impression (and I may be wrong) is that the situation was similar to today. The majority of the people were quite liberal (look at the support for FDR's policies in 1930 and the civil rights movement in 1960's) and aligned to the Warren court!! Of course, the dixiecrats (who later became "southern strategy republicans") made outsized noise. 

 

Warren Court had a lot of decisions, I wasn't specifically referring to racial civil rights cases.  In any event, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a big win for everyone, and established a good framework that made the answers to a lot of those questions clear.  But in any case, I don't know if it's accurate to say a majority of people were "quite liberal" then (or now for that matter).  Typically, a majority of people are moderate.  : )

In theory, if a court starts issuing decisions that infringes on someone's fundamental rights based on a value system incompatible with that of the populace - then I would be uncomfortable, whatever be the direction of that disconnect.

e.g.1 - Fundamental rights are not negotiable: A women's right of autonomy over her body is not negotiable - whatever the "populace" thinks. 

 

If only we could all agree on what the fundamental rights are, and what the scope of those rights is.  It would all be so easy.

e.g.2 - Conflicting rights should follow values of the polity: a gay couple's right to force an artist to work for them should depend on values of the people. No such exemption, however, should be present for corporations (i.e. no Hobby Lobby exemption). If a corporation can't serve people and employees without discrimination then it has no business being in business.

On this I can say I clearly disagree.  First, Constitutional rights > statutory rights.  Now, if a smart judge can thread the needle to come up with a method of dispute resolution so they don't conflict, all the better.  But if they do, there's a clear hierarchy.  Among Constitutional rights, conflicts should be adjudicated in accordance with the framework of the Constitution, in a reasonably consistent and predictable manner over time, as fairly interpreted by well trained jurists doing the best they possibly can be to be unbiased (while understanding that everyone of course brings their own lived experience and ideological framework to any issue). 

If something is popular among the polity and there's no Constitutional or statutory basis for the popular decision, that's the legislature's job to fix, not the courts. 

[FIPurpose]

We may have already witnessed the last time there will ever be a successful SC appointment when the same party does not control the Senate and the White House.  Sad.

The last time a Republican Senate confirmed a Democratic President's Supreme Court pick was in 1895.

Maybe McConnell is just following precedent after all...

What about the inverse (Dem Senate, Rep Pres)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

I count 12 instances of Dem senates approving nominees of Republican presidents in that time frame

In the last year of a term?

I just ask out of curiosity.  My personal view of all this is that the seat should have been filled last time, should be filled this time, and McConnell is playing hardball politics.  But I also agree largely with the "both sides" thesis as there are plenty of examples of both sides of the aisle of hardball politics.  And plenty examples of it all the way back to the founding of the Republic.  It is what it is, and for sure the Democrats will do the same if and when they take power.

It's simply a rare happenstance. The Thomas appointment was approximately 13 months til the election and Dems technically could have rejected everyone til Clinton became president.

Think of all the influencing factors that have to go wrong. A mixed Presidency/Senate control (50% chance?), only considering election years (25% chance), and death of justice during that exact time frame (25% chance - a justice seems to die every 4 years or so)

So you're looking at about a 3% chance that these all come together at the same time.

[Davnasty]

We may have already witnessed the last time there will ever be a successful SC appointment when the same party does not control the Senate and the White House.  Sad.

The last time a Republican Senate confirmed a Democratic President's Supreme Court pick was in 1895.

Maybe McConnell is just following precedent after all...

What about the inverse (Dem Senate, Rep Pres)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

I count 12 instances of Dem senates approving nominees of Republican presidents in that time frame

In the last year of a term?

I just ask out of curiosity.  My personal view of all this is that the seat should have been filled last time, should be filled this time, and McConnell is playing hardball politics.  But I also agree largely with the "both sides" thesis as there are plenty of examples of both sides of the aisle of hardball politics.  And plenty examples of it all the way back to the founding of the Republic.  It is what it is, and for sure the Democrats will do the same if and when they take power.

I don't know, don't have the time to look into it.

Call it hardball if you want, I'm going to keep calling it a bald-faced lie.

Lindsey Graham said "I want you to use my words against me". Now I'm doing exactly what he asked and I'm being called a hypocrite? (not by you, but the other "both sides" proponents in this thread)

The "both sides" argument in this thread hasn't just been that both sides play hardball, it's that both sides are hypocrites in this specific scenario because Democrats flip-flopped too. Of course they only did so because Republicans loudly and repeatedly established the precedent of not seating a supreme court justice within 9 months of an election. Calling Dems hypocrites for this is nonsense.

So if you're arguing both sides play dirty sometimes, well of course, but my issue right now is that Republicans are announcing to the world that nothing they say can be trusted no matter how emphatic they are or how many tapes of them saying it have been recorded. The Republican party is becoming less like dishonest politicians and more like "not a single word can be trusted" Trump. There is a difference. That level of lying without hesitation and without any fear of consequences is deeply worrying.

[ctuser1]

We may have already witnessed the last time there will ever be a successful SC appointment when the same party does not control the Senate and the White House.  Sad.

The last time a Republican Senate confirmed a Democratic President's Supreme Court pick was in 1895.

Maybe McConnell is just following precedent after all...

What about the inverse (Dem Senate, Rep Pres)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

I count 12 instances of Dem senates approving nominees of Republican presidents in that time frame

In the last year of a term?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kennedy
Confirmed on 1988 with senate democrat majority..

... But I also agree largely with the "both sides" thesis as there are plenty of examples of both sides of the aisle of hardball politics.  And plenty examples of it all the way back to the founding of the Republic.  It is what it is, and for sure the Democrats will do the same if and when they take power.

Seems you have made up your mind already!!

[LWYRUP]

We may have already witnessed the last time there will ever be a successful SC appointment when the same party does not control the Senate and the White House.  Sad.

The last time a Republican Senate confirmed a Democratic President's Supreme Court pick was in 1895.

Maybe McConnell is just following precedent after all...

What about the inverse (Dem Senate, Rep Pres)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

I count 12 instances of Dem senates approving nominees of Republican presidents in that time frame

In the last year of a term?

I just ask out of curiosity.  My personal view of all this is that the seat should have been filled last time, should be filled this time, and McConnell is playing hardball politics.  But I also agree largely with the "both sides" thesis as there are plenty of examples of both sides of the aisle of hardball politics.  And plenty examples of it all the way back to the founding of the Republic.  It is what it is, and for sure the Democrats will do the same if and when they take power.

It's simply a rare happenstance. The Thomas appointment was approximately 13 months til the election and Dems technically could have rejected everyone til Clinton became president.

Think of all the influencing factors that have to go wrong. A mixed Presidency/Senate control (50% chance?), only considering election years (25% chance), and death of justice during that exact time frame (25% chance - a justice seems to die every 4 years or so)

So you're looking at about a 3% chance that these all come together at the same time.

Thanks, that's what I expected.  I think McConnell just made up a new rule back in 2016, which was "opposing senate does not need to confirm the President's choice in an election year."  It probably never happened before, which gave him the plausible deniability to invent it. 

It would have been better for everyone if he just had the cojones to put Garland up in 2016 and then try to win on the up-or-down vote.  At least then he could say the Senate just didn't consent, which is different than actually blocking the vote to begin with. 

[LWYRUP]

The "both sides" argument in this thread hasn't just been that both sides play hardball, it's that both sides are hypocrites in this specific scenario because Democrats flip-flopped too. Of course they only did so because Republicans loudly and repeatedly established the precedent of not seating a supreme court justice within 9 months of an election. Calling Dems hypocrites for this is nonsense.

So if you're arguing both sides play dirty sometimes, well of course, but my issue right now is that Republicans are announcing to the world that nothing they say can be trusted no matter how emphatic they are or how many tapes of them saying it have been recorded. The Republican party is becoming less like dishonest politicians and more like "not a single word can be trusted" Trump. There is a difference. That level of lying without hesitation and without any fear of consequences is deeply worrying.

Ok, well that's not my specific view.  McConnell is basically just exercising political power to the maximum extent he legally can to get the short term win.  It's fair to claim that this is eroding trust in our system. 

I don't think it's hypocritical for Democrats to be angry at what he's doing.  But I also think McConnell has very little trust that the Democrats would act fairly if they obtained political power (more accurately: will act fairly if they do obtain political power).  Which I think is accurate.  So if I was some sort of Senate advisor to him, it would be hard for me to advise not exercising political power when you have it if you don't trust the other side to act fairly if they obtain power. 

But of course it would also be logical to expect ramifications from this if the Republicans lose the Senate.  So it's a political gamble. 

Anyways, if politics is just war by other means, then what he is doing it quite logical even if it's a dirty trick. 

Maybe if we brought back duels (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Cilley), the swamp dwellers would think more carefully about being so aggressive in their political machinations. 

[John Galt incarnate!]

Expanding the court would probably make it less political, not more.  With a court of say 15 justices most cases which went to the court would probably be heard by a bench of say 5, probably chosen randomly, subject to review by the whole court.  The court could take on a lot more cases that way, which would be good for the legal system, creating more certainty over a wider range of cases.  And there would likely be more of an emphasis on legal reasoning and less on extreme political positions.  It could be a big boon both to the court and to political life in the USA as a whole.

I oppose  panelization of the Supreme Court.

 The high Court's rulings, and especially its new precedents,  are too monumentally determinative of America's fiber to permit their formulation by only a panel.

Moreover, no exercise of the Supreme Court's ultimate power of judicial review speaks more of its constitutional authority  than its issuance of unanimous opinons: The Court's panelization could do away with or dilute   the authoritative essence  of unanimous opinions.

I insist on the traditional operation of the Supreme Court: All  of its decisions must result  from only en banc hearings.

[ctuser1]

McConnell is basically just exercising political power to the maximum extent he legally can to get the short term win.

Incorrect!!

He ignored the precedent of Kennedy, confirmed in an election year (1988) with a Senate democrat majority and a republican president!