On March 16th 2016 President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to fill the vacant seat left my Justice Scalia. The GOP blocked Merrick Garland from a vote and refused to even meet with him citing that Supreme Court seats have never been filled on election years. However, this is not a rule and in the 20th century only twice has a president failed to nominate a justice and have that justice be confirmed and neither of those times has left a vacant seat on the Court. Now, over a year later, with the longest vacancy in nearly five decades, the seat is still open and President Trump has nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill the seat.
Did Republicans steal the nomination?
Should Democrats try to block Gorsuch?
Should there be a formal rule that Supreme Court seats NOT be filled on election years?
There is no denying that they stole this nomination, had they allowed a vote and actually blocked him then it would be a different story.
The other questions are a lot harder. There is actual harm to having the supreme court not full so is it worth it when it is likely they will get in anyways?
Formal rule or not if a controlled congress is against a sitting president then they could block a nomination regardless of year. Its real murky on this one. A rule that would force a vote would be more helpful but might be a problem.
In less crazy times, Gorsuch would have been confirmed easily. (In 1986, Scalia was confirmed 98-0.) He is from everything I've seen an excellent judge and near-ideal candidate for the position in terms of qualifications, intelligence, and temperament -- honestly not the sort of person I expected Trump to nominate. Does he hold conservative political views? Yes. Of course. But that's how our democracy works. The American people decided that they wanted a conservative to be the guy picking the judges. So if the Democrats were trying to block Gorsuch simply on ideological grounds, I'd be... well, filled with a frustration of a weary and familiar sort, because it's the same thing that they tried to do to Roberts and Alito, and that the GOP tried to do to Sotomayor and Kagan, in this increasingly dysfunctional government of ours.
The stolen seat complicates matters, though. I have a lot more sympathy for Dems blocking a nominee who -- whatever his qualifications -- should never have been appointed. You never want to just let your opponent get away with a dirty trick like that. But on the other hand, that dirty trick represents yet another escalation in the dysfunction, and responding in kind makes it the new normal. I want that even less. And on practical grounds this does not seem like a smart battle to fight. What outcome do the Democrats expect here if they block Gorsuch? To see Trump re-nominate Garland, or nominate a pro-choice judge? That's never going to happen. It'd be hard for any plausible future nominee to be any better than Gorsuch, and they could easily be a lot worse. To keep the seat empty for another four years until a Democrat is in the White House? One year was outrageous enough; four would be a frank admission that the system is broken (and, of course, the Republicans could just do it back to them again). So in the end, galling as it is under the circumstances to give the Republicans what they wanted, I think the best move here is to confirm Gorsuch, take a baby step towards returning the judicial confirmation process to business as usual, and look for some less self-destructive way to make the GOP pay for their stunt.
Should there be a formal rule that Supreme Court seats NOT be filled on election years?
Absolutely not. The President is the President until 12:00 PM ET on January 20th. He has all the powers of his office, including the power to appoint Supreme Court justices, and the Senate has the responsibility to review and vote on those appointments. What next? The President can't issue vetos during the last six months of a term? No executive orders in the last thirty days? No pardons for the last year and a half? If we say the President can't do something because at some point in the future there might be some other President who would do it differently, why even have a President at all?
Should there be a formal rule that Supreme Court seats NOT be filled on election years?
Absolutely not. The President is the President until 12:00 PM ET on January 20th. He has all the powers of his office, including the power to appoint Supreme Court justices, and the Senate has the responsibility to review and vote on those appointments. What next? The President can't issue vetos during the last six months of a term? No executive orders in the last thirty days? No pardons for the last year and a half? If we say the President can't do something because at some point in the future there might be some other President who would do it differently, why even have a President at all?
I have to admit I was thinking on similar lines when looking at this but restricting it specifically to elections. If it becomes the normal that Court positions aren't filled during a presidential election how much of a push would it take to say no confirmations during the mid terms either.
The Supreme Court is pretty much the ultimate check on power in the US and it needs to be filled to function effectively. As User said you are almost better off instituting a rule that is the opposite. That barring truely exceptional circumstances the posts need to be filled with a set time limit of the post becoming available.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
That barring truely exceptional circumstances the posts need to be filled with a set time limit of the post becoming available.
I woldn't say force the position to be filled within some time limit of the spot opening up, but rather force Congress to make a decision on a nominee (one way or the other) within some time limit of the nomination. The main problem I had with the Republicans' treatment of Garland wasn't keeping him off the Court, but refusing to even move the process forward.
What outcome do the Democrats expect here if they block Gorsuch?
To the best of my knowledge, the minimal outcome Democrat in office seek is to not get primaried out of office in 2018. The Democrats were waffling on whether or not to fight the nomination up until Chuck Schumer essentially had a hammer drop on him by left-leaning and Democratic activists. The message I have heard from peering into Democrat affairs regarding the Supreme Court essentially boils down to "Stop this and take a stand, or we will find someone who will stop whatever happens next and take a stand next time."
Those activists goals beyond that? I don't know, but I'm not sure how many people realize just how much danger the filibuster is in outside those in Congress, or why that is such a bad thing.
EDIT: We're going to find out how ugly this is going to get. News just broke the Democrats have assembled the votes necessary to filibuster.
To the best of my knowledge, the minimal outcome Democrat in office seek is to not get primaried out of office in 2018. The Democrats were waffling on whether or not to fight the nomination up until Chuck Schumer essentially had a hammer drop on him by left-leaning and Democratic activists. The message I have heard from peering into Democrat affairs regarding the Supreme Court essentially boils down to "Stop this and take a stand, or we will find someone who will stop whatever happens next and take a stand next time."
Which is pretty much the exact same thing the Tea Party did years ago. Going against partisan lines is dead now, because if you are not deemed ideologically pure enough, you will get primaried.
Look at Joe Manchin, the blue dog Democrat senator from West Virginia. He has been under fire for confirming some of Trump's cabinet picks and he is going to get primaried in 2018 by the far left.
In less crazy times, Gorsuch would have been confirmed easily. (In 1986, Scalia was confirmed 98-0.) He is from everything I've seen an excellent judge and near-ideal candidate for the position in terms of qualifications, intelligence, and temperament -- honestly not the sort of person I expected Trump to nominate. Does he hold conservative political views? Yes. Of course. But that's how our democracy works. The American people decided that they wanted a conservative to be the guy picking the judges. So if the Democrats were trying to block Gorsuch simply on ideological grounds, I'd be... well, filled with a frustration of a weary and familiar sort, because it's the same thing that they tried to do to Roberts and Alito, and that the GOP tried to do to Sotomayor and Kagan, in this increasingly dysfunctional government of ours.
The stolen seat complicates matters, though. I have a lot more sympathy for Dems blocking a nominee who -- whatever his qualifications -- should never have been appointed. You never want to just let your opponent get away with a dirty trick like that. But on the other hand, that dirty trick represents yet another escalation in the dysfunction, and responding in kind makes it the new normal. I want that even less. And on practical grounds this does not seem like a smart battle to fight. What outcome do the Democrats expect here if they block Gorsuch? To see Trump re-nominate Garland, or nominate a pro-choice judge? That's never going to happen. It'd be hard for any plausible future nominee to be any better than Gorsuch, and they could easily be a lot worse. To keep the seat empty for another four years until a Democrat is in the White House? One year was outrageous enough; four would be a frank admission that the system is broken (and, of course, the Republicans could just do it back to them again). So in the end, galling as it is under the circumstances to give the Republicans what they wanted, I think the best move here is to confirm Gorsuch, take a baby step towards returning the judicial confirmation process to business as usual, and look for some less self-destructive way to make the GOP pay for their stunt.
This is exactly how I feel. It feels awful to just let the GOP get their way and try to be "the bigger man" but at the same time what are the Dems gaining by fighting besides becoming "the opposition party", something they besmirched the GOP for being for the past 8 years.
This is exactly how I feel. It feels awful to just let the GOP get their way and try to be "the bigger man" but at the same time what are the Dems gaining by fighting besides becoming "the opposition party", something they besmirched the GOP for being for the past 8 years.
I would like to point out that being the opposition party worked out a lot better for the Republicans than anyone expected. The word besmirch does not do their success story justice (as of 4/3/2017; that could change). I'm not sure many people realize just how well it worked because it's not just they got control of two branches of government, working on three, but their staunch refusal to do anything cooperative sometimes wound up with the Democrats taking the blame for being obstructed.
Personally, there's being the bigger man, then there's the fact that no matter how this plays out, either the Republican Party gets away with murder (metaphorically), codifying their opposition tactics as how the opposition should behave to get what it wants in the government, or the Democrats really trek to the Republicans playbook, which codifies the Republicans' opposition tactics as how the opposition party should behave to get what it wants in the Government.
To be honest, I don't believe there is a good outcome in this fight that puts the government in the right direction. Under that assumption, if Democrats are going to put a stop to obstructionist tactics, they can't wait. The Supreme Court is the ultimate prize for the GOP's tactics.
Edit: Do not wish to double post
FiveThirtyEight posted an extended conversation concerning the pros and anti's of "Gorbuster."
Here's something I've been thinking about: What if the Constitution is amended so that SC justices no longer have life terms?
When the Constitution was written, it was during a time when human life expectancy was much lower than it is today. If Gorsuch was nominated back in the 18th century, there is a good chance he would be dead in 15 years. But in today's world, he is going to easily live to past 80, if not 90.
The fact that human life expectancy has dramatically improved has greatly increased the stakes for each and every justice. This is why the GOP fought tooth and nail to block Garland. They knew that if Garland was confirmed he was going to be on the Supreme Court for 30+ years. The issue is no longer "Is this individual qualified?" it's "Does this individual line up with my partisan beliefs?"
The other reason is that whole point of a life term for a justice was so that they would not become beholden to politics and could instead focus on being a justice. However, we have clearly seen that has been a massive failure. You have justices like RBG who now are super partisan and have basically broken the "code" of justices to stay out of politics.
I don't really agree with what you're saying on RBG, but as a general rule I think that making it lifetime appointments has become something of a problem. I'm not sure if changing that would help things but it at least might be interesting for debating.
I'm trying to give a rat's butt about how the big bad republicans stole this supreme court seat but I just can't, not when there is this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kasiov0ytEc going on and a conservative supreme court maybe our only hope.
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
I'm trying to give a rat's butt about how the big bad republicans stole this supreme court seat but I just can't, not when there is this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kasiov0ytEc going on and a conservative supreme court maybe our only hope.
Could you summarise your link please? I've not got much inclination to watch almost an hour of that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
I'm trying to give a rat's butt about how the big bad republicans stole this supreme court seat but I just can't, not when there is this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kasiov0ytEc going on and a conservative supreme court maybe our only hope.
Could you summarise your link please? I've not got much inclination to watch almost an hour of that.
Canadian professor doesn't want to call trans people by their preferred pronouns. Canadian Human Rights Commission wants transgenders to be respected.
I'm trying to give a rat's butt about how the big bad republicans stole this supreme court seat but I just can't, not when there is this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kasiov0ytEc going on and a conservative supreme court maybe our only hope.
So... you approve of Republicans violating the Constitution to seize political power because there's a vague chance they may use that power to prevent violations of the Constitution? Am I getting that right?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'm trying to give a rat's butt about how the big bad republicans stole this supreme court seat but I just can't, not when there is this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kasiov0ytEc going on and a conservative supreme court maybe our only hope.
Could you summarise your link please? I've not got much inclination to watch almost an hour of that.
Canadian professor doesn't want to call trans people by their preferred pronouns. Canadian Human Rights Commission wants transgenders to be respected.
It's a lot more complicated than that though, but I don't won't to go further down what would clearly become too much of a tangent.
Regardless, it's not good justification for electing judges in a very partisan way. That shouldn't be something that ever happens IMO.
I don't really agree with what you're saying on RBG
RBG calling out Trump the way she did was completely wrong. Her comments show that the Supreme Court is now a partisan legislative body, which is not what the court is supposed to be.
The other reason is that whole point of a life term for a justice was so that they would not become beholden to politics and could instead focus on being a justice. However, we have clearly seen that has been a massive failure. You have justices like RBG who now are super partisan and have basically broken the "code" of justices to stay out of politics.
Who is RBG, and what have they said against Trump?
As for staying out of politics is that a blanket ban or a much confused request/requirement that they stay clear of Party Political matters?
Cause if it is the latter some criticism of Trump being unprepared and spending to much time away from Washington is valid regardless of who it is coming fro,.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Who is RBG, and what have they said against Trump?
As for staying out of politics is that a blanket ban or a much confused request/requirement that they stay clear of Party Political matters?
Cause if it is the latter some criticism of Trump being unprepared and spending to much time away from Washington is valid regardless of who it is coming fro,.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She called out Trump during the election:
It was very much a partisan jab. Ginsburg is very left-leaning and she clearly despises Trump. Supreme Court justices normally stay silent on such matters and what she did was unprecedented.
It was very much a partisan jab. Ginsburg is very left-leaning and she clearly despises Trump. Supreme Court justices normally stay silent on such matters and what she did was unprecedented.
Yeah what she said was not helpful but as for unprecedented not so sure about that one. From Article you linked to it mentions comments made by Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who allegedly said that Gore being declared the winner in Florida was Terrible and then went on sit on the panel that decided the case to deny the recount in Florida. And it did not appear to affect her later career in the Supreme court.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Here's something I've been thinking about: What if the Constitution is amended so that SC justices no longer have life terms?
When the Constitution was written, it was during a time when human life expectancy was much lower than it is today. If Gorsuch was nominated back in the 18th century, there is a good chance he would be dead in 15 years. But in today's world, he is going to easily live to past 80, if not 90.
All I have to say is good luck with that. The issue here is not the idea of it, it's the procedural hurdle to actually doing it. The idea has been floated by both major parties to limit Justices to 18 year terms, which is about how long a justice would have lived in those days if they were lucky. Now all we have to do is convince enough politicians to do it, and note, that will include a substantial number of politicians from the party in power. Whether it's the Democrats, the Republicans, or even some future political force under a different party name, I suspect that no one will want to diminish their ideological power that easily, especially now that the filibuster is gone (which by the way, was never in the Constitution, so the Senate can kill or resurrect at any time.)
~~~~~
But the larger point is that the Supreme Court and the Senate have been damaged for the foreseeable future. The Senate filibuster was put into place as a means to make sure the minority party was not forgotten in the Senate. That's gone for the Judicial Branch, and people are wondering now if (possibly when) it will go for the legislative aspect of the Senate. More importantly, political parties no longer have to compromise with minority parties to put judges on the bench, which will have the most far reaching consequences. Blinking Spirit mentioned near the start of the thread that voters chose for a conservatives to pick the next Supreme Court Justice. Without the filibuster though, they will no longer even have to negotiate with Democrats (and eventually vice versa) on who gets to be on the court, ergo there's no incentive to pick based on attempting nonpartisanship unless the party in power feels as such. I don't have faith that will happen, which means the court may tread further and further ideologically.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
I don't really agree with what you're saying on RBG
RBG calling out Trump the way she did was completely wrong. Her comments show that the Supreme Court is now a partisan legislative body, which is not what the court is supposed to be.
The Supreme Court has been a partisan legislative body since at least the Dred Scott decision (and perhaps even earlier). Do you think it's a coincidence that left leaning justices happened to be appointed by democratic presidents and vice-versa? When Earl Warren was nominated, Eisenhower was hoping for a more conservative judge (which was ironic considering he was a judge in California). The only difference nowadays is that the justices are making the Court more visible, and that was arguably still the fault of the GOP than RBG (If you want to blame anyone for making the SC appear as a partisan legislative body, blame McConnell.
I agree that the SC should not be home to partisan poltics. It's one and ONLY job is to make sure the Constitution is being followed correctly, and police the President/Congress when they step out of line.
these complications are irrelevant. everybody followed the rules according to their station
in chronological order
the DC circuit court of appeals during 2008 congressional term
Scalea died
Obama recognizing that he lacks the support to lock in the nominee in the senate
nominates a centrist so that there is a chance the hole could be filled quickly (instead of the court gridlock we've seen)
republicans torn between the two potential futures:
Hillary wins making it better to lock in garland
A Republican wins so that they can have a nominee more conservative
So they lame ducked the nominee to give them the option to lock in a decent candidate
Trump won and nominated gorsuch
using the DC circuit court of appeals nominations as president procedurally removed the fillibuster
in sum the republican senators were not stealing the nomination, the senate controls the nomination.
They did their job for their constituents, If the democrats were in the same position they'ds do the same thing
The Supreme Court has been a partisan legislative body since at least the Dred Scott decision (and perhaps even earlier). Do you think it's a coincidence that left leaning justices happened to be appointed by democratic presidents and vice-versa? When Earl Warren was nominated, Eisenhower was hoping for a more conservative judge (which was ironic considering he was a judge in California). The only difference nowadays is that the justices are making the Court more visible, and that was arguably still the fault of the GOP than RBG (If you want to blame anyone for making the SC appear as a partisan legislative body, blame McConnell.
I agree that the SC should not be home to partisan poltics. It's one and ONLY job is to make sure the Constitution is being followed correctly, and police the President/Congress when they step out of line.
To be fair, Dred Scott v. Sandford has been universally and unequivocally condemned in retrospect by virtually every single individual as being one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever made.
What I'm talking about is more about hot-button issues that cause partisan lines to be drawn today. Let's take an example of a hot-button issue of its time: interracial marriage. As late as the 60s, interracial marriages were forbidden in many states. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Loving v. Virginia that all laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional. Let that sink in for a moment. In the politically-unstable environment of the early 60s, the Supreme Court made a 9-0 ruling on an issue that many people at the time had sheer hatred for. It was a non-partisan decision.
Same thing for another landmark case of its time, such as Brown v. Board of Education. Again, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that state-enforced segregated schools were unconstitutional.
Even Roe v. Wade wasn't a partisan decision. It wasn't unanimous, but at 7-2 the decision clearly was not split on partisan lines.
Now compare it to a similar hot-button issue of our time: gay marriage. The Obergefell v. Hodges case was a 5-4 decision. Not surprisingly, the decision was strictly made on partisan lines.
How about another modern day hot-button issue, such as Obamacare? The National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius case was another 5-4 decision. Once again, the decision was strictly made on partisan lines, except for one vote. John Roberts was the deciding vote, and he got tarred and feathered by conservatives for being a sellout and "saving" Obamacare.
What about gun control? The DC v. Heller case was yet again another 5-4 decided along partisan lines.
I could go on and on. This is why the Supreme Court has become far more relevant than it has ever been. Judges no longer make non-partisan decisions like they used to. They strictly make the decisions based on whether the ruling lines up with their political ideology. A Supreme Court packed with liberals, for example, would severely undermine the 2nd Amendment. Conversely, a court packed with conservatives could do something like severely undermine the 14th Amendment or overturn cases they do not agree with, such as Roe v. Wade. Such nightmare scenarios would have been unthinkable decades ago. But today they are a real possibility.
Did Republicans steal the nomination?
Should Democrats try to block Gorsuch?
Should there be a formal rule that Supreme Court seats NOT be filled on election years?
BGStandard Green AggroGB
UWRGModern Saheeli CobraGRWU
UBRGLegacy StormGRBU
Wizards Certified Rules Advisor
The other questions are a lot harder. There is actual harm to having the supreme court not full so is it worth it when it is likely they will get in anyways?
Formal rule or not if a controlled congress is against a sitting president then they could block a nomination regardless of year. Its real murky on this one. A rule that would force a vote would be more helpful but might be a problem.
(Assuming you mean "Gorsuch")
In less crazy times, Gorsuch would have been confirmed easily. (In 1986, Scalia was confirmed 98-0.) He is from everything I've seen an excellent judge and near-ideal candidate for the position in terms of qualifications, intelligence, and temperament -- honestly not the sort of person I expected Trump to nominate. Does he hold conservative political views? Yes. Of course. But that's how our democracy works. The American people decided that they wanted a conservative to be the guy picking the judges. So if the Democrats were trying to block Gorsuch simply on ideological grounds, I'd be... well, filled with a frustration of a weary and familiar sort, because it's the same thing that they tried to do to Roberts and Alito, and that the GOP tried to do to Sotomayor and Kagan, in this increasingly dysfunctional government of ours.
The stolen seat complicates matters, though. I have a lot more sympathy for Dems blocking a nominee who -- whatever his qualifications -- should never have been appointed. You never want to just let your opponent get away with a dirty trick like that. But on the other hand, that dirty trick represents yet another escalation in the dysfunction, and responding in kind makes it the new normal. I want that even less. And on practical grounds this does not seem like a smart battle to fight. What outcome do the Democrats expect here if they block Gorsuch? To see Trump re-nominate Garland, or nominate a pro-choice judge? That's never going to happen. It'd be hard for any plausible future nominee to be any better than Gorsuch, and they could easily be a lot worse. To keep the seat empty for another four years until a Democrat is in the White House? One year was outrageous enough; four would be a frank admission that the system is broken (and, of course, the Republicans could just do it back to them again). So in the end, galling as it is under the circumstances to give the Republicans what they wanted, I think the best move here is to confirm Gorsuch, take a baby step towards returning the judicial confirmation process to business as usual, and look for some less self-destructive way to make the GOP pay for their stunt.
Absolutely not. The President is the President until 12:00 PM ET on January 20th. He has all the powers of his office, including the power to appoint Supreme Court justices, and the Senate has the responsibility to review and vote on those appointments. What next? The President can't issue vetos during the last six months of a term? No executive orders in the last thirty days? No pardons for the last year and a half? If we say the President can't do something because at some point in the future there might be some other President who would do it differently, why even have a President at all?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I have to admit I was thinking on similar lines when looking at this but restricting it specifically to elections. If it becomes the normal that Court positions aren't filled during a presidential election how much of a push would it take to say no confirmations during the mid terms either.
The Supreme Court is pretty much the ultimate check on power in the US and it needs to be filled to function effectively. As User said you are almost better off instituting a rule that is the opposite. That barring truely exceptional circumstances the posts need to be filled with a set time limit of the post becoming available.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
To the best of my knowledge, the minimal outcome Democrat in office seek is to not get primaried out of office in 2018. The Democrats were waffling on whether or not to fight the nomination up until Chuck Schumer essentially had a hammer drop on him by left-leaning and Democratic activists. The message I have heard from peering into Democrat affairs regarding the Supreme Court essentially boils down to "Stop this and take a stand, or we will find someone who will stop whatever happens next and take a stand next time."
Those activists goals beyond that? I don't know, but I'm not sure how many people realize just how much danger the filibuster is in outside those in Congress, or why that is such a bad thing.
EDIT: We're going to find out how ugly this is going to get. News just broke the Democrats have assembled the votes necessary to filibuster.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
Which is pretty much the exact same thing the Tea Party did years ago. Going against partisan lines is dead now, because if you are not deemed ideologically pure enough, you will get primaried.
Look at Joe Manchin, the blue dog Democrat senator from West Virginia. He has been under fire for confirming some of Trump's cabinet picks and he is going to get primaried in 2018 by the far left.
This is exactly how I feel. It feels awful to just let the GOP get their way and try to be "the bigger man" but at the same time what are the Dems gaining by fighting besides becoming "the opposition party", something they besmirched the GOP for being for the past 8 years.
BGStandard Green AggroGB
UWRGModern Saheeli CobraGRWU
UBRGLegacy StormGRBU
Wizards Certified Rules Advisor
I would like to point out that being the opposition party worked out a lot better for the Republicans than anyone expected. The word besmirch does not do their success story justice (as of 4/3/2017; that could change). I'm not sure many people realize just how well it worked because it's not just they got control of two branches of government, working on three, but their staunch refusal to do anything cooperative sometimes wound up with the Democrats taking the blame for being obstructed.
Personally, there's being the bigger man, then there's the fact that no matter how this plays out, either the Republican Party gets away with murder (metaphorically), codifying their opposition tactics as how the opposition should behave to get what it wants in the government, or the Democrats really trek to the Republicans playbook, which codifies the Republicans' opposition tactics as how the opposition party should behave to get what it wants in the Government.
To be honest, I don't believe there is a good outcome in this fight that puts the government in the right direction. Under that assumption, if Democrats are going to put a stop to obstructionist tactics, they can't wait. The Supreme Court is the ultimate prize for the GOP's tactics.
Edit: Do not wish to double post
FiveThirtyEight posted an extended conversation concerning the pros and anti's of "Gorbuster."
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
The GJ way path to no lynching:
When the Constitution was written, it was during a time when human life expectancy was much lower than it is today. If Gorsuch was nominated back in the 18th century, there is a good chance he would be dead in 15 years. But in today's world, he is going to easily live to past 80, if not 90.
The fact that human life expectancy has dramatically improved has greatly increased the stakes for each and every justice. This is why the GOP fought tooth and nail to block Garland. They knew that if Garland was confirmed he was going to be on the Supreme Court for 30+ years. The issue is no longer "Is this individual qualified?" it's "Does this individual line up with my partisan beliefs?"
The other reason is that whole point of a life term for a justice was so that they would not become beholden to politics and could instead focus on being a justice. However, we have clearly seen that has been a massive failure. You have justices like RBG who now are super partisan and have basically broken the "code" of justices to stay out of politics.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It's a lot more complicated than that though, but I don't won't to go further down what would clearly become too much of a tangent.
Regardless, it's not good justification for electing judges in a very partisan way. That shouldn't be something that ever happens IMO.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
RBG calling out Trump the way she did was completely wrong. Her comments show that the Supreme Court is now a partisan legislative body, which is not what the court is supposed to be.
Who is RBG, and what have they said against Trump?
As for staying out of politics is that a blanket ban or a much confused request/requirement that they stay clear of Party Political matters?
Cause if it is the latter some criticism of Trump being unprepared and spending to much time away from Washington is valid regardless of who it is coming fro,.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She called out Trump during the election:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/politics/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-donald-trump-faker/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/11/in-bashing-donald-trump-some-say-ruth-bader-ginsburg-just-crossed-a-very-important-line/
It was very much a partisan jab. Ginsburg is very left-leaning and she clearly despises Trump. Supreme Court justices normally stay silent on such matters and what she did was unprecedented.
Yeah what she said was not helpful but as for unprecedented not so sure about that one. From Article you linked to it mentions comments made by Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who allegedly said that Gore being declared the winner in Florida was Terrible and then went on sit on the panel that decided the case to deny the recount in Florida. And it did not appear to affect her later career in the Supreme court.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
All I have to say is good luck with that. The issue here is not the idea of it, it's the procedural hurdle to actually doing it. The idea has been floated by both major parties to limit Justices to 18 year terms, which is about how long a justice would have lived in those days if they were lucky. Now all we have to do is convince enough politicians to do it, and note, that will include a substantial number of politicians from the party in power. Whether it's the Democrats, the Republicans, or even some future political force under a different party name, I suspect that no one will want to diminish their ideological power that easily, especially now that the filibuster is gone (which by the way, was never in the Constitution, so the Senate can kill or resurrect at any time.)
~~~~~
But the larger point is that the Supreme Court and the Senate have been damaged for the foreseeable future. The Senate filibuster was put into place as a means to make sure the minority party was not forgotten in the Senate. That's gone for the Judicial Branch, and people are wondering now if (possibly when) it will go for the legislative aspect of the Senate. More importantly, political parties no longer have to compromise with minority parties to put judges on the bench, which will have the most far reaching consequences. Blinking Spirit mentioned near the start of the thread that voters chose for a conservatives to pick the next Supreme Court Justice. Without the filibuster though, they will no longer even have to negotiate with Democrats (and eventually vice versa) on who gets to be on the court, ergo there's no incentive to pick based on attempting nonpartisanship unless the party in power feels as such. I don't have faith that will happen, which means the court may tread further and further ideologically.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
The Supreme Court has been a partisan legislative body since at least the Dred Scott decision (and perhaps even earlier). Do you think it's a coincidence that left leaning justices happened to be appointed by democratic presidents and vice-versa? When Earl Warren was nominated, Eisenhower was hoping for a more conservative judge (which was ironic considering he was a judge in California). The only difference nowadays is that the justices are making the Court more visible, and that was arguably still the fault of the GOP than RBG (If you want to blame anyone for making the SC appear as a partisan legislative body, blame McConnell.
I agree that the SC should not be home to partisan poltics. It's one and ONLY job is to make sure the Constitution is being followed correctly, and police the President/Congress when they step out of line.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
in chronological order
the DC circuit court of appeals during 2008 congressional term
Scalea died
Obama recognizing that he lacks the support to lock in the nominee in the senate
nominates a centrist so that there is a chance the hole could be filled quickly (instead of the court gridlock we've seen)
republicans torn between the two potential futures:
Trump won and nominated gorsuch
using the DC circuit court of appeals nominations as president procedurally removed the fillibuster
in sum the republican senators were not stealing the nomination, the senate controls the nomination.
They did their job for their constituents, If the democrats were in the same position they'ds do the same thing
To be fair, Dred Scott v. Sandford has been universally and unequivocally condemned in retrospect by virtually every single individual as being one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever made.
What I'm talking about is more about hot-button issues that cause partisan lines to be drawn today. Let's take an example of a hot-button issue of its time: interracial marriage. As late as the 60s, interracial marriages were forbidden in many states. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Loving v. Virginia that all laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional. Let that sink in for a moment. In the politically-unstable environment of the early 60s, the Supreme Court made a 9-0 ruling on an issue that many people at the time had sheer hatred for. It was a non-partisan decision.
Same thing for another landmark case of its time, such as Brown v. Board of Education. Again, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that state-enforced segregated schools were unconstitutional.
Even Roe v. Wade wasn't a partisan decision. It wasn't unanimous, but at 7-2 the decision clearly was not split on partisan lines.
Now compare it to a similar hot-button issue of our time: gay marriage. The Obergefell v. Hodges case was a 5-4 decision. Not surprisingly, the decision was strictly made on partisan lines.
How about another modern day hot-button issue, such as Obamacare? The National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius case was another 5-4 decision. Once again, the decision was strictly made on partisan lines, except for one vote. John Roberts was the deciding vote, and he got tarred and feathered by conservatives for being a sellout and "saving" Obamacare.
What about gun control? The DC v. Heller case was yet again another 5-4 decided along partisan lines.
I could go on and on. This is why the Supreme Court has become far more relevant than it has ever been. Judges no longer make non-partisan decisions like they used to. They strictly make the decisions based on whether the ruling lines up with their political ideology. A Supreme Court packed with liberals, for example, would severely undermine the 2nd Amendment. Conversely, a court packed with conservatives could do something like severely undermine the 14th Amendment or overturn cases they do not agree with, such as Roe v. Wade. Such nightmare scenarios would have been unthinkable decades ago. But today they are a real possibility.