yes ty for the news

hear hear. just another lost concept among others that is eroding american democracy

- It's good sober thinking in a time where everybody is going to be whipped into a partisan frenzy

This post was edited by proccy on Sep 20 2020 11:02am

The senate refusing to go nuclear on legislative filibusters and not court stacking are examples of those 'norms': Actions which they could take in their partisan interests while in power, to expand their power at the expense of the integrity of our democracy. When politicians from minority parties scream about conjured up rules like the 'biden rule' or 'garland rule' that no party ever voluntarily followed when it would disadvantage them, well that's not a norm, that's just transparent political posturing.

The norms of the senate are that when a party controls the presidency and senate, they can appoint supreme court justices however they like, including during election years. No party has ever willingly forfeited a scotus pick they could confirm on their own just to give it to the next administration, that's no norm. This opening is well outside the grey area where it could get more dubious if they were trying to rush a confirmation at the last minute, as they have far more time before inauguration than is normal for a scotus confirmation. They could do the fastest confirmation ever before the election and it would still be reasonably kosher, just a few days shorter than RGB's own hearings. But I don't see why they should. If RGB had died on Jan 10th, 2021, with Biden the president-elect, I think there would be serious qualms about it, but that's not the case (stay healthy breyer)

anyway the point I'm making is that everything Republicans are talking about is mundane and shouldn't be controversial at all. Democrats could dream about Republicans voluntarily ceding them a scotus seat for no damn reason, but that's just silly
whereas talk about court packing is radical, dangerous and would basically end all legitimacy of the democracy. FDR lived in wilder times with far more mandate from the masses, and even he backed down when he realized the new deal would accomplish nothing in a country where nobody accepted the government as legitimate

You're just defining norms in a way that benefits your own political party. It's kind of silly that you're even conceding that Republicans went over the line with Garland, while arguing this time, they're justified in violating the principle they set.

Republicans have used the power they have to shape the court. If Democrats win in 2020, they will do the same. Either way it goes will follow the law. The side which complains about norms is the loser.

This post was edited by IceMage on Sep 20 2020 11:33am

there is something I can agree with

Somewhat agree, but I will admit Gorsuch has been better than I would have thought.

What's your opinion on the recent trans-rights decision that Gorsuch authored?

Obviously we would all prefer that Republicans hadn't completely stopped caring about norms and were acting in good faith, but in light of that not being the case I'm 100% fine with Democrats absolutely abusing every power possible. If in 20 years we have a 50 man supreme court because every administration adds 2-5 more justices, I'm fine with that too because it will highlight how broken the system is.

You're equating people following the current rules and even abiding by the previous demands of the opposing side, with people rewriting the rules to completely end all checks and balances to bring complete and total tyranny of the majority
Republicans used the same powers available to the Democrats and exercised by them for decades in order to shape the court. They just benefited from holding the senate more frequently. If Democrats decided that the first time they get the senate, they'll completely eliminate the independent / compromise judiciary and instead stick their hands up the court's ass and use them as puppets, well there would be no expectation of another election 4 years after that for Republicans to retake power democratically, because it would be the end of the democracy.



It wouldn't be 2-5 more justices. If Democrats added 2-5 more justices to get a majority, the Republicans would add 10 more and retake the majority and have some wiggle room. Democrats would have to add 20 more, Republicans in response 40 more, heck, why stop there, they might take the system to its logical maximum limit and nominate and confirm every registered republican voter as a supreme court justice so a few million people can rule on each court decision. I mean you can't keep increasing the size indefinitely, eventually you run out of people.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Sep 20 2020 01:34pm

We should replace the Supreme Court with an algorithm.