Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Clean, Oct 12, 2020.
Barney Frank got away with it
Now, now...just because there was a gross misunderstanding of the phrase "turn the page"...
The size of the court wasn't set by the framers. In the early days the number of justices varied from 6-10. Then Congress set the number to nine in 1869 and its been that way for the last 150 years. I suppose Congress could change it again if it wanted to. Let's hope the Repubs hold the Senate to prevent such a fiasco.
Yep, a bill from Congress, signed by the POTUS, and the number of justices on the SCOTUS can be changed. Unlike the desire by liberal activists to give statehood to PR and DC or abolish the Electoral College, this wouldn't require any votes from the States. It would likely cause a sharp flip of Congress in the midterms though. Then again, progressives don't care as much about the SCOTUS as the Republicans allowing for the hypocrisy of holding a seat open for 9 months to ensure an R POTUS nominates while doing so again in weeks to ensure a conservative justice.
I think, given the chance and under the same circumstances they would/will do it too.
So are you attempting to claim that everybody just knew Trump was going to beat Hillary? That doesn't sound right.
Nope, they held out hope that Trump would win. In ACB's case, they are taking no chances and if you believe Graham he thinks there is a very good chance that that Biden wins.
In both cases, it was about trying to ensure R influence of the court. If the D's choose to waste political capital on increasing the number of judges they'll be doing so to ensure D influence in the court.
This board often likes to lean on precedents, like the D's reducing the required votes for needed for Fed Judiciary nominees to a simple majority. The McConnell precedents will bring significant howling from the Right when the left does the same. The R's have been much smarter though. They've focused on younger less accomplished judges to ensure locking in their picks for 30 years. What goes around will come around, eventually. Just like this ACB example, both parties will demonstrate their hypocrisy.
Politicians play politics to wield power? Who would have thought?
Senators should play by the constitutional rules but other than that they should fight to exert as much influence as they can. That is how I see the SCOTUS nomination and confirmations over the last 4 years.
I think that is exactly how the game has been played for the last 200 years.
The Constitution isn't the only rule. Like courts, the Senate has its own rules of procedure and decorum, which the Constitution authorizes. It has its own precedents for how it handles certain issues and dilemmas. For the sake of predictability and fairness, it should generally follow its own precedents and should not change its rules of procedure for short-term political expedience. There's a reason why courts generally try to follow precedent and rules.
The game hasn't always been played this way. Until 1917, the Senate was a body of unlimited debate. (Originally the House was too.) They didn't vote on anything until everybody got a chance to talk about it as much as they wanted. There was no process to invoke cloture (limit debate). That included judicial nominations. We eroded that with a 2/3 requirement, later reduced that to 60 votes, and now to a simple majority. The judges we confirm now (beginning with Harry Reid's change and going forward) are being confirmed in a process that is unlike any before, because the minority (even if it's barely a minority) can be completely shut out of the process.
Two things screwed this up. First, the Supreme Court decided it was going to be the final arbiter of all cultural and social issues even when it has no textual basis for doing so. That made the stakes for judicial nominations ridiculously high. If you're a social conservative, how the hell can you tolerate a Democrat getting a seat on the Court when you know that Democrat will completely disenfranchise you on every issue you care about? This is 90 percent of the problem, and it's massively ****** up. The founding fathers would truly be horrified at it - not because they'd always agree with social conservatives but because they'd never support a virtually unaccountable branch of government wielding that kind of power. Why get rid of a king only to have a system like that? At least King George III had to deal with Parliament.
Second, the other 10 percent of the problem is the Senate. It was designed for unlimited debate, but it also wasn't designed to be run by political hacks who have to worry about every urge that their political party primary voters have at a given moment and therefore feel the need to filibuster everything under the sun. It was designed to be run by intelligent adults who answered to their state legislatures - more like the British House of Lords than the House of Commons. For example, Gary Peters, Debbie Stabenow, Bob Casey, and Jon Tester will almost surely vote against ACB as they voted against Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Why? Because they'd get primaried if they didn't. That's the epitome of what the founding fathers didn't want when they designed the Senate. What if they answered to their state legislatures instead? It would be wildly different dynamic.
hahahahaha, have we ever left that notion behind!