Republican senator promises not to approve Hillary SC appointments

[fskimospy]

I look forward to their article telling us why it's important to add more justices the next time a Republican occupies the WH.

Haha my thoughts exactly. After a republican victory it would take about ten minutes for them to publish a piece about how we need to add another justice to the court because circuit splits have caused legal problems across the country.

 

[Atreus21]

Exactly, their view on the size of the Supreme Court is a direct function of how likely they think the court is to advance their policy goals. They simply alter their argument to whatever is most convenient for that because they are transparent hacks. If Cruz was the likely next president they would be arguing that the president and his choices should be confirmed quickly, based solely on qualifications.

I don't see how that makes them transparent hacks. Or even if it does, I don't see the problem from it. They openly admit the court should be pared down owing to the quality of the two candidates we have. And that, as they say in the article, has been the impetus of changes to SCOTUS membership in the past.

The National Review's lack of ethics aside an even numbered Supreme Court is a stupid idea. The primary function of the Supreme Court is to resolve differences between the lower courts so that we have one uniform set of laws that govern the whole country. When you have an even numbered Court confronted with a circuit split what happens is that both decisions stand, meaning that now federal law works one way in Texas and the exact same federal law works another way in California. Surely you can see why that's a big problem.

I'm not sure that's such a big problem, or at least a sufficiently big problem to make the cost outweigh the benefit.

Don't mean this in a nasty way, but you should read the entire article if you haven't already. It addresses precisely this point.

The eight-member Court kicked a few constitutional cans down the road, and the nation is no worse for it. Other tie votes left lower courts’ decisions standing, avoiding 5–4 national “landmark” decisions of doubtful correctness and durability that would have provided flash points for ongoing wars over control of the Court. Law professors and activists may bemoan this result. Let them moan: A lower court precedent does less harm than a nationwide one.

 

[MrPickins]

Well, the excerpt I linked explains it pretty clearly. Getting a 5/9ths majority is a lot easier than getting a 2/3rds majority on any rule-making body.

I'm still not really getting why it's so much harder to get 6/9ths vs 5/9ths...

 

[WHAMPOM]

In the GOP party comes before country, as seen in the primaries the rational get quickly culled and the fear mongers fight it out for first place.

 

[jackstar7]

I don't think that the majority should automatically get to carry out their agenda. If 50.1% of people voted in representatives, those representatives should not get to make dictatorial changes that affect the 49.9% of people who voted against them. There needs to be compromise. However, the GOP has decided in recent years that they will not compromise under any circumstances and it's caused a huge governing problem. More than a third of all filibusters done in US history were done by the GOP in Obama's first 6 years for example. I agree we can't have the government do nothing like that, but we certainly also can't allow the majority to be tyrannical.

Assuming Hillary is elected and people like McCain do stonewall nominees like he claimed and like the GOP is doing now to Garland, I'd support the President issuing warrants to force Congress to do it's fucking job. Honestly, there's 47 Senators who could legitimately be charged with treason already.

I was definitely being hyperbolic, but the notion that if you don't get your way you get to take democracy home and screw everyone just infuriates me.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't see how that makes them transparent hacks. Or even if it does, I don't see the problem from it. They openly admit the court should be pared down owing to the quality of the two candidates we have. And that, as they say in the article, has been the impetus of changes to SCOTUS membership in the past.

What they are basically doing is inverse Court packing. It's the same idea as when FDR tried to pack the court in the past, just the other way around. FDR was rightly condemned for this, as should be the national review.

I'm not sure that's such a big problem, or at least a sufficiently big problem to make the cost outweigh the benefit.

Don't mean this in a nasty way, but you should read the entire article if you haven't already. It addresses precisely this point.

I did read it and it doesn't address circuit splits at all. It completely ignores that an even numbered court will lead to federal law being applied differently in different parts of the country, which is pretty obviously a terrible idea. Imagine a company where their vital patent is valid in California but invalid in Texas. How on earth do you run your company effectively? Imagine you were convicted of a federal crime in Texas and that law was overturned by the 5th circuit but upheld by the 9th. Now you are released by the federal government in Texas but if you ever set foot outside of the 5th circuit you are at risk of being immediately re-incarcerated.

Do any of these things sound like good ideas to you? Isn't it odd that the National Review ignored this completely?

 

[Sunburn74]

Sure I do. I just think that, given the enormous power of the federal government, they are best kept from making changes except when they have an overwhelming commonality of opinion on their side. 5-4 decisions make me nervous..

It's not like the SCOTUS are the first and last opinion but rather the deciding vote on something that many many judges have had opportunity to vote on with no clear direction to date. They are the break vote for the split opinions of many federal courts on a topic

 

[glenn1]

What they are basically doing is inverse Court packing. It's the same idea as when FDR tried to pack the court in the past, just the other way around. FDR was rightly condemned for this, as should be the national review.



I did read it and it doesn't address circuit splits at all. It completely ignores that an even numbered court will lead to federal law being applied differently in different parts of the country, which is pretty obviously a terrible idea. Imagine a company where their vital patent is valid in California but invalid in Texas. How on earth do you run your company effectively? Imagine you were convicted of a federal crime in Texas and that law was overturned by the 5th circuit but upheld by the 9th. Now you are released by the federal government in Texas but if you ever set foot outside of the 5th circuit you are at risk of being immediately re-incarcerated.

Do any of these things sound like good ideas to you? Isn't it odd that the National Review ignored this completely?

Having a 9 member SCOTUS is no guarantee there won't be a tie that creates a circuit split either.

As for how many justices should be on the court, I really don't care so long as any change is forward dated enough to not give any certain advantage to either party based on current circumstances, e.g. to make up a number if say in 2030 we decided that we would revert to a 5 member court. Or whatever other number, there's nothing magic about 9.

 

[fskimospy]

Having a 9 member SCOTUS is no guarantee there won't be a tie that creates a circuit split either.

It's not a guarantee but it makes it vastly less likely.

As for how many justices should be on the court, I really don't care so long as any change is forward dated enough to not give any certain advantage to either party based on current circumstances, e.g. to make up a number if say in 2030 we decided that we would revert to a 5 member court. Or whatever other number, there's nothing magic about 9.

I 100% agree. I don't care how many justices there are on the court so long as it's an odd number and that odd number is not 1. Your idea makes good sense to me.

 

[Jhhnn]

What this fracas reveals is that modern Repubs aren't conservative at all. They have a radical right agenda & aren't shy about advancing it any way they can.

The SCOTUS has had nine members since 1869. A truly conservative & traditionalist viewpoint would be to maintain that regardless of the partisanship atm.

Dems bit the bullet putting the welfare of the People & the institution of the SCOTUS above partisanship 12 of the last 16 appointments. When called upon to do the same, Repubs balk at doing so. They'll take any hostages they can get.

 

[zinfamous]

Having a 9 member SCOTUS is no guarantee there won't be a tie that creates a circuit split either.

As for how many justices should be on the court, I really don't care so long as any change is forward dated enough to not give any certain advantage to either party based on current circumstances, e.g. to make up a number if say in 2030 we decided that we would revert to a 5 member court. Or whatever other number, there's nothing magic about 9.

yep, it's the only to make a legitimate proposal for a branch like this.

I think reducing the number of judges is completely ineffective, though. I like term limits, and even terms with the option to be re-considered after x number of years off the court.

 

[Sonikku]

It's hilarious reading some of the apologist posts. "But, but... Dems would do it too if the situation were reversed!!" Good lord, people.

 

[1prophet]

Maybe appointments for lightning rod social issues, I doubt he would block any pro corporate appointments that are for example "Citizens United" friendly.

 

[Muse]

Yes, I agree, although he certainly seemed to have his own ideals unless the "maverick" was simply propaganda that I succumbed to.

McCain has abandoned any claim to idealism or maverick if he simply says that he will oppose any nomination for the court by the president. I think it's out of character, proof actually, that he no longer has character. Did he used to have character? That's doubtful now. Just because he was a POW who survived very difficult circumstances that were physically painful and did him great and permanent harm is no proof of character.

 

[Muse]

Maybe appointments for lightning rod social issues, I doubt he would block any pro corporate appointments that are for example "Citizens United" friendly.

First of all, calling themselves "Citizens United" is about the biggest lie around. For a name they picked a boulder to hide behind. It's dark money, period. Second, you will not see a nominee for the court in the next presidential term who won't be opposed to hiding sources of funding for political candidates or initiatives.

 

[glenn1]

First of all, calling themselves "Citizens United" is about the biggest lie around. For a name they picked a boulder to hide behind. It's dark money, period. Second, you will not see a nominee for the court in the next presidential term who won't be opposed to hiding sources of funding for political candidates or initiatives.

How are you defining "hiding sources of funding"? Choosing something like "Citizens United" as the name of the production company making an anti-Clinton film is no more "hiding funding sources" than having the movie Shrek produced by "DreamWorks Animation" is concealing that movie's funding. Besides, even if that was the intent so what? We don't legally prohibit using pseudonyms for people exercising free speech rights. There's nothing wrong with Samuel Clemens exercising free speech rights under the pen name "Mark Twain" or Jonathan Leibowitz exercising his free speech to do the Daily Show with the stage name John Stewart.

Plus, you should keep in mind the whole convoluted structure of PACs, SuperPACs, et cetera is almost entirely an outgrowth of the stupid and counterproductive limits on individual campaign contributions. If you require appropriate disclosure there really is no legitimate reason why Rich Person X shouldn't be allowed to donate as much as they want to the election fund for Candidate Z. If the voters don't care Z got a trillion dollars from X and elect him/her anyway then so be it. Just strengthen the rules and oversight of Z to prevent providing quid pro quo decisions to benefit X as a "payment" for the contributions.

 

[Jhhnn]

How are you defining "hiding sources of funding"? Choosing something like "Citizens United" as the name of the production company making an anti-Clinton film is no more "hiding funding sources" than having the movie Shrek produced by "DreamWorks Animation" is concealing that movie's funding. Besides, even if that was the intent so what? We don't legally prohibit using pseudonyms for people exercising free speech rights. There's nothing wrong with Samuel Clemens exercising free speech rights under the pen name "Mark Twain" or Jonathan Leibowitz exercising his free speech to do the Daily Show with the stage name John Stewart.

Plus, you should keep in mind the whole convoluted structure of PACs, SuperPACs, et cetera is almost entirely an outgrowth of the stupid and counterproductive limits on individual campaign contributions. If you require appropriate disclosure there really is no legitimate reason why Rich Person X shouldn't be allowed to donate as much as they want to the election fund for Candidate Z. If the voters don't care Z got a trillion dollars from X and elect him/her anyway then so be it. Just strengthen the rules and oversight of Z to prevent providing quid pro quo decisions to benefit X as a "payment" for the contributions.

You miss the point entirely. Actual funding sources need not be obscured under the current system. The fact that they are is because the donors want it to be that way & have created elaborate constructs to accomplish it-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...7cfd9a-719b-11e3-9389-09ef9944065e_story.html

They want to portray AstroTurf as grassroots, a fundamentally dishonest proposition.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Not to be outdone by McCain, Cruz has jumped into the ring of let's not approve anything.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/27/politics/ted-cruz-supreme-court/index.html

"You know, I think there will be plenty of time for debate on that issue," the Texas Republican told reporters gathered after a speech in Colorado, according to The Washington Post. "There is certainly long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices. I would note, just recently, that Justice (Stephen) Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job. That's a debate that we are going to have."

When Scalia passed the GOP was saying they wanted to wait until the election as they felt whoever was elected president should be the one to make appointments. That they want to see the will of the people. Now that it appears more and more obvious the will is behind Clinton they just want to continue with the same old bullshit.

The do nothing Congress lives on!

 

[theeedude]

Republicans can't govern. It's been proven over and over again. They can't be given ANY responsibility.

 

[hal2kilo]

yep, it's the only to make a legitimate proposal for a branch like this.

I think reducing the number of judges is completely ineffective, though. I like term limits, and even terms with the option to be re-considered after x number of years off the court.

Don't we have enough campaigns as it is. Just more opportunities for the politicians to further politicize the SCOTUS and bloviate.

 

[ivwshane]

The difference, of course, is that we knew cruz was a piece of shit. Him blocking future nominations was a given and I wouldn't have expected anything less.

Hopefully Clinton and Obama's ground game can shame people into voting these pieces of shit out of office.

Not to be outdone by McCain, Cruz has jumped into the ring of let's not approve anything.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/27/politics/ted-cruz-supreme-court/index.html



When Scalia passed the GOP was saying they wanted to wait until the election as they felt whoever was elected president should be the one to make appointments. That they want to see the will of the people. Now that it appears more and more obvious the will is behind Clinton they just want to continue with the same old bullshit.

The do nothing Congress lives on!

 

[dank69]

Not to be outdone by McCain, Cruz has jumped into the ring of let's not approve anything.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/27/politics/ted-cruz-supreme-court/index.html



When Scalia passed the GOP was saying they wanted to wait until the election as they felt whoever was elected president should be the one to make appointments. That they want to see the will of the people. Now that it appears more and more obvious the will is behind Clinton they just want to continue with the same old bullshit.

The do nothing Congress lives on!

Many conservative pundits are already stoking the idea that we don't need 9 justices and there is nothing in the Constitution that says we need 9 justices, etc. Add to that all the talk about how the GOP is gearing up to start Congressional investigations on day one and we have a pretty compelling argument as to why the GOP is completely unfit for service anymore. Well, to anyone without conservative blinders on anyway...

 

[glenn1]

yep, it's the only to make a legitimate proposal for a branch like this.

I think reducing the number of judges is completely ineffective, though. I like term limits, and even terms with the option to be re-considered after x number of years off the court.

Best idea I've heard so far is that SCOTUS appointments remain lifetime, but only 9 are "active" justices at any given time. Each gets 18 years of active service so each POTUS nominates 2 each term. After 18 years they revert to "reserve" justice status and are used to fill in when needed when an active justice recuses themselves from a case, are sick, etc. Doing that would be both fair, wouldn't require a Constitutional Amendment to remove life tenure, and solves the "decrepit but refusing to step down because the POTUS is from the party you oppose" phenomena seen on the SCOTUS lately.

 

[fskimospy]

Not to be outdone by McCain, Cruz has jumped into the ring of let's not approve anything.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/27/politics/ted-cruz-supreme-court/index.html

When Scalia passed the GOP was saying they wanted to wait until the election as they felt whoever was elected president should be the one to make appointments. That they want to see the will of the people. Now that it appears more and more obvious the will is behind Clinton they just want to continue with the same old bullshit.

The do nothing Congress lives on!

Haha yes exactly. They said the American people should have a say in who was nominated, but what they really meant was the American people should have a say so long as they chose a Republican.

It's sad that partisanship is so strong in this country because these people really, truly deserve to lose their jobs. They have consistently used impeding the basic functions of government as weapons against their political enemies, which is gross governmental malpractice.

 

[ivwshane]

Haha yes exactly. They said the American people should have a say in who was nominated, but what they really meant was the American people should have a say so long as they chose a Republican.

It's sad that partisanship is so strong in this country because these people really, truly deserve to lose their jobs. They have consistently used impeding the basic functions of government as weapons against their political enemies, which is gross governmental malpractice.

I wonder if the founding fathers even thought such malpractice was possible let alone that the American people would support such politicians.