Jump to content
halfmanhalfbronco

Biden staffing commission to examine SCOTUS reform.

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, sebasour said:

They have the capital to pack the court

So look at this from a Democratic voters perspective. What would you do? Just want the party to sit there and take a 6-3 minority with a smile on their face, and hope that maybe one day the right justices will die at the right time?

 

I also don't agree that there's any difference between the judges who could be nominated now, and the ones that  could be nominated in an expanded court. What is so magical about the number 9 to you?

You think they have 50 votes?  Lol

Have you read the thread?  I have said I would be fine with expanding to 12 or 15 if done right.  

What is the difference?  Right now we have nominated and confirmed 4 very centrist judges in a row.  The last not so centrist judge was Sotomayor, who is about as far on the left as Thomas is on the right.  She writes some great scathing dissents though, as has Thomas.  

If we turn it into a tit for tat of sticking it to the other side, we will move from appointing the best Jurists available via Federalist Society recommendations or anything else, to actually nominating activist judges.  This is bad.

If I need to explain that further to you let me know so I can run down to the dollar store and buy crayons.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Why should a Garland situation never happen again?  Only 3 times in our nations history has a POTUS nominated a SCOTUS judge in an election year and then the Senate voted to confirm in an election year.

If you mean we should always have a vote I would agree but that was only a technicality and would not have impacted the outcome.

They should have voted.  Why does election year matter? Why not have the Senate just not hold votes when they have power and there is an opposite party president?  It's the opposite of packing the court but done by the Senate.  Had they done the same to Eisenhower - he would have had only 5 justices at the end of his term.  Democrats could have solidified a 9-0 court advantage in the 1960s with that political strategy of using the Senate to elect justices.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bsu_alum9 said:

They should have voted.  Why does election year matter? Why not have the Senate just not hold votes when they have power and there is an opposite party president?  It's the opposite of packing the court but done by the Senate.  Had they done the same to Eisenhower - he would have had only 5 justices at the end of his term.  Democrats could have solidified a 9-0 court advantage in the 1960s with that political strategy of using the Senate to elect justices.

Because keeping a seat open for months is a lot more palatable than keeping it open for years.  Having a seat open for years with an 8 person court is just not tenable.  

Election year matters because the precedent has been set it does for over 200 years.  But it really only matters in divided government.  

The President never fails to nominate, the Senate can absolutely vote to not confirm, however outside of rare circumstances they always vote to confirm even in divided government OUTSIDE of election years where they hardly ever do, again except in rare circumstances.

Norms matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

You think they have 50 votes?  Lol

Have you read the thread?  I have said I would be fine with expanding to 12 or 15 if done right.  

What is the difference?  Right now we have nominated and confirmed 4 very centrist judges in a row.  The last not so centrist judge was Sotomayor, who is about as far on the left as Thomas is on the right.  She writes some great scathing dissents though, as has Thomas.  

If we turn it into a tit for tat of sticking it to the other side, we will move from appointing the best Jurists available via Federalist Society recommendations or anything else, to actually nominating activist judges.  This is bad.

If I need to explain that further to you let me know so I can run down to the dollar store and buy crayons.  

 

 

Fair enough, they  need a few more seats in the midterms to actually do it, but I'm confused, we're crossing streams here of what's "right,"  and what politically viable right now, and I don't really understand your position. Say the Democrats pick up enough seats to do it in 2022, would it then be okay? 

 

I very much question that claim about the centrism of those judges, but fine, I'll grant you that. The Republicans had unchecked power on the last 3 SCOTUS nominations yet according to you, chose centrists. Maybe The Democrats will nominate 3 justices who are just as close to the center as Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and ACB. If The GOP supposedly acted in good faith, why can't Democrats?

 

The SCOTUS is already a political game, so what's the issue with letting both parties stack it?

 

Try to make with your point without being a d bag

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

GASP, packing the court as political vengeance sets a really bad precedent 

I mean, that's what McConnell did by holding up lower court nominees until they got a GOP President back in office. Obviously not the same thing as SCOTUS is a whole different animal, but let's not act like something like this hasn't happened before.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sebasour said:

 

Fair enough, they  need a few more seats in the midterms to actually do it, but I'm confused, we're crossing streams here of what's "right,"  and what politically viable right now, and I don't really understand your position. Say the Democrats pick up enough seats to do it in 2022, would it then be okay? 

 

I very much question that claim about the centrism of those judges, but fine, I'll grant you that. The Republicans had unchecked power on the last 3 SCOTUS nominations yet according to you, chose centrists. Maybe The Democrats will nominate 3 justices who are just as close to the center as Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and ACB. If The GOP supposedly acted in good faith, why can't Democrats?

 

The SCOTUS is already a political game, so what's the issue with letting both parties stack it?

 

Try to make with your point without being a d bag

But I am a d bag.  I am your d bag and never forget it though!

It's not according to me they picked centrists, that is according to their decisions to date.  Not enough time on ACB but she was expected to be right of Gorsuch and left of Alito.  This is according to the Martin-Quinn scores which are highly reputable.  Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and of course Roberts are all closer to center on their scores than Kagen, the closest to center Judge appointed by the left (and an absolute +++++ing rockstar, btw).

 

As @Maji once told me, I powder my whig.  When looking at what is right, I look at historical norms, prior precedent and future ramifications.  The norm and prior precedent is that court packing is really dumb, it has been done before and not ended well.  It was most recently attempted by FDR and his own VP and the majority houses laughed him out of it.  It was his worst blunder arguably.

So when looking at what is right, I see a court right now with 3 very close to center judges and a 4th that is expected to be about as close to center as Kagen.  Roe V Wade is not in real play, gay marriage is certainly not in play at all.  But who the hell knows what could be in play if we start a tit for tat war in expanding, contracting and nominating more extreme Jurists that are not recommended by reputable societies like the Federalist Society. 

You see a 6-3 majority and think the 6-3 means 6 "modern conservative" Justices when that is not the case at all.  Even ACB has ruled in favor of abortion rights, in the Chicago case.  What you are recommending or advocating for is an escalation of scale not seen in a century.  Based on fear porn.  Weaponizing the high court would result in dozens of judges overtime filled with jurists that make Thomas and Sotomayor look like close allies.  We would no longer go on recommendations of respected think tanks, we would be all about "winning".

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, retrofade said:

I mean, that's what McConnell did by holding up lower court nominees until they got a GOP President back in office. Obviously not the same thing as SCOTUS is a whole different animal, but let's not act like something like this hasn't happened before.

Please remember the Democrats used the nuclear option for the lower courts in 2013.  Obama appointed 329 federal judges, the third highest count ever and if not for the holdin up as you put it, would have ended with a number that eclipsed any POTUS ever.

Use of said nuclear option is why we have ACB as a judge today instead of a Biden nominated one (gave precedent to do it with SCOTUS ).

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Because keeping a seat open for months is a lot more palatable than keeping it open for years.  Having a seat open for years with an 8 person court is just not tenable.

Scalia's seat was open for 444 days. Better to go years with fewer seats than to have the other team pick.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

But I am a d bag.  I am your d bag and never forget it though!

It's not according to me they picked centrists, that is according to their decisions to date.  Not enough time on ACB but she was expected to be right of Gorsuch and left of Alito.  This is according to the Martin-Quinn scores which are highly reputable.  Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and of course Roberts are all closer to center on their scores than Kagen, the closest to center Judge appointed by the left (and an absolute +++++ing rockstar, btw).

 

As @Maji once told me, I powder my whig.  When looking at what is right, I look at historical norms, prior precedent and future ramifications.  The norm and prior precedent is that court packing is really dumb, it has been done before and not ended well.  It was most recently attempted by FDR and his own VP and the majority houses laughed him out of it.  It was his worst blunder arguably.

So when looking at what is right, I see a court right now with 3 very close to center judges and a 4th that is expected to be about as close to center as Kagen.  Roe V Wade is not in real play, gay marriage is certainly not in play at all.  But who the hell knows what could be in play if we start a tit for tat war in expanding, contracting and nominating more extreme Jurists that are not recommended by reputable societies like the Federalist Society. 

You see a 6-3 majority and think the 6-3 means 6 "modern conservative" Justices when that is not the case at all.  Even ACB has ruled in favor of abortion rights, in the Chicago case.  What you are recommending or advocating for is an escalation of scale not seen in a century.  Based on fear porn.  Weaponizing the high court would result in dozens of judges overtime filled with jurists that make Thomas and Sotomayor look like close allies.  We would no longer go on recommendations of respected think tanks, we would be all about "winning".

 

I'm very curious about how they define the center and how they go about moving candidates away from it, but let's not get off topic.

 

Why would unqualified radical judges all of a sudden become the norm? Why couldn't Dems just nominate a few more Kagen's?  

 

You seem to be claiming that the court isn't already weaponized as is, and that there's a minimal difference between the various justices. If that's the case, why did The GOP care about Merrick Garland getting on to the court?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bsu_alum9 said:

Scalia's seat was open for 444 days. Better to go years with fewer seats than to have the other team pick.

He passed in February of an election year.  It got to the 444 day part because of the Kavanaugh extravaganza.   

What happened was entirely within historic norms.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

He passed in February of an election year.  It got to the 444 day part because of the Kavanaugh extravaganza.   

What happened was entirely within historic norms.

 

 


Didn't Kavanaugh replace Kennedy? Both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch were confirmed roughly 3 months after being nominated, that's roughly how long it took for Kagen and Sotomayor

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

He passed in February of an election year.  It got to the 444 day part because of the Kavanaugh extravaganza.   

What happened was entirely within historic norms.

Nah - McConnell not holding hearings was unprecedented. The 295 days it was left open was unprecedented as well.  No reason for an opposing party to ever hold hearings to let the other team choose.  The precedent has been set by Mitch, who afterwards said it was the best thing he ever did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sebasour said:

I'm very curious about how they define the center and how they go about moving candidates away from it, but let's not get off topic.

 

Why would unqualified radical judges all of a sudden become the norm? Why couldn't Dems just nominate a few more Kagen's?  

 

You seem to be claiming that the court isn't already weaponized as is, and that there's a minimal difference between the various justices. If that's the case, why did The GOP care about Merrick Garland getting on to the court?

 

There would hardly been any difference between Garland and Kav, really.  It was more about denying Obama a win than it was anything else and Garland had made a few decisions that some questioned as anti 2A (similar to ACB making a few decisions considered Anti-abortion, despite siding with some pro abortion groups).

As to how the Martin Quinn scores are scored, you can read about it on their website but they are the de facto source for academics when discussing the tendencies of jurists.  They are the real deal. 

Why would more radical judges become a thing?  It is pretty simple, logically.  Right now when in divided government moderate judges are selected and even in non divided government very qualified if not "moderate"  (and I hate using left/right/moderate to describe jurisprudence of federal judges but am doing it for simplicity's sake).  An escalating tit for tat of court packing means the next logical step would be to pack the court with more extreme judges when you get the chance.  Not sure why that logic is hard to follow.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bsu_alum9 said:

Nah - McConnell not holding hearings was unprecedented. The 295 days it was left open was unprecedented as well.  No reason for an opposing party to ever hold hearings to let the other team choose.  The precedent has been set by Mitch, who afterwards said it was the best thing he ever did.

Not holding hearings was really dumb but would not have impacted the outcome.
 

To your other point...sigh

image.png.1082fcac73e4a729db4113ff8131ba9e.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, sebasour said:


Didn't Kavanaugh replace Kennedy? Both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch were confirmed roughly 3 months after being nominated, that's roughly how long it took for Kagen and Sotomayor

He did.   Yup.  Typing fast and got confused.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

To your other point...sigh

image.png.1082fcac73e4a729db4113ff8131ba9e.png

Longest it's been purposefully left vacant.  Tyler was a Whig and couldn't get the Whigs behind his choices back in the 1840s LOL.

image.png.a43f0a4dd507c2c15b3fc8ba03479f88.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

There would hardly been any difference between Garland and Kav, really.  It was more about denying Obama a win than it was anything else and Garland had made a few decisions that some questioned as anti 2A (similar to ACB making a few decisions considered Anti-abortion, despite siding with some pro abortion groups).

As to how the Martin Quinn scores are scored, you can read about it on their website but they are the de facto source for academics when discussing the tendencies of jurists.  They are the real deal. 

Why would more radical judges become a thing?  It is pretty simple, logically.  Right now when in divided government moderate judges are selected and even in non divided government very qualified if not "moderate"  (and I hate using left/right/moderate to describe jurisprudence of federal judges but am doing it for simplicity's sake).  An escalating tit for tat of court packing means the next logical step would be to pack the court with more extreme judges when you get the chance.  Not sure why that logic is hard to follow.  

 

 

I'm gonna call BS that their driving motivation was denying a win to a guy who was about to reach his term limits anyway. 

 

That logic is actually very hard to follow for me, because it seems like it would make more sense to pick an ideologue when every individual justice is crucial to the court. If Republicans are picking moderates now, when they can nominate Rush Limbaugh, why would they stop doing so if they regain the white house in 2028

 

You're pointing out a next step that doesn't exist. The senate and white house will do what they've always done, nominate qualified judges who agree with their ideology

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bsu_alum9 said:

Longest it's been purposefully left vacant.  Tyler was a Whig and couldn't get the Whigs behind his choices back in the 1840s LOL.

image.png.a43f0a4dd507c2c15b3fc8ba03479f88.png

 

No Blackmun?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, sebasour said:

 

I'm gonna call BS that their driving motivation was denying a win to a guy who was about to reach his term limits anyway. 

 

That logic is actually very hard to follow for me, because it seems like it would make more sense to pick an ideologue when every individual justice is crucial to the court. If Republicans are picking moderates now, when they can nominate Rush Limbaugh, why would they stop doing so if they regain the white house in 2028

 

You're pointing out a next step that doesn't exist. The senate and white house will do what they've always done, nominate qualified judges who agree with their ideology

 

 

 

They nominate qualified judges because nobody has been stupid enough to turn the SCOTUS into a tit for tat of political vengeance.  (Garland and ACB followed political norms)
 

Republicans have been picking Justices based on Federalist Society recommendations which means they will almost always be moderates.  You want to change that.  I think that is dumb.

If you have been paying any attention at all to DC, you know it is a game of one upmanship.  We want to include the SCOTUS in that game now?  Fug out of here.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...