Trump's US Supreme Court Nominee Thread

[MrSquished]

It wasn’t court packing no matter how many times you say it

According to Republicans, many of them said Obama was court packing https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_...24j4P4-aQXtwhGBD8uRT6GduBIX03LjjtgbP2QUv4Mmyo

 

[Starbuck1975]

He’s playing semantics. Court packing refers to a president trying to expand the court. That’s been ruled unconstitutional. Maybe a better term would be stacking the court.

Call it whatever you want, the net result is an escalation in the increasingly irrational partisan maneuvering around judicial appointments. Reform SCOTUS, don't break it further

 

[Starbuck1975]

It's not unconstitutional to add more justices if you have a trifecta. Republicans want to play a raw power game, and Democrats should give them one.

It wasn’t unconstitutional to block Obama’s appointments, it also wasn’t unconstitutional to confirm Barrett. It’s the norms and traditions of the Senate that have increasingly deteriorated.

 

[fskimospy]

According to Republicans, many of them said Obama was court packing https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_...24j4P4-aQXtwhGBD8uRT6GduBIX03LjjtgbP2QUv4Mmyo

Much like 'judicial activism', 'court packing' to Republicans means 'changes to the courts I don't like'.

There is no substantive difference between deliberately not staffing the government to get the judges you want and creating more staff positions to get the judges you want. The result is exactly the same.

 

[K1052]

Call it whatever you want, the net result is an escalation in the increasingly irrational partisan maneuvering around judicial appointments. Reform SCOTUS, don't break it further

If you are seriously proposing the Republicans, after getting absolutely everything the wanted and then some, would engage in good faith negotiations to reform the courts absent retaliation you are even less honest than I previously thought.

 

[MrSquished]

It wasn’t unconstitutional to block Obama’s appointments, it also wasn’t unconstitutional to confirm Barrett. It’s the norms and traditions of the Senate that have increasingly deteriorated.

It wasn't unconstitutional for a lot of things that were terrible for a very long time. Big difference between unconstitutional and ethical. Unless you are a strict originalist?

The fact is the Republicans accused Democrats of court packing in the past so they have no leg to stand on. It's all about marketing the message now.

 

[fskimospy]

It wasn’t unconstitutional to block Obama’s appointments, it also wasn’t unconstitutional to confirm Barrett. It’s the norms and traditions of the Senate that have increasingly deteriorated.

Exactly - Republicans have decided that the norms and traditions don't matter anymore. That's their right!

So those are the new rules, we are now constrained only by the Constitution. Done!

 

[MrSquished]

Much like 'judicial activism', 'court packing' to Republicans means 'changes to the courts I don't like'.

There is no substantive difference between deliberately not staffing the government to get the judges you want and creating more staff positions to get the judges you want. The result is exactly the same.

Agreed and that was my point. The Dems just gotta do this right, good PR, catchy slogans, whatever.

 

[K1052]

Agreed and that was my point. The Dems just gotta do this right, good PR, catchy slogans, whatever.

Given this is not the Dems strong suit I think the case is to do it quickly rather than engage in a protracted back and forth with the Republicans.

 

[Starbuck1975]

It wasn't unconstitutional for a lot of things that were terrible for a very long time. Big difference between unconstitutional and ethical. Unless you are a strict originalist?

The fact is the Republicans accused Democrats of court packing in the past so they have no leg to stand on. It's all about marketing the message now.

I don’t believe anyone has a leg to stand on, which is why we’re all rolling around in the mud.

 

[gothuevos]

Agreed and that was my point. The Dems just gotta do this right, good PR, catchy slogans, whatever.

Unless there is overwhelming support for this via polling or huge Senate gains...it will backfire and invite further retaliation.

The response should not be "we need to change the rules," but rather "we need to find a way to be more popular, win more elections, convince more people of our policies."

I actually think Biden has the right idea, measured and patient. Try to strike a bipartisan agreement on certain reforms. Term limits might be some low hanging fruit to go after. But just expanding the court because you can...would probably end them as a party for the foreseeable future.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Agreed and that was my point. The Dems just gotta do this right, good PR, catchy slogans, whatever.

You mean like hope and change?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Unless there is overwhelming support for this via polling or huge Senate gains...it will backfire and invite further retaliation.

The response should not be "we need to change the rules," but rather "we need to find a way to be more popular, win more elections, convince more people of our policies."

I actually think Biden has the right idea, measured and patient. Try to strike a bipartisan agreement on certain reforms. Term limits might be some low hanging fruit to go after. But just expanding the court because you can...would probably end them as a party for the foreseeable future.

The problem for Biden is that the Democrats now have their own unhinged Tea Party element, will be interesting to see if he is able to successfully leash it.

 

[gothuevos]

I don’t believe anyone has a leg to stand on, which is why we’re all rolling around in the mud.

Agree. At some point somebody needs to just say it's enough. Yes the Dems have been on the short end of the stick recently...but there's still ample opportunities moving forward for them to be able to add to SCOTUS in the future. This zero sum game of "I HAVE to win" doesn't help anybody.

 

[fskimospy]

I saw this mentioned today and it is a point people who blame the Democrats for the demise of the judicial filibuster should be able to answer.

Say Harry Reid let the Republicans filibuster everything into the ground and he never filled another judgeship. When Neil Gorsuch was nominated and Democrats filibustered his nomination what do you think would have happened?

 

[gothuevos]

I saw this mentioned today and it is a point people who blame the Democrats for the demise of the judicial filibuster should be able to answer.

Say Harry Reid let the Republicans filibuster everything into the ground and he never filled another judgeship. When Neil Gorsuch was nominated and Democrats filibustered his nomination what do you think would have happened?

Are you implying that Senate Republicans would have just changed the rules regardless?

Maybe, maybe not. Hard to say as the initial Harry Reid precedent would not have been set. We can speculate about it all day, doesn't matter anymore.

 

[fskimospy]

Unless there is overwhelming support for this via polling or huge Senate gains...it will backfire and invite further retaliation.

If you think voters will be voting based on the size of the supreme court in 2022 you're living in a fantasy world.

The response should not be "we need to change the rules," but rather "we need to find a way to be more popular, win more elections, convince more people of our policies."

I actually think Biden has the right idea, measured and patient. Try to strike a bipartisan agreement on certain reforms. Term limits might be some low hanging fruit to go after. But just expanding the court because you can...would probably end them as a party for the foreseeable future.

Once again, the situation is that Democrats need to win elections by ~8 points to enact their agenda while Republicans only need to lose by 7 points or fewer in order to enact their agenda.

We are a democracy, why are rules that establish that disparity good? Wouldn't changing them so the people who got the most votes usually won be better? Also, do you consider all the other times the size of the court was changed or states were added to have been bad?

 

[fskimospy]

Are you implying that Senate Republicans would have just changed the rules regardless?

Of course they would have. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a fantasy world.

In case you didn't notice Republicans just violated the precedent they set only four years ago. They give exactly zero shits about precedent.

Maybe, maybe not. Hard to say as the initial Harry Reid precedent would not have been set. We can speculate about it all day, doesn't matter anymore.

I keep telling you this but you keep ignoring it. Harry Reid's action was one that REPUBLICANS demanded when they were in the majority. He just did what they demanded.

 

[ewdotson]

Unless there is overwhelming support for this via polling or huge Senate gains...it will backfire and invite further retaliation.

The response should not be "we need to change the rules," but rather "we need to find a way to be more popular, win more elections, convince more people of our policies."

I actually think Biden has the right idea, measured and patient. Try to strike a bipartisan agreement on certain reforms. Term limits might be some low hanging fruit to go after. But just expanding the court because you can...would probably end them as a party for the foreseeable future.

Here's the thing. The GOP has made it very clear that they don't give a shit about norms. Anything they can do to increase their power, they will do. I see no reason to think that there's anything they might do "in retaliation" that they wouldn't do anyways if they could.

And you're still seriously understating the structural disadvantage that fskimospy's referenced in his posts. It really *isn't* an exaggeration to say that without significant changes, "we need to find a way to be more popular, win more elections, convince more people of our policies" is functionally equivalent to saying that the Dems need to find a way to win every election by 8 points. The only sane option is to try to find a way to level the playing field. Some of those should be relatively uncontroversial (VRA, et al). But they need to be able to survive judicial review.

 

[gothuevos]

If you think voters will be voting based on the size of the supreme court in 2022 you're living in a fantasy world.


Once again, the situation is that Democrats need to win elections by ~8 points to enact their agenda while Republicans only need to lose by 7 points or fewer in order to enact their agenda.

We are a democracy, why are rules that establish that disparity good? Wouldn't changing them so the people who got the most votes usually won be better? Also, do you consider all the other times the size of the court was changed or states were added to have been bad?

The GOP are masters at optics - they absolutely would make it a defining issue for 2022 as retaliation. They would drive this point home.

As for your second point, we don't live in an absolute democracy, for better or worse. I guess I've just never been one to complain about the rules of the game, I just try to do better each time. If that means that Democrats need to win elections by ~8 points, then so be it. Those are the rules of the game and they're simply not changing easily, no matter what arguments you may have for it. You may take this as a defeatist attitude, it's not. I'm simply saying this is the reality of the situation.

 

[JD50]

Are you implying that Senate Republicans would have just changed the rules regardless?

Maybe, maybe not. Hard to say as the initial Harry Reid precedent would not have been set. We can speculate about it all day, doesn't matter anymore.

No need to speculate, the Republicans broke their own made up precedent of not seating a SC justice in an election year only 4 years later.

 

[K1052]

The GOP are masters at optics - they absolutely would make it a defining issue for 2022 as retaliation. They would drive this point home.

Lol

 

[gothuevos]

Of course they would have. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a fantasy world.

In case you didn't notice Republicans just violated the precedent they set only four years ago. They give exactly zero shits about precedent.



I keep telling you this but you keep ignoring it. Harry Reid's action was one that REPUBLICANS demanded when they were in the majority. He just did what they demanded.

Sure, and how did it end up working out for the Dems? Better to still play by the rules/norms and at least have a chance, than to try to make huge, risky moves that could literally end them as a party. I guess that's maybe where we disagree - you think something like court reform/packing/whatever would be a blip on peoples' radars. I'm saying it would be catastrophic for them as a party to the point where it would render them powerless for a LONG time. And all for changes that could easily be overturned or negated anyways.

 

[fskimospy]

The GOP are masters at optics - they absolutely would make it a defining issue for 2022 as retaliation. They would drive this point home.

Lol, I hope they try!

As for your second point, we don't live in an absolute democracy, for better or worse. I guess I've just never been one to complain about the rules of the game, I just try to do better each time. If that means that Democrats need to win elections by ~8 points, then so be it.

No one said we live in an absolute democracy, but we do live in a democracy and one of the fundamental tenets of democracy is supposed to be that if you get a majority of the votes broadly speaking you should be in charge. Not always, but usually.

As far as being better, surely you agree that fixing broken rules would be one way to do better, no?

Those are the rules of the game and they're simply not changing easily, no matter what arguments you may have for it. You may take this as a defeatist attitude, it's not. I'm simply saying this is the reality of the situation.

lol, that's not what you're arguing at all - I'm saying they could very easily change and Democrats could very plausibly have the opportunity to do exactly that. You're saying they SHOULDN'T change the rules.

 

[ewdotson]

I keep telling you this but you keep ignoring it. Harry Reid's action was one that REPUBLICANS demanded when they were in the majority. He just did what they demanded.

It really is amazing how many people who aren't full-on qcumbers buy into this narrative. I was having this discussion with my sister (a Romney-Clinton voter) relatively recently. When I asked her flat out if she thought that McConnell wouldn't have killed the filibuster when he needed it killed regardless of anything Reid had done, she admitted that he would have, but she insisted that "at least he would have had to have paid a price for it".

I am very dubious that there would have been any substanative differences beyond McConnell having gotten the opportunity to fill even *more* circuit court judges these last four years.