Democrats warn GOP: Don't fill a 2020 Supreme Court vacancy
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Democrats warn GOP: Don't fill a 2020 Supreme Court vacancy
WASHINGTON — Democrats are warning Republicans not to fill a possible Supreme Court vacancy this year after denying President Barack Obama the chance in 2016, saying it would embolden a push on the left to add seats to the court whenever they regain power.
© Provided by NBC News
"We knew basically they were lying in 2016, when they said, 'Oh, we can't do this because it's an election year.' We knew they didn't want to do it because it was President Obama," Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said in an interview.
Kaine, the party's last vice presidential nominee and a lawmaker with a reputation as an institutionalist, said confirming a nominee of President Donald Trump this year could compel Democrats to consider adding seats to the high court.
"If they show that they're unwilling to respect precedent, rules and history, then they can't feign surprise when others talk about using a statutory option that we have that's fully constitutional in our availability," he said. "I don't want to do that. But if they act in such a way, they may push it to an inevitability. So they need to be careful about that."
In a sweeping statement of intent, the Democratic National Committee is poised to add language to the party's 2020 platform endorsing "structural court reforms to increase transparency and accountability."
The draft language, reviewed by NBC News and expected to be approved later this month, denounces Republicans as having "packed our federal courts with unqualified, partisan judges who consistently rule for corporations, the wealthy, and Republican interests" and for "blocking a Democratic president from appointing a justice to the Supreme Court."
Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, said she has been "talking with people who have different ideas about what we can do — including adding to the court, including having certain circuit court judges cycle in and other ideas" like term limits.
"I'm open to those kinds of suggestions," she said.
There is currently no vacancy on the Supreme Court and there may not be one this year. But discussions in the Senate were reignited weeks ago after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 87, the leader of the liberal wing, said she had recently been treated for liver cancer — with chemotherapy "yielding positive results" — and that she intended to stay on the court. The futures of several other justices have also been the subjects of rumor and speculation in Washington.
Some progressive activists have been pressuring Democrats for months to expand the Supreme Court if they regain power, in retaliation for the GOP blockade of Obama nominee Merrick Garland in 2016. The push has been led by Demand Justice, a pressure group founded by Brian Fallon, a former aide to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
"I think we have sufficient grounds to pursue structural reform just based on the events of 2016," Fallon said. "If Republicans compound that sin with an egregious violation of norms in a seat that was held by a liberal justice, I think that we will gain new allies very quickly."
'We'll cross that bridge'
Demand Justice is urging Democrats to endorse an expansion of the Supreme Court and lower courts, as well as to impose term limits and a code of ethics for justices.
Some Democrats, like Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticyt, declined to address the hypothetical, noting that Ginsburg has said she can still do her job and isn't going anywhere.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which reviews Supreme Court nominations, said he's prepared to advance a nominee if a vacancy occurs this year.
"Yeah. We'll cross that bridge. After [Brett] Kavanaugh, the rules have changed as far as I'm concerned," he told reporters, citing the intense battle over Trump's most recent Supreme Court nominee in 2018, who was narrowly confirmed. "We'll see what the market will bear if that ever happens."
Senate Majority Whip John Thune, R-S.D., told reporters that Republicans would move to fill a Supreme Court vacancy if one were to occur this year, even in the lame duck session between the Nov. 3 election and the presidential inauguration in January.
But Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the former Judiciary Committee chairman who blocked Garland and shepherded the confirmation of Trump's two justices, said he "couldn't move forward with it" if he were in charge, suggesting it would backtrack on his 2016 standard.
Trump has vowed to "save the Supreme Court" and pick justices who would protect Second Amendment gun rights if he is re-elected. He recently said he'll release a list of prospects by Sept. 1.
If Trump were to replace a liberal justice, he could pad a 5 to 4 majority of Republican appointees and mark the sharpest rightward shift by a single pick since 1991, when the staunchly conservative Clarence Thomas replaced civil rights champion Thurgood Marshall.
Hirono promised that there would be a "hue and cry" if Republicans were to move to fill a vacancy this year — and she suggested she's sympathetic to the progressive push to restructure the judiciary even if that doesn't happen.
"Regardless of whether they try to do it or not, there have already been discussions about what we can do with our courts to make them much more balanced in many ways," Hirono said. "Because the majority of the judges are white, male, young, with a particular orientation, ideological orientation."
David Popp, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has argued that 2016 and 2020 are different because the president's party wasn't controlling the chamber during the last election.
Schumer said last month on CNN that McConnell "twists the rules" for "whatever he thinks benefits him at the moment" and added, "Let's all hope and pray for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's continued health."
.
Tags
Who is online
276 visitors
Worrying about things that MIGHT happen.
Democrats in rare form, wiling to change the rules to their own benefit!
LOL!
You think this is limited to one party? If Justice Ginsburg cannot continue to sit on the court and the Senate acts on Trump's nomination, would you consider that to be changing the rules to their own benefit?
What rule would be changed?
Leaving the nomination to the incoming administration.
This is the topic of your seed.
So no rule change needed, if a seat opens on the Court then.
If and when I ever need you to tell me what the topic is, especially on an article I seeded, I will let you know.
And if the GOP does get another shot at nominating a Justice while Trump is in office, what rule do you think would be changed? Can you be specific and cite a rule regarding nominations?
If a seat opens now and that seat is filled by Trump's nomination, that is a change of the precedent — the very topic of your seed. Hello?
Again, this is your own seed Texan. Did you not read even the opening paragraph?:
Note that if you are trying to equivocate on the word ' rule ' or ' rules ' ( which I was just waiting for you to do ) then you should not have used it in your comment:
Here
you establish the word ' rules ' to refer to that which would be changed per your seed. That includes the operative precedent discussed in the seed. Again, your comments read as though you did not read your own seed.
I told you once already, I don't need you to tell me the topic--ever.
So just tell me the rule change, I can wait.
Hello? WTF is THAT shit????????????????????????????????????????????
You claim rule changes are necessary, so expand on that and tell me what SPECIFIC RULE has to be changed for Trump to nominate someone if a spot opens.
You are the one who made that claim; I am following the language that you established:
So what ' rules ' were you referring to? Note the topic of your seed is the precedent of not filling a seat in an election year. So, again, what did you mean by ' rules '? And if you meant something other than what your seed discusses then it would appear that you did not even read your own seed.
Texan, it's called the "Biden Rule". You can't nominate in an election year. It was used against Obama for Garland. Trump can't appoint until after the election. End of story.
He is going to (try to) argue that the 'Biden Rule' is not an official rule of the Senate (and that is correct). But he must then ignore that he used 'rule' to refer to the topic of this seed and that includes precedents such as the application of the Biden Rule against Obama.
You just show me where in the rules it says a President can not nominate during an election year.
You have got to be kidding. I just showed you. Google "Biden Rule". If it was good enough to use against a dem President, it is good enough to use against a rep one.
I am not going down this road with you again.
Please leave your condescending remarks for someone else.
Good bye!
Um, NO.
Already knew all about it, thanks anyways.
Maybe, maybe not. Who has control of the Senate?
A rule is a rule. You don't get to break a rule because of who is in control of the senate. That is called blackmail by any other name.
Everyone can see that you are trying to change the meaning of ' rules ' you established in your first comment.
Now you want to try to change the meaning to 'official Senate rules'. You shot yourself in the foot on that one.
Not really a rule, you know that, right?
My comments call out the dishonest semantics game you are trying to play. You are just flat out wrong here Texan and your continued attempts to disguise that is what perpetuates this exchange.
If you as the seeder establish the meaning of a word like 'rules' you cannot turn around and demand others use a more restrictive meaning of the word.
LOL, there you go again, trying to change the meaning of the word 'rules' from what you established upfront:
You are WRONG, keep twisting in the wind
If the Congress and the Senate agree on rules of engagement, it is a rule. That is what happened with Obama and that is what will happen with Trump.
Then it should be EXTREMELY easy for you to prove, just post the link to the rule!
Easy peasy!
To my understanding, the House has no role in SC nominees.
You established that the 'rules' is that which is discussed in your seed:
So the link is your seed. In particular, this part:
Like the Democrats wouldn't break it in a heart beat if they controlled the WH and the Senate.
The Democrats have broken every precedent set by the way they have treated Republican nominees for the Supreme Court. At this point "what difference does it make" to us Hillary's vernacular.
Given the established precedent which took place when the Senate denied Obama his last nomination, there is little doubt that the D party would use it to their advantage too. That is, of course they would. Both parties will use this to their advantage.
You know what I meant. Both houses agree on rules. These become the rules of engagement. They were agreed on. End of story.
It has been proven to you over and over, once again, you are wrong, easy peasy lemon squeezy
So what is the point of them threatening? The Democrats can threaten and bluster until they keel over; they are even more hypocritical than Republicans.
What I am waiting for is Republicans to treat Democratic Supreme Court nominees the same way Democrats treat theirs. That will truly be a popcorn entertainment moment.
It is a political move Ronin. They are putting this out so that the public will be aware of it in the hope that this will dissuade them from acting hypocritical.
So, if Democrats are so willing to make changes in the rules, why can't Republicans?
So, in other words, you came up empty and can't cite the rule.
Thanks!
What rules were you referring to in your opening comment?:
We are pointing you to your own seed and to the rules (as you have established the term) that the D party would change. You seeded the article, you established the meaning of ' rules ' in context of your seed and now you want to impose a more restrictive usage of ' rules ' on everyone else.
It's been cited numerous times. Bye now, done with your nonsense.
Still coming up empty, I see.
Adios!
What rules were you referring to in your opening comment?:
That is what it comes down to. When it was to their benefit, Republicans cited it as a "rule" and claimed precedent had been set thus they wouldn't even hold a confirmation hearing on any justices Obama nominated which left a seat unfilled for an entire year because the Republicans controlled the Senate. Now, when it's their President in office those cited 'rules' they used in 2016 as an excuse for inaction will be disregarded in a frantic rush to get their own nominee through before the election if a seat were to become vacant. This shouldn't surprise anyone, they are the snake that told us who they are and that they believe the ends justify the means so they will use whatever underhanded slimy scum worthy tactic they have at their disposal to stay in power. Looking at them in shock after being bitten just serves to amuse them further.
The only thing that will get rid of the rot within our government is to dig Republicans up root and branch, we need a Democrat majority in the Senate as we have in the house and a democrat President to start reversing some of the damage Republicans have inflicted on our nation. The only way to kick a smug dick hole in the face is to vote his trash party out of office.
It wasn't even really proposed as a rule. Biden just put forward the idea that - given the political climate at the time (which seems quaintly collegial by today's standards) - any SCOTUS nomination so close the election would be too fraught with politics. He made clear at the time that the president should feel free to make a nomination after the election, so he had no problem with a lame duck president nominating a justice.
By contrast, McConnell was saying he didn't want Obama - already established as a lame duck since he couldn't be reelected - to make a nomination. He was saying he wanted the new president to make the appointment. There are arguments to be made in support of that concept, but it was neither an accurate reflection of what Biden was talking about, nor was either idea a rule.
It is a precedent now, established by the R Senate. That falls under (indeed is the actual example of) the loose definition of 'rules' established by the seeder in his opening comment:
I asked Texan if Justice Ginsburg cannot continue to sit on the court and the Senate acts on Trump's nomination, would he consider that to be changing the rules to their own benefit? Where 'rules' refers to that which is established in his seed: in particular the precedent established based on the so-called 'Biden rule'.
He refused to answer. Will you?
It's only a precedent for people who are looking for an excuse to do the wrong thing.
You'd have to establish what the rule is, and I'm not sure that's entirely clear. McConnell said he didn't want the lame duck president making a nomination. Trump is not a lame duck.
That's what you say. Are you sure that's "the rules" he was referring to? Maybe you shouldn't presume to speak for him.
So far as I know, the only real rules regarding Supreme Court nominations are those laid out in the Constitution and as determined by laws from Congress. So, moves such as those mentioned in the seed, like changing the number of justices or instituting term limits would literally require changes to actual rules.
It is an established precedent. Precedent = " an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances ". No point denying it, whether good or bad it is still a precedent. And it is the topic of this seed.
The topic of this seed is already crystal clear; it is beyond obvious. This seed is talking about the precedent set by the 114 th Senate wherein that Senate held the nomination of Merrick Garland and left the seat vacated by Justice Scalia to be filled by the next PotUS (which was Trump). That is the 'rule' (using the seeder's established meaning for 'rule') in question in this seed.
Read the seed man. There is only one 'rule' in question. You are speculating that the seeder is talking about something other than his own seed. That is absurd, is it not?
Do you not recognize that this seed is about the Rs potentially NOT following their own precedent that they established in the 114 th Congress? Good grief man all you have to do is read the title: "Democrats warn GOP: Don't fill a 2020 Supreme Court vacancy". Then if one reads the content one will find that it matches the title.
If Justice Ginsburg cannot continue to sit on the court and the Senate acts on Trump's nomination, would you consider that to be changing the 2016 precedent established by the 114th Senate? Would that change be beneficial to the R party?
The Republicans would have been happy to seat a Justice. Obama just had to nominate one with majority support. Garland didn't have it.
That does not answer the question you quoted.
That is true.
Some prefer unwritten, imaginary rules
Given they would have not held up the confirmation of a Justice of whom they approved. Now, back to the question asked:
If Justice Ginsburg cannot continue to sit on the court and the Senate acts on Trump's nomination, would you consider that to be changing the 2016 precedent established by the 114th Senate? Would that change be beneficial to the R party?
Democrats will be complaining about that for decades to come!
What do you think you mean by that? Precedent that is likely biding or persuasive is a concept developed and adhered to in the courts. If that applies here in some way, I think you need to explain how. So far as I know, the mere fact that something was done in the Senate once before, does not make it binding on the Senate in the future.
Did the seeder establish a rule or is this your interpretation? Either way, you have to define the rule or I don't know what you are talking about. I told you before about the rules I am familiar with and how they relate to the content of the seed. If you want to talk about something different, you should define it so people understand it.
Again, you haven't defined what you think that rule is.
Even if they were bound by that previous action - and I see no reason why they would be - this is a different circumstance. Mitch McConnell specifically said that he didn't want the lame duck president nominating a justice. At the time, Obama was a lame duck. Trump is not.
I don't consider the precedent to be binding. The Senate can do what it wants when it comes to matters of "advice and consent."
It might not make any difference at this point.
OK, weird typo. Should read "legally binding."
Some kind of autocorrect? Mini stroke?
Correct, it is not binding and that was never the point. If Justice Ginsburg cannot continue to sit on the court and the Senate acts on Trump's nomination, would you consider that to be changing the 2016 precedent established by the 114 th Senate?
Every situation will have something different. According to McConnell's speech on this matter, the principle was to ensure the American people have a say in the direction of the court and that say was via their choice for the next PotUS. That was the important factor raised by McConnell. Not once did he make any mention of second term. This was about the fact that the American people should be able to weigh in on by virtue of their vote for PotUS.
I am sure you are correct that he used the 'lame duck' language in other venues, but in the actual explanation on the floor of the Senate he spoke of the American people weighing in and that applies today. The American people, per the principle stated, might elect Joe Biden. They should, according to McConnell's logic (and principle) be allowed to make that choice before the Senate acts on a nomination.
Proof
Yet McConnell stated on the floor of the Senate:
Then it's not legally significant.
There is no reason he would have. The current president was already on his second term.
He also spoke of the president and Senate being of different parties. You might not consider this to be a different situation, but maybe he does. Or maybe he just did what he thought was the best thing at the time. I think he just exercised power that he had with discretion he thought he had. Since it has held up, he appears to have been right. I don't think there is much point in trying to parse his reasons for it.
Not seeing the point you are trying to make. Would you mind stating it explicitly?
Correct, it is not a legal issue. The question has nothing to do with the ability of the Senate to legally act, it has everything to do with violating their own precedent. Not once have I even implied that this might be a legal question.
Of course there was a reason to mention it. He mentioned the factors for why they were using the 'Biden Rule'. The lame duck status was not mentioned as a factor. Indeed, per McConnell's logic, it does not matter what term the PotUS is on because the point is to give the American people a voice by having them elect the next PotUS before the Senate acts on replacing the open seat in the SCotUS.
No parsing required. One need only objectively read the transcript to realize that the principle at play in 2016 according to McConnell is the same principle that would apply today: letting the American people have a voice in the selection of the next SCotUS Justice.
Oh, let him think he speaks for me. No way to prevent it anyways, so I choose to have fun with it!
Besides, how can Democrats argue against the constitution?
THOSE rules are the only ones that matter.
Even if that's true, you haven't said why anyone should care about that. I keep trying to invite you to explain the significance of it, but you aren't doing that.
Except when it was , I guess.
How important was that to his calculus? I wouldn't want to speculate, and I'm not a mind-reader.
Is there a reason we are we spending time on this minor detail?
OK, well if his reasons really matter to you, you may be over-simplifying things. McConnell, in his remarks did cite to the reasoning behind Biden's remarks all those years ago and then made the argument that Obama's nomination of Garland was precisely the kind of partisan gamesmanship Biden warned against.
So it seems incomplete to simply say this was about letting the people decide. McConnell was making the case that he was sparing the country the pains of having to fight over what he considered an obviously divisive choice for the Court.
You don't have to agree with his reasons, but it does seem to be a little more in-depth than simply waiting for the election.
Besides, how can Democrats argue against the constitution?
Right. And the actions they mentioned would require either an act of Congress signed by the president (in the case of adding people to the court) or a Constitutional amendment (in the case of term limits).
But we have already seen they are inclined this way. They want to remove or go around the Electoral College process. Not because they genuinely have a better idea, but because they don't like that the outcome has burned them twice in the last 20 years.
So there is an observation to made that some people are prone to "change the rules" when they can't win the game. Other people recognize that maybe if you keep losing, it's not the rules. You just need to "git gud."
I'll let Mitch speak for himself.
And he did.
And he clearly stated "lame duck".
And WHAT?
What part do I need to clarify for you?
Is it the quote from McConnell?
Okay, you are telling me you do not understand the significance. Thus I will explain. If the R's contradict their own precedent they lose credibility. No party wants to broadcast to the American people how slimy it really is. This is not a good look to be broadcast via the MSM, Internet, etc. This just hands political capital to the other side.
Wow, clipping my quote short while ignoring the fact that I (@ 1.1.51 ) granted you that he said it elsewhere:
The point is that it was not part of the principled reasoning when McConnell unveiled this plan:
So I accepted your point but you refuse to acknowledge it and then pretend I had argued against it. On top of that, you try to portray this as if it was in the Senate speech (the context). This is why I gave McConnell's full Senate transcript and noted that his key factor was to ensure the American people had a say in the direction of the judiciary; not once in his speech did he even hint that second terms have anything to do with it. As I explained @ 1.1.51 :
You missed all of this, eh?
You brought it up, you argued that this would not break precedent because Obama was a lame duck:
I showed that this was clearly not the defining factor for this move; not even one McConnell chose to mention in his announcement.
McConnell, in his remarks did cite to the reasoning behind Biden's remarks all those years ago and then made the argument that Obama's nomination of Garland was precisely the kind of partisan gamesmanship Biden warned against.
Indeed. That was the other factor in the speech. Note how that has nothing to do with being a lame duck. So two factors were key in the precedent:
The lame duck notion seems pretty trivial. No wonder McConnell did not include that in his grand announcement.
Just so you recognize this. I AGREE that there are more factors than the principle of the American people's participation. The other factor was indeed the infighting per the 'Biden Rule'. Now, that again established, note that the lame duck notion appears to be an afterthought excuse.
Guess you missed it too:
ROFL! With whom? Who do you think is out there who is invested in some kind of Senate "precedent" regarding SCOTUS nominees, and will have their bubble burst if the Senate approves somebody in 2020?
The bulk of news media outlets broadcast every day that they think the Republican party is slimy. Any success that party has is in spite of such coverage.
Yes, I know. I was happy to remind you of it since you seemed to be intentionally ignoring it.
I didn't say anything about it being in his Senate speech. I think I made it pretty clear that he said it on CNN. Did you miss this part?
And if you saw it, why would you then accuse me of trying to portray it as being part of his Senate speech?
Not at all. You are the one obsessed with precedent. I most certainly did not bring it up. You first brought it up @ 1.1.37 . Every bit of discussion we have had on precedent since then has derived from that.
I am also not the person who brought up the Senate speech. That also was you in @ 1.1.51 .
Be real. The defining factor was that McConnell didn't want the most conservative justice on the Court replaced by anybody but another conservative.
McConnell laid out his alleged reasoning, and his reasons, in multiple venues and expressed in different ways. You are focused on one narrow aspect of it for reasons of your own choosing but you are missing the forest for the tiny tree you are focused on.
If you like. I don't really care. I don't think I have claimed it was for sure his only reason for doing it, or even his #1 reason for doing it. It was just a reason he gave. I don't see how anything is gained by worrying about it, but knock yourself out if it makes you happy.
Here's the thing for you to realize. This is crucial:
You want to talk about the concept of "precedent." When you talk about precedent - for real, in court - you need to be able to address every aspect of that precedent. If you can find even a small distinction between the precedent and the present case at bar, the precedent will likely not be considered relevant to the point of being binding or even persuading. Arguing against precedent is all about highlighting distinctions. Even lame ones.
So you can't just look at one factor and declare "precedent!" It just doesn't work that way.
Now, I know the Senate - absent impeachment - is not a court of law. But it is populated by lawyers and they know very well how precedent works. Whatever similarity you think you can find between 2016 and 2020, I guarantee you that Mitch McConnell will find a distinction and declare it to be critical.
Could very well be. As I have tried to communicate to you multiple times, I don't think it's very important.
With the American people. I stated that in my comment.
In case you have not noticed, the fight over political capital (gaining it and forcing the other side to lose theirs) is the very essence of partisan politics.
Well you know when you acknowledge a point there is usually no reason then to repeat it. Usually. Some people cannot accept an acknowledgement and instead replay it as if they are making some grand new point.
Because you slid it in there as if it was.
The context of my comment was McConnell's speech where he explained to the American people his reasoning for not proceeding to fill the seat. You bring in your source to show that McConnell mentions lame-duck —a claim by you that I had already accepted— as if that was part of the Senate speech.
Now, since you keep bringing up a point I granted you, I decided to check your source. Note that your lame-duck comment, as you present it, is completely wrong. You keep trying to suggest that in spite of McConnell's speech where he made no mention of Obama's lame duck status that his lame duck status was a significant factor.
So now read your own source:
McConnell, in this interview, referred to the lame-duck session of Congress , not Obama. Further, he was not citing this as a reason for not proceeding with Garland's nomination but rather a reason why he rejects the notion that the Senate might relent after the November election .
You read your source totally wrong; seems to me you read what you wanted to read. Given I need only quote myself to rebut many of your claims, this does not surprise me a bit.
Clearly not per your source. You just read what you wanted to read.
Finally:
If that (pure bullshit by the way) were true, there would be no notion of precedent in law. Good grief man. Also note that your offered distinction here (lame-duck) is not even true.
I think that's about all the condescension and veiled insults I'm going to put up with. Have a nice day.
Odd that you did not mention 'lame duck' this time. Not even a simple nod that you read your source wrong?
As for legal precedent, every case necessarily has a distinction from the case of precedent. It is absurd to claim that a slight difference invalidates the precedent.
Why do you think it's relevant that Mitch 'clearly stating 'lame duck'?
Perhaps because at the time Mr. Obama was a lame duck and with him not being eligible for reelection, he felt the new POTUS, whomever that would turn out to be, should fill the vacancy. Remember at the time, Mrs. Clinton was a shoo in. It wasn't like he even thought Mr. Trump would win and have the say.................................
Smart!
Where did I state that?
THANK YOU!
I find it quite amusing to see the ardent arguments by members who don't seem to understand the meaning of the content in their own links.
Hanging one's hat on "But I proved that he said 'lame duck' " merely proves a lack of a cogent posit.
So you are another one that read Mitch's statement wrong. Got ya.
I block quoted it. 1.1.60.
No. If Congress as lame duck, most certainly so was Mr. Obama.
I find it amusing when people can't understand what the fuck they read.
Whether he said lame duck is immaterial, really, to the topic. The GOP can certainly install a Justice if a spot opens.
Not a thing in the Constitution stopping it. Take the "precedent" and lose it, because it just doesn't matter!
You have a good day now, y'hear?
We're talking about Mitch's speech and statement to CNN. Try to focus.
Looks like some can't grasp that fact. I am getting tired of arguing the fucking obvious to people who simply refuse to acknowledge it.
Oh, FFS.
Where did I say it was relevant???????????
SMMFH!
May I suggest that you not focus so intently just because it's what you want it to be? Open up that mind......................................oh wait. What was I thinking...........
Pffft.
No matter what some say, Obama had about a year left in his term.
It was straight up partisan politics at its finest.
The 'lame duck' argument is in itself a lame duck.
McConnell said he was not going to let him get a pick. He was not going to let him seat anyone on the court.
I stated that I would let Mitch speak for himself. YOUR reply was:
So YESTERDAY, YOU chose to highlight that Mitch 'clearly stated 'lame duck' and TODAY you want to pretend that you didn't think it was relevant?
BTFW, I note that I don't see any comment from you to your like minded members that Mitch saying 'lame duck' is 'immaterial'. In fact, you give almost every one of them a thumbs up.
It couldn't be that it's SUDDENLY immaterial because you and yours now realize that y'all misread Mitch's statement could it?
Funny thing too, I upfront granted the point that McConnell probably did use 'lame duck' as an excuse elsewhere. It was a largely irrelevant point given McConnell did not mention this (or even hint at it) when he announced his plan to the American people. Normally, one would expect that to be the end. Nope.
So when 'lame duck' starting emerging as the core of the rebuttal I decided to look into this irrelevant point I had granted and found out that McConnell used 'lame duck' to note how unlikely it would be for the members of the Senate to change their minds after the election. A totally different notion than the posited: 'because Obama was a lame duck'. What McConnell said was simply obvious.
It all boils down to intent. If someone is trying to make a thoughtful argument then one will likely try to read objectively so as to offer truth. That is, one would be motivated to make solid factual claims.
Yes, we agree on this point, the 'lame duck' notion is irrelevant. McConnell's explanation for why the Senate was taking its course of action defines a precedent that they would contradict if they approved a nomination by Trump this year.
Well said. Ironic, but well said.
Imo the idea that it should be allowed just because the senate is in republican hands is nonsense. If there was a new president from a different party, they would still get to pick/nominate. It would not be in the senate hands other than to vote yes or no.
Good grief Jim, read the damn thread. Of course Obama was a lame-duck. But that is not part of the rationale that McConnell cited for why they were not going to act on Obama's nominee.
Sometimes it is good to put down the pure partisan thinking and consider the facts objectively. If there is an opening in the SCotUS this year and the Senate acts on a Trump nomination prior to the election then they will be contradicting the precedent they set in 2016.
The principle at play is that in an election year, a year when the American people will select the next PotUS, it is better to wait for the election to be decided and to then act on the nomination of the elected PotUS. This gives the American people a say in the direction of the SCotUS.
This
is the argument that McConnell made. I supplied @ 1.1.51 the video and the transcript of his speech. It is easy to read, his position is clearly stated. The facts of this matter are, in a word, obvious.
This is an election year. A nomination now would, as McConnell notes per the 'Biden Rule', be contentious and consume a lot of time. The conditions are the same as in 2016. If the Senate confirms a Trump Justice nominee in 2020 they will be contradicting themselves; violating their own precedent. Not only is that exposing hypocrisy, but it gives political capital to the D party to engage in their own crappy procedures to try to gain advantage. This is the offensive nature of our Congress nowadays. Instead of blindly defending these bozos because they have an R or a D next to their names, we the people should be condemning them and demanding new blood.
I disagree with the 'Biden Rule'. My focus here is on the issue of following one's own precedent. I am not arguing that what took place in 2016 was correct.
It had nothing to do with who Obama picked and all to do with denying him a pick all together.
Understood. My point was all these rationals that I am hearing don't really hold water.
Imo it is complete hypocrisy.
What is so disappointing to me is the level of partisan thinking at play with the American people. Elections are treated like a team sport where the 'fans' hold blind support for their 'team'. No matter what is true, they will defend their team and spite the opponent. The winning politicians are those who exploit this behavior. In result, we get opportunists in positions of political power rather than statespersons.
Well I would applaud your thought process then because you have selected factors that you consider most important and are voting accordingly. While it is possible to challenge some of your assessments, what you just described is not partisan thinking but rather critical thinking.
Garland was far from a partisan hack.
No matter how many times you say otherwise, it was all about stopping Obama from getting anyone on the court.
Donald Trump is not fit to hold office. You truly do not seem to understand that.
He's not fit to be the town dogcatcher let alone president of the United States. Yet most of your analysis is about "partisanship". Partisanship does not have a damn thing to do with whether or not Trump is fit for office.
People like you are going to make it "acceptable" to elect Trump again, and that will be a god damn shame.
What on Earth does this have to do with this discussion? Get a grip John.
Comprehend that I applauded non-partisan thinking and did not debate MUVA on his facts.
I am tired of being attacked by you based on your extreme presumption fueled by, seems to me, an irrational obsession with Trump.
Amen, man, amen!
No, it is more like I don't give a fuck what some people like to do--which is twist and parse.
"Amen, man, amen!"
Some people's intent seem to be argumentative and condescending.
Sorry, I don't have time to indulge those types of people.
They can twist in the wind.
So what? EVERY fucking time a precedent is set, it goes against a prior precedent, if there has ever been a similar case.
If a spot opens up, Trump can certainly nominate someone and the Senate can certainly confirm the pick.
Democrats can threaten all they want, they simply can't do a fucking thing to stop it.
The only thing ironic about it is the fact that the people the comment is for can't seem to recognize themselves.
Typical.
And YOU don't seem to understand that everything fucking thing in the world is NOT about Trump.
Give it a brief rest--if you are able.
YES!!
That is exactly how I feel when someone finally gets it!
One should not troll one's own seed.
One should mind their own business.
And learn what the fuck trolling is, too.
You know, before making wild-ass accusations.
Well, since you asked, the point I have made is that if the Senate violates the precedent THAT IT SET in 2016, it is broadcasting dishonesty and hypocrisy. This would absolutely become headline news and the Senate (and the R party as a whole) will lose political capital. The question is how much this is worth to them.
This matters because political capital is the lifeblood of partisan politics.
Indeed. I think everyone on this site is aware of that. Are you trying to make a point?
Well of course they cannot directly stop it. Again, how many people reading your comment do you think are unaware of the fact that the Senate has the ability to confirm a nominee by Trump? But the Ds can indirectly dissuade the Rs from proceeding. They can (and likely would) broadcast the hypocrisy. They could engage in bargaining (taking place all the time) holding back on desirable items of legislation. If they wanted to the D party certainly could inflict damage on the R party for this action. But, as you note, they cannot prevent the confirmation.
Bottom line, the Senate can contradict its own precedent but it will do so at a price. This should be obvious.
What was your thoughtful topical point?
Try to make a thoughtful point relevant to your seed and maybe you will get a reply that follows suit.
Sorry, but I am strapped for time and don't have hours to kill.
That certainly isn't the case here.
It can be. Look how I took the snarky crap from you @1.1.111 and offered a thoughtful reply @1.1.117
That is your opinion. Mine is different.
Again, a little strapped for time, don't have hours to explain every single word.
Also, if you really have to ask, probably not going to get it anyways.
But it just isn't.
How is QUOTING you 'twisting and parsing'?
Just face it, the "lame duck' posit that you and yours have been bloviating about all damn day has fallen apart. Sad that you couldn't just man up and admit that.
If you really have to ask, probably wouldn't understand it anyways.
Do you have any supporting facts or logic for your opinion?
I just asked you to state your point, not write a treatise.
Ahhh, the old 'you are too stupid' comment. Great way to encourage thoughtful discussion on your seed.
They cited a 1992 speech by then-senator Joe Biden , in which Biden argued that President Bush should wait until after the election to appoint a replacement if a Supreme Court seat became vacant during the summer or should appoint a moderate acceptable to the then-Democratic Senate, as a precedent.
Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination - Wikipedia
That's not Democrats rare form. That's daily business for them.
This is really a hypothetical about what could happen. Let me play: Suppose an opening on the Court emerges tomorrow and let us assume that the President and Senate follow the precedent known as the Biden rule. One more assumption: Let us assume the dems win everything in November. Based on what the dems are already saying in the above article, could we assume that they might just stack the court with additional justices anyway?
It was Reid that did away with 60 votes for a judge.
It was Obama, just the other day, calling for an end of the Senate filibuster.
Vic,
How could they stack the court? At most, there is only 1 opening. The court would stand as it was.
You know here is the sad thing. Most partisans are arguing over this. But in real life, Ginsberg and Scalia were fishing buddies. If they could find common ground, I am not sure why the nation can't.
The same way FDR wanted to - by adding more Justices. There was also an idea of rotating with other courts.
From the article:
Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, said she has been "talking with people who have different ideas about what we can do — including adding to the court, including having certain circuit court judges cycle in and other ideas" like term limits.
It is there in the article.
Some Democrats want to increase the number of Justices on SCOTUS---that is, IF the Democrats win the WH and Senate. They are also proposing term limits.
You can't stack a court if justices don't leave. The only one that it looks like will leave is RBG.
it is in the article. some dems are proposing to add justices to the court
You can if you are the Democrats and have 50 Senators. It's already in their platform.
They will add justices. And then the next time the Republicans control the Senate and the Presidency they'll add two justices for every extra justice the Democrats add. It will never stop.
"Largely seen as a political ploy to change the court for favorable rulings on New Deal legislation, the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, commonly referred to as the “court-packing plan,” was Roosevelt’s attempt to appoint up to six additional justices to the Supreme Court for every justice older than 70 years, 6 months, who had served 10 years or more."
But the Biden rule only deals with SCOTUS, so it has nothing to do with stacking the court.
Show me.
The "Biden rule" by itself has nothing to do with stacking the Court, except that democrats have threatened to stack the Court if Republicans don't follow the Biden rule precedent. The democrat Senator from Hawaii thinks the Court should be stacked regardless, once the dems have the power.
Show me.
When the Senate denied Obama's nomination in 2016, did that have something to do with stacking the court?
From the article:
Kaine, the party's last vice presidential nominee and a lawmaker with a reputation as an institutionalist, said confirming a nominee of President Donald Trump this year could compel Democrats to consider adding seats to the high court.
Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, said she has been "talking with people who have different ideas about what we can do — including adding to the court, including having certain circuit court judges cycle in and other ideas" like term limits.
"I'm open to those kinds of suggestions," she said.
In a way.
It was after all a high stakes gamble. Obama was offering what he described as "a moderate." A president Hillary Clinton most likely would install a more progressive Justice. At that time it looked like Clinton was destined for a slam dunk win.
What a play by Mitch McConnell!!!!!
These words:
Are close, but do not match the quote you supplied. Sen Hirono said that she would consider ("talking with people who have different ideas about what we can do") adding to the court as one of several options. She did not state that she has concluded that the SCotUS should be stacked regardless. But clearly she is open to the idea.
Oh, come on TiG, stop parsing words - she is considering stacking the Court for God's sake!
I agree. I think it was all about denying Obama the ability to place his nominee.
Yes, she is considering stacking the court.
I am not parsing words, you are failing to read what I wrote. So here we go again:
You state that she is considering stacking the court as if I had denied that. Yet my opening sentence in the quote is that she would consider adding to the court.
I was quite clear and direct. What, exactly, is the problem?
A very risky one!
In my way of thinking, Vic, we should play by the rules. The Senate has advice & consent and that is the key filter to avoid a bad choice (in theory). They should have followed their rules rather than engage in gamesmanship. IMO.
If they had, then if a seat opens in 2020, they would have been on solid ground to engage in the confirmation process. As it stands, based on what they did in 2016, confirming now in 2020 costs them political capital and emboldens the Ds.
Thank you. Do you understand what that means?
I realize you may not like this example but if Heinrich Himmler declared he was in favor of exterminating all of Germany's Jews and Richard Strauss says he would consider it - there is a clear, but minute difference.
There are certain things which are beyond the pale. Your defense of Sen Hirono is that she is merely considering. I'm afraid that kind of distinction is simply watering down an egregious position.
Yup, that is a reasonable view and I share that view, however should the democrats take total control in 2020 I am certain they will end the Senate filibuster and take whatever measures possible to restore a progressive majority on the SCOTUS, regardless of Republicans following precedent.
Are you serious? Are you trying to insult my intelligence? Seriously, Vic, what is the problem here?
Are you now focusing on the word 'consider'? If so, do you not realize that you just told me that she is considering stacking the court? Read what you wrote to me:
You falsely accused me of parsing words and then stated (as if I disagreed) that she is considering stacking the court. Now you come up with an example that attempts to take issue with the very word that you used.
This is just bizarre man.
You said she was considering too? Hello? We are using the same language and yet you still take issue. Amazing.
Would not surprise me. In case you have not noticed, I hold the current members of Congress in low regard.
Trump is "considering" delaying the election. Thankfully, neither one can actually do what they are "considering" without moving heaven and earth. The threat of Democrats adding justices is nothing but a straw man fantasy manufactured by dishonest conservatives to frighten their base. There is simply no actual way, even with the rules changed and a Democrat majority, that they would add more Justices simply to create a liberal majority. They know the country wouldn't allow it and they would pay far too high a price even if they attempted it. They also know the winds change in politics and if they enlarged it for their own benefit, it could easily come back to haunt them.
So why not just accept Hirono was talking fantasy out her ass, just like dishonest Donald.
Your argument that considering is not the same as actually doing is getting stale. Perrie asked me to show her 2 items. I did. Here we are arguing over the fact that you seized on the word considering as opposed to doing. I conceded there is a difference. However any objective observer realizes that the radical Sen from Hawaii is in truth well beyond "considering!" Furthermore as I pointed out considering an outrageous act is not far from committing an outrageous act, despite the clear difference in meanings.
Because I remember those Kavanaugh hearings.
I'm afraid that is not so. It's an actual idea that Democrats are floating and supporting.
2020 Dems warm to expanding Supreme Court
Other candidates told the Washington Post they were either open to the idea or supported it. Including Steyer, Booker, Bullock, Buttgieg, Gillibrand, Harris, Inslee, Klobuchar, Moulton, Warren, and Yang.
Still seems like a pipe dream coming from a dozen or so politicians who know they can entice some of their constituents with dreams of a liberal SCOTUS majority. Odds of them actually getting enough votes and solid majority of public opinion to make it happen? I think it's beyond slim.
Also, it seems that many said they "wouldn't rule it out" but very few were actually the ones bringing it up as one of their platform ideas.
That is not my argument. Looks like you pulled that from thin air.
No, Vic, I have been pointing out that you accused me of parsing words while informing me that Sen Hirono was considering stacking the court. Yet the words I had just used were that she was considering adding to the court. I pointing out how you were insisting on a point that I had just made .
Now you are off on another allegation.
So now you choose to contradict yourself?:
Vic, it is obvious that you are just playing a weak game and I am no longer willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
You should know better by now. Of course some parse words--when it suits their argument. otherwise, we are just supposed to know what they mean no matter what the words say.
Again, Texan, one would think the seeder would NOT seek to perpetuate personal meta on their own seed.
It is even worse when they agree with a comment that was demonstrated to be in error.
I am truly sorry if the truth hurts your feelings.
But my comment stands.
Oh, I see, your comment stands. Well that certainly is a cogent argument.
Got anything to say about the topic?
yes.
I should. I was asked a question. I answered it and briefly made a point. By going off on the way something was said, my point was diluted. As all "good" lawyers learn at Law School: Arguments are not won on the merits, they are won on technicalities! Truth becomes subjective. It's too bad that our society now resembles Law School, as we debate simple truth as if it were something to be interpreted by the individual.
Vic, I stated in my comment that Senator Hirono was indeed considering adding to the court (one of her options):
You return telling me that I should not parse words and that she was considering stacking the court:
You accuse me of parsing words while writing (as your correction) basically the same thing I had just offered.
Correct
One can assume anything. There is a good reason for the Ds to NOT try to expand the court if they have replaced Justice Ginsburg with their choice. It takes substantial political capital to make such a move and it is risky (see FDR). Are they willing to spend it? Further, the move by the D's can be countered by the R's. There is a risk in setting a precedent as it might turn around and bite you.
So, sure, they might do it. But there are good reasons for them to just accept a Ginsburg replacement and move on.
Have you watched how the House has conducted itself?
Do you not see the good reasons to NOT try to expand the SCOTUS?
Of course I do.
Good. So I think the most likely scenario in your hypothetical is that the D party would get their replacement seat and move on.
I guess where we disagree is in the idea that the democrats will be magnanimous. You were right in saying there is good reason to uphold the precedents and norms, but I don't see any evidence that these democrats would live up to that.
I do not think the D party would spend its resources on this. They would more likely focus on what matters most to them: their domestic agenda.
I guess we just agree to disagree..
You disagree? That would mean that you think the Ds would spend their resources on a dubious attempt to expand the SCotUS rather than focus on their domestic agenda. What is your reasoning for this position?
In my scenario I assume the dems win everything in November. That would give them unlimited political capitol. Have you seen what they have done with just one of the two congressional chambers?
Yes I know. That is the political capital I was referring to. But it is not unlimited by any stretch of the imagination.
So given this capital, the question is how they would spend it.
I posit that they would use it to advance their domestic agenda (environment, energy, education, redistribution of wealth, taxation, etc.) rather than engage in a dubious attempt to expand the SCotUS. I am surprised that you seem to think they would focus on expanding the SCotUS given all the other priorities they have been itching to act on.
If they end the Senate filibuster, they will be able to enact all of their domestic agenda - under those circumstances they can do it within two years before the next midterm election. BTW there are many bills Pelosi has championed in the House that had no chance of passage in the Senate. They are still in the quiver.
That leaves the Court, which for a few decades gave progressives things they couldn't get through elections. Those were the days! We had those past many decades when so many justices were graduates of either Harvard or Yale and regardless of who appointed them, they tended to lean left. Then Teddy Kennedy changed all that. Now the two main political parties choose judges based solely on ideology. You think they would be content with preserving a 5-4 minority?
I don't think they are that pragmatic, or that humble. They had no problem spending massive political capital on an impeachment they knew was doomed to failure. They have had no qualms about going all out to destroy the reputations of Republican SCOTUS nominees over the years.
They of course want a 9-0 majority. But everything comes at a price and it is the price that I am talking about. They have limited political capital and the idea of expanding the SCotUS is both dubious (easy to backfire) and is a double-edged sword (the Rs can do likewise when it is their turn).
It would be quite stupid for the Ds to pursue this. They will go for the low-hanging fruit (sure bets) before going after such a long-shot play such as extending the size of the SCotUS.
The impeachment move was indeed ill-conceived and ultimately a political failure. The fact that they screwed that up does not mean that they will now go after an even longer-shot with less immediate consequences than tarnishing Trump (presumably in order to cause him to lose reelection).
Domestic agenda vs. long-shot, questionable, expansion of the SCotUS ... I do not see them going for the Hail Mary again.
Do you truly think that is what they would most likely do given Vic's scenario where they have both the Executive and Legislative branches in their control??
No assuming about it that's the plan, they'll also eliminate the filibuster. The Democrats dream of one-party rule will become reality.
The warning is really just laying the groundwork for public acceptance of what they are going to do anyway. When the Democrats move to manipulate the court to their favor, and outrage ensues, they will point to anything and everything they can to justify it as simply a fair reaction to something the Republicans did.
Both parties will continue to actively fight for control of the court. Of course they both want the Judicial branch on 'their side'. The question is how far they will go to secure a particular level of advantage.
One cannot (or should not) deny what the R Senate did at the end of Obama's term. Of course the Ds would do likewise. Would they up the ante and go for broke by trying to expand the size of the SCotUS? I do not see that happening.
Just kills me that Democrats are bold enough to "warn" the Republicans.
What will they do if Trump nominated someone and the Senate confirmed that person?
It's just posturing. They're going to what they're going to do.
They'd scream about it, probably, whether the thing with Merrick Garland had happened or not. Heck, they already talk about impeaching the likes of Thomas and Kavanaugh - not for a real reason, but just because they don't like them.
Yes, I have heard rumors that they want to impeach because they were unable to block their confirmation.
Sad little folks, aren't they?
And the 2016 use of the 'Biden Rule' comes back to bite them in the butt.
Both parties play the same game. The have the same basic objectives.
If Trump loses and Democrats regain the Senate - this really is not a problem. Democrats will keep the same Senate rules as the Republicans - simple majority to approve a Justice.
The 11 Justices of the Supreme Court.
Who'll make it 13? 15?
It's legal as church.
Yes it is.
Yeah it wouldn't be a surprise that Democrats want to stack the court.
Couldn't do it by the present rules, so just change them
now that sounds like effective leadership!
So that makes it a goal of BOTH Parties.
It would be hypocritical to whine about changing the rules after McConnell did just that to install the last 2 Justices.
It has been quite effective for the GOP.
You managed to stack bullshit pretty high in just one sentence!
Yet never come close to the heights you achieve.
You do realize the two are separate things, right?
Right?
Whatever I post has absolutely nothing to do with you posting bullshit.
You did it, own it.
Why do you insist that I meet a standard that you refuse to hold yourself to?
Here's a present for you.
Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Neil M. Gorsuch, of Colorado, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States: Neil M. Gorsuch, of Colorado, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
This was the first of four significant votes on the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to be a Supreme Court Justice. This vote was the first vote on cloture for Gorsuch's nomination and took place under the old rules of the Senate in which a cloture vote on a Supreme Court nomination required 3/5ths of elected senators to vote in the affirmative.
A vote on cloture is a vote to limit further debate and move to an up-or-down vote, in other words to prevent a filibuster. With only 55 votes in favor, 5 short of the 60 required, the Democrats blocked cloture so that they could filibuster the nomination.
Following this vote, in Senate vote #109 , the rule for cloture on Supreme Court nominations was changed to a simple majority. In Senate vote #110 , the cloture vote was retaken under the new rules and with 55 votes again, 4 more than was needed on the second attempt, cloture was approved and further debate was limited. Gorsuch was confirmed in the final vote the following day .
Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Majority Leader, voted on the winning side -- against his true position -- strategically so that he could ask that the vote be re-taken later , after the Senate's rules had been changed.
Did that upset you?
Proving you utterly and completely wrong? No, not at all.
I have heard several people say they are worried the Dems will try to stack the courts. I can on SMH when that is exactly what the republicans have been doing the past several years.
For some reason it is always ok when they do it but no one else better even try...
there is a distinct difference between appointing justices and adding more.
Indeed. There is also a distinct difference between acting as a statesperson vs. being a political opportunist. The former tries to do what is best for the American people whereas the latter tries to do what is best for the politician and their party.
Then you should spend more time castigating Democrats for even considering adding Justices to SCOTUS.
I am not going to try to castigate individuals because of their position. It is far better to focus on the position and not the person.
As for adding Justices to the SCotUS, I am not against expanding the size of the court as long as it is done for reasons that clearly serve the American people. This implies that it would not be a push act by a political majority but rather a bi-partisan agreement.
I haven't heard any Republicans floating the idea of adding Justices.
just Democrats.
Are you categorically against increasing the size of the SCotUS to better handle the caseload for what is now a 331+ million citizen nation?
My understanding is that SCOTUS only hears cases with the full panel of Justices, unless one or more have fallen ill or recused themselves. Adding more Justices does nothing to lighten the load, IMO.
If I am wrong about that, I am sure you will correct me on it.
Doesn't matter if there are 1,000,000 or 500,000,000 Americans.
Adding partisan justices to a court to ensure favorable rulings is what a corrupt dictator would do in a banana republic. If Trump was actually the monster Democrats claim he is, he would have packed the Supreme Court years ago. Biden is actually corrupt enough to do it.
That is correct, and the current quorum for the SCotUS is 6 justices. This can be changed and likely would be changed if the court is expanded. Each Justice is responsible for an area of jurisdiction (a circuit assignment) wherein they are individually empowered to deal with granting bail, stays, extensions, etc. Thus the more Justices available, the more they can operate in parallel addressing applications within their jurisdictions.
A larger SCotUS enables the court to operate like Circuit courts where a subset of the Justices act on certain cases (not requiring the entire complement of the SCotUS).
All of this is within the power of Congress. So there really is nothing (other than partisan politics) preventing the USA from adjusting its SCotUS to better accommodate the size of our nation.
So, considering these facts:
Are you categorically against increasing the size of the SCotUS to better handle the caseload for what is now a 331+ million citizen nation?
Exactly. That is why an increase in the size of the SCotUS should be a result of a bi-partisan agreement and have stated merits that clearly help the American people. Also, if the size is increased to 11 this should be done incrementally with an approach much like giving #10 to the current PotUS and #11 to his/her successor (or, if necessary due to partisan politics, by giving #10 to one party and #11 to the other major party).
Each Justice is also a Circuit Court Judge. Roberts actually oversees 3 Circuits and Sotamayor oversees 2. The rest oversee one Circuit Court each. Emergency Appeals in each Circuit are sent to the Justice Assigned to that Circuit and they each have the authority to issue an Emergency stay.
Not categorically, no.
As far as I can find , there actually isn't anything in the constitution that says how many justices are to sit on the SC.
And from what I see , the sole deciders of how many seats there actually are , is left to the senate with its advice and consent , that latter being the important factor hell the senate could go the other way , instead of adding seats subtract seats down to 3, 5 or 7 , simply by refusing to consent to seat any nominee over whatever number they agree on.
the one instance of "court stacking" I remember was when FDR tried to do it by adding nominees favorable to his new deal programs that were getting beaten in the SC by adding seats if the nominees were confirmed . that didn't go over very well. the senate simply refused to confirm those additional nominees.
Congress sets the size of the SCotUS when signed by the PotUS.
the senate simply refused to confirm those additional nominees.
the senate was a lot different pace then, it took its role as part of an equal branch Of government seriously, and it’s members weren’t as dominated by their respective parties.
what Democratic senator would stand up to the Twitter mob and oppose Biden’s plant to destroy the courts’s integrity by packing it ? Maybe Manchin?
Which is my point , with no consent from the senate there is nothing for the Potus to sign, to increase the number of seats .
the potus can nominate all they want in any number they want , getting confirmation is another matter, one of those pesky checks and balances things and division of powers.
Article III of the Constitution sets neither the size of the Supreme Court nor any specific positions on it (though existence of the office of chief justice is tacitly acknowledged in Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 ). Instead, these powers are entrusted to Congress, which initially established a six-member Supreme Court composed of a chief justice and five associate justices through Judiciary Act of 1789. The size of the Court was first altered by an 1801 act which would have reduced the size of the court to five members upon its next vacancy, but an 1802 act promptly negated the 1801 act, legally restoring the court's size to six members before any such vacancy occurred. As the nation's boundaries grew, Congress added justices to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits: seven in 1807 , nine in 1837 , and ten in 1863 . [76]
In 1866, at the behest of Chief Justice Chase and in an attempt to limit the power of Andrew Johnson , Congress passed an act providing that the next three justices to retire would not be replaced, which would thin the bench to seven justices by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. In 1869, however, the Circuit Judges Act returned the number of justices to nine, [77] where it has since remained.
I was supporting your point Mark.
Because of the case crush on the Supreme Court I would support expanding the court to at least 11 and work under the same system as Appellant courts with rare 'en bloc' cases being heard.
Oh and I would also want to see the SCOTUS to have to follow the same ethics standards as the other Federal courts.
Well, then you’ll support trump appointing two new justices tomorrow.
If the SCotUS were to expand, I would want to see that accomplished via a bi-partisan consensus in Congress.
I wouldn't support Trump appointing a grocer cart collector.
I'd love to see that too but since the Senate is an utter cluster fuck right now, I don't see it happening any time soon. Ever since they removed the 'blue ticket' precedent and the filibuster on SCOTUS Justices, it looks to continue to be a partisan process. I doubt they'd get an Amendment to the law through the Senate even if Roberts BEGGED for more justices to help with the caseload.
Hell, we should be 'redistricting' and adding Circuit Courts too. There is little justice when courts are so overloaded that cases go for years and the SCOTUS only takes about 2% of the cases presented to them, not on the merits but because they hear at most 150 cases a year.
Agreed. I see no end to the partisan nonsense.
Of course you'll only find a reason to expand the Supreme Court when it's to the partisan advantage of Democrats. Spare us the pretexts about a mythical "case crush" and be honest.
If Biden wins and the Democrats control the Senate, it will be amusing to watch all these dishonest rationalizations suddenly appear to expand the Supreme Court in January, 2021. If Trump wins, the same people will do everything they can to keep every possible seat in the federal judiciary open.
Of course you are again incapable of addressing my comment without making it personal.
My statement about Trump is totally honest. Just stop.
Oh and BTFW, instead of making personal comments, why not address the fact that the SCOTUS is only hearing 2% of the cases presented to them.
As an aside , and how true it is , I do not know , I have read that trump has nominated and had confirmed more justices than any president than Geo Washington , and that Washington only had so many because he was the one that was president when the judiciary was implemented and started .
my actual question or query would be , why are those seats left open for so long from president to president if they are so important?
I can be wrong , but court vacancies should be filled ASAP( I would be ok with 2 months at most) and not left vacant simply because the political tides are against what one desires to be sat.
Answer - Mitch McConnell resisted radical justices. That is why Majority Leader Harry Reid finally ended the Senate rule on Judges, but by then there were a tremendous amount of vacancies. Along came the current President and the rest, as they say, is history
Mitch McConnell became Majority leader AFTER Harry Reid. Sheesh!
Where in his post did he claim otherwise?
Sheesh!
In the first 2 of 3 sentences.
In answer to the question:
This came first:
So Vic alleges that Judicial seats were left open from president to president because of Mitch McConnell's 'resistance'.
Then Vic alleges that 'resistance' caused this:
Reading comprehension 101.
Now unless you or Vic want to make the ridiculous claim that ONE lowly Senator's resistance caused the long time openings in the Judiciary, only after Mitch became Majority leader did his 'resistance' become relevant.
You just HAVE to be fucking kidding!
Here are his first two sentences, which you claim he states that McConnell became Senate Leader before Harry Reid:
Please point out WHERE in those words you see plainly in front of you WHERE he states McConnell was Leader of the Senate BEFORE Harry Reid, as you claimed.
I bet you can't and will instead resort to parsing words again.
Go for it!
If you don't understand, I can't help you.
I understood the lie in your post perfectly. Even called you out on it.
Never have asked for any help from you.
Not ever necessary or even possible.
I just know you claimed something that wasn't true, got caught, and then can't back it up when called out on it.
I'm used to it by now, though.
Since there is no lie in my post, you obviously understood nothing.
I refer you to post 8.1.4, again.
I refer you to the FACT that Vic abandoned his bullshit and you are here doing a shitty job of defending it.
Ah, Grasshopper, the truth needs no defending.
Now, your post which contained an error DOES.
Which you are simply incapable of doing.
Effectively, anyways.
You made a claim, got called on it, couldn't back it up, then talk about other stuff.
Hence it was false.
DOES what?
WTF are you blathering about?
Incogent.
I clearly backed up my comment. Vic is the one who didn't back up his claim and YOU are the one talking about 'other stuff'.
Backed it up?
Hell, you don't even know what the damn topic is!
Come back when you do, until then, ADIOS!
Yet not one of my comments has been removed for being off topic.
yeah, I quit flagging for off topic.
So what?
Have you learned what we were talking about yet?
Go any proof at all for what you claimed?
That he claimed Mc Connell was the Senate Leader before Reid?
So no whining about alleged off topic comments. THAT's so what.
Where in any of my comments did I say that?
So now you can't even remember what you write?
Man, think I'm gonna need another box of crayons!
But, just to help you out, 8.1 1 will be a great place to start!
Was 8.1.1 just a strawman, then?
These were MY words.
WHERE in those words you see plainly in front of you do I claim that Vic states McConnell was Leader of the Senate BEFORE Harry Reid, as you claimed?
So, it was a strawman then.
And so indignant with the "Sheesh!", too!
He never claimed that McConnell was the Senate Leader before Reid.
Quite a conundrum.
Considering his past behavior, it's hard to imagine McConnell not trying to ram through another appointment, before Biden takes office.
But... then there's Grassley, who says he won't allow a lame-duck appointment. While I have zero consideration for Grassley's truthfulness or honor, I can easily imagine that he would like to have a new President come into office already owing Grassley a favor.
So... McConnell... If he believes Grassley, it would be stupid for McConnell to engage an appointment that has no chance of succeeding. He might well announce, grandly, that he would wait for the new President. No one would be fooled, but appearances would be saved.
I think that is still a fairly big IF. and a lot of that IF depends on whom is chosen as his running mate since there are a few that do not think Biden will complete a full term.
True.
My favorite is Tammy Duckworth.
then again , its American politics , and like the proverbial box of chocolates , you never really know what your gonna get.
Are you excited by amputees?
You're a shitty person.