RBG passes away | Trump to nominate replacement soon

Status
Not open for further replies.

Fridge chutney

Full Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2016
Messages
8,961
As any challenge would go through the supreme Court and we don't know as yet who replaces rbg, however, im still pretty sure that Clarance Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor & Eleana kagan are not old white men
Correct, but it's not those 3 who likely to overturn Roe vs Wade...
 

VanHaal'sRedArmy

Full Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2015
Messages
2,623
I find it strange that current SC justices have almost no say in choosing candidates or appointees.
 

VanHaal'sRedArmy

Full Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2015
Messages
2,623
Not sure why they would decide such a thing, when their jobs are to make legal rulings.
I get what you are implying, but to have absolutely no say in the vetting process is a bit odd.
Especially in a post that is essentially a lifetime appointment.
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
130,298
Location
Hollywood CA
I get what you are implying, but to have absolutely no say in the vetting process is a bit odd.
Especially in a post that is essentially a lifetime appointment.
I think the problem is that there are so few justices (9), which means the prospect of lifetime appointments weigh heavier on the selection process. If there were 13 or 17 (pick any reasonable odd number) then the risk of a lifetime appointment would be spread more evenly. The lifetime appointment bit is probably not changeable since its in the constitution. The number of justices however isn't and can be changed by a simple majority vote in Congress.
 

calodo2003

Flaming Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
41,844
Location
Florida
As any challenge would go through the supreme Court and we don't know as yet who replaces rbg, however, im still pretty sure that Clarance Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor & Eleana kagan are not old white men
He could mean the Republicans in the Senate, those old white men will definitely be deciding the fate of Roe.
 

Pexbo

Winner of the 'I'm not reading that' medal.
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
68,738
Location
Brizzle
Supports
Big Days
Haven’t seen this grifter in a minute...

I know it’s what he was praying for and he would have ”won” if I did it but feck him I‘d have put a brick through his fat head and shat on the mess It made.
 

nimic

something nice
Scout
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
31,496
Location
And I'm all out of bubblegum.
I think the problem is that there are so few justices (9), which means the prospect of lifetime appointments weigh heavier on the selection process. If there were 13 or 17 (pick any reasonable odd number) then the risk of a lifetime appointment would be spread more evenly. The lifetime appointment bit is probably not changeable since its in the constitution. The number of justices however isn't and can be changed by a simple majority vote in Congress.
As a point of comparison: Norway, a much smaller country, has 19 supreme court judges. Though most cases are tried by only 5 at a time, important ones are seen by at least 11 and sometimes all of them. There are also no lifetime appointments, but as you say that is not feasible to change in the US.

There almost inherently has to be something wrong with a system which damn near introduces a political crisis on top of an already highly contested election.
 

Redplane

( . Y . ) planned for Christmas
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
10,382
Location
The Royal Kingdom of Trumpistan
I think the problem is that there are so few justices (9), which means the prospect of lifetime appointments weigh heavier on the selection process. If there were 13 or 17 (pick any reasonable odd number) then the risk of a lifetime appointment would be spread more evenly. The lifetime appointment bit is probably not changeable since its in the constitution. The number of justices however isn't and can be changed by a simple majority vote in Congress.
Seems to me the Dems can make a calculated power play without being accused of completely throwing of the conservative advantage right away.

Add DC and PR as states in part as justification to add two justices. Make the balance 6-5 in favor of the conservatives so they cant claim its some kind of way to illegally gain a majority there. Even though we know the Rs would do that without batting an eye.

Two of the conservative justices hypothetically will need to be replaced during a Dem presidency. Use that to further stimulate the base for the next 4-8 yrs.

Of course all this assumes Trump wont come full autocrat circle with the backing of the court.
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
130,298
Location
Hollywood CA
Seems to me the Dems can make a calculated power play without being accused of completely throwing of the conservative advantage right away.

Add DC and PR as states in part as justification to add two justices. Make the balance 6-5 in favor of the conservatives so they cant claim its some kind of way to illegally gain a majority there. Even though we know the Rs would do that without batting an eye.

Two of the conservative justices hypothetically will need to be replaced during a Dem presidency. Use that to further stimulate the base for the next 4-8 yrs.

Of course all this assumes Trump wont come full autocrat circle with the backing of the court.
The bit about adding justices is the nuclear option, which they would be perfectly justified in doing if Biden wins and they reclaim the Senate. If the Republicans are willing to brazenly cheat then they have to be prepared to reap what they sow.
 

sport2793

Full Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2012
Messages
3,170
Location
USA
The bit about adding justices is the nuclear option, which they would be perfectly justified in doing if Biden wins and they reclaim the Senate. If the Republicans are willing to brazenly cheat then they have to be prepared to reap what they sow.
Ya but the tit for tat is what I fear. The decline of the Roman republic has been on my mind a bit recently. While you really can't draw parallels between the two situations for several reasons, the Dems adding justices will further encourage the subversion of democratic norms I fear. Democracies/republics have a better chance of dying with many small cuts rather than a couple of big slices.
 

Ubik

Nothing happens until something moves!
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Messages
18,932
Ya but the tit for tat is what I fear. The decline of the Roman republic has been on my mind a bit recently. While you really can't draw parallels between the two situations for several reasons, the Dems adding justices will further encourage the subversion of democratic norms I fear. Democracies/republics have a better chance of dying with many small cuts rather than a couple of big slices.
You can't think like that with the Republicans, because they'll do it anyway. They don't need provocation, and they never believe Democrat threats of retaliation, so never worry about any blowback.
 

Cheimoon

Made of cheese
Scout
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
14,339
Location
Canada
Supports
no-one in particular
As a point of comparison: Norway, a much smaller country, has 19 supreme court judges. Though most cases are tried by only 5 at a time, important ones are seen by at least 11 and sometimes all of them. There are also no lifetime appointments, but as you say that is not feasible to change in the US.

There almost inherently has to be something wrong with a system which damn near introduces a political crisis on top of an already highly contested election.
I thought the low number concern was nonsense, but actually, Canada has 9 for a population of 38M, and the Netherlands 36(!) for a population of 17.5M. So yeah, 9 is pretty low for the US.

Why does the nomination run entirely through political channels though? In the Netherlands, the SC itself produces a shortlist of three candidates from which parliament gets to choose one. That seems a more sensible approach to me; more based on judicial expertise.
 

sport2793

Full Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2012
Messages
3,170
Location
USA
You can't think like that with the Republicans, because they'll do it anyway. They don't need provocation, and they never believe Democrat threats of retaliation, so never worry about any blowback.
Ya but I'm not interested in living in a dictatorship so I'll avoid that line of thinking. Feck the GOP, the only way to ensure they don't mess everything up is to implement laws that secure your own power (increasing senate seats with DC, Puerto Rico, ruthlessly destroying voter suppression/upholding voter rights, scrapping the electoral college if needed) and do so in a way that you have a clear majority of the country on your side. Packing the court will not stop the GOP from doing so when they return to power (no way to close the door behind you) and you will just shorten the amount of time that the Dems can stay in power.
 

sport2793

Full Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2012
Messages
3,170
Location
USA
Impossible? How did you come to this conclusion? A majority on the senate would require 52 senators + VP or 53 senators without the need of VP. They currently have 53 + VP.

Even if all 4 senators were Dems (virtually certain from DC, very likely from PR), at the moment GOP would have been controlling the senate.
Ya you are right, didn't work that math out in my head. Still, it makes it much harder for the GOP to control the Senate for more than 1 election cycle with the addition of those 4 seats.
 

berbatrick

Renaissance Man
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
21,704
I think court packing is unviable for many reasons, but not because of GOP retaliation. Here was a GOP moderate just before Trump's election:
 

sun_tzu

The Art of Bore
Joined
Aug 23, 2010
Messages
19,536
Location
Still waiting for the Youthquake
I know it’s what he was praying for and he would have ”won” if I did it but feck him I‘d have put a brick through his fat head and shat on the mess It made.
I'm surprised the fbi have not brought charges for the false muller claims yet?
It seems a matter of time before he ends up in prison... which in a civil society is probably more appropriate than maiming somebody and defecating on them (and come on in the ce on the caf we really shouldn't resort beyond defecating in his manbag)
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
49,638
Location
London
Dems should pack the court with a simple majority vote. After that,they should change the law to require a super majority to change the number again.
Pack the court, and give statehood to DC, Puerto Rico and break California in multiple states. Essentially, make a situation for GOP to not be able to control the senate despite losing by multiple points.

Play against GOP on their court. feck being nice.
 

nimic

something nice
Scout
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
31,496
Location
And I'm all out of bubblegum.
To be honest I think that would massively backfire and not only be unpopular but feed the narrative of whole dems not accepting the defeat in the last election.
Who cares if it's unpopular? The GOP certainly don't, they do unpopular things all the time. But they also get shit done. Terrible, immoral, borderline evil shit, but it gets done all the same.

The voters would forget about being angry by the next election.
 

SirAF

Ageist
Joined
Sep 28, 2003
Messages
37,637
Location
Who cares if it's unpopular? The GOP certainly don't, they do unpopular things all the time. But they also get shit done. Terrible, immoral, borderline evil shit, but it gets done all the same.

The voters would forget about being angry by the next election.
This.
 

GiddyUp

Full Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2015
Messages
4,913
Pack the court, and give statehood to DC, Puerto Rico and break California in multiple states. Essentially, make a situation for GOP to not be able to control the senate despite losing by multiple points.

Play against GOP on their court. feck being nice.
I would rather see the Dakotas merge and two of Wyoming/Montana/Idaho becoming one state.
 

RoadTrip

petitioned for a just cause
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
26,399
Location
Los Pollos Hermanos...
It’s time generally, not just in the US, for parties toward the left of the spectrum to stop playing nice and get in the dirt ring. It’s time to get good things done
 

GiddyUp

Full Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2015
Messages
4,913
Who cares if it's unpopular? The GOP certainly don't, they do unpopular things all the time. But they also get shit done. Terrible, immoral, borderline evil shit, but it gets done all the same.

The voters would forget about being angry by the next election.
Too fecking right. The Dems need to punch hard and keep punching the gop. I can't imagine Pelosi or Schumer bothering though.
 

Drifter

American
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
68,364
Wikipedia as his occupation as a Conspiracy theorist, fraudster, Internet troll.
 

oneniltothearsenal

Caf's Milton Friedman and Arse Aficionado
Scout
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
11,180
Supports
Brazil, Arsenal,LA Aztecs
No just my opinion.
Why is that your opinion?
Do you support Trump? McConnel?
Do you believe abortion should be illegal in the US?
What do you think of QAnon?
Do you believe wearing masks and semi-lockdown orders are the greatest violation of rights since slavery?
How do you feel about the recent protests? About the 1619 project?
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
130,298
Location
Hollywood CA
Why is that your opinion?
Do you support Trump? McConnel?
Do you believe abortion should be illegal in the US?
What do you think of QAnon?
Do you believe wearing masks and semi-lockdown orders are the greatest violation of rights since slavery?
How do you feel about the recent protests? About the 1619 project?
And more to the point, why would a Canadian care about the next American SCOTUS nominee ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.