so lets try to imagine how icemage would react if Trump & McConnell had announced last week that they were going to pack the supreme court with 10 new justices before the election, who would then be in place to rule on any cases concerning the election

"it will follow the law" and "when democrats complain, they're losers"

Not a norm? What are you talking about?
Both political parties have their own agenda, this is completely in the norm.

They're not going to say, "Hey, we rightfully have the ability to make this decision that could alter significant future events in our favor, but we're going to put that back on the table and leave it to chance"

So maybe you should stop pretending. Republicans have the presidency, and they have Senate Majority. Both of which were elected by the people.

Politicians are going to operate to the best interest of their own political party (and those who specifically elected them).

This is obvious. It's not some strange unusual "powerplay", to enact in this way on this situation.

SCOTUS picks have been nominated and voted on in less time than what is currently remaining. There's plenty under even 10 days.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm

This post was edited by GLYC123 on Sep 20 2020 02:41pm

I strongly disagree with this. I think Congress has been completely derelict in its duty and THEY are the ones who politicize the court. In addition, the Executive has much more power than it should because Congress is too afraid to take a stand on issues.

As far as I'm concerned, if the ABA says you're "well-qualified," you should be confirmed. It pisses me off when Democrats try to filibuster brilliant people like Bork, Gorsuch, Roberts, etc. I rarely agreed with Justice Ginsberg but she was highly qualified and wrote thoughtful opinions.

and who led the charge of taking down Bork? that lecherous, avaricious calorie-hoarding permanently drunk failure of the family, Edward ‘world champion waitress-sandwich maker” and “hero of Chappaquiddick” Kennedy (D)

i cant wait when some equally pale pasty privileged lefty male tries to torpedo whatever woman Trump nominates and watch the media fawn over the guy (it will probably be Da-nang Dick or that freak Chris Murphy) as if he is some champion of women

I have a feeling it will be Bernie Sanders, the least successful Jew in the history of the world.

lmao you love dunking on him with that line huh

Democrats controlled the Senate and confirmed Anthony Kennedy in Reagan's last year in office. They controlled the Senate and confirmed Clarence Thomas.

People on both sides of this have said and done various, contradictory things, so any hack can point to statements which confirm their viewpoints. Republicans like Ted Cruz and even John McCain said that if Hillary got elected, they would obstruct any pick she made.

The bottom line is that this is about power, not principles or norms. Republicans had the power to deny Obama his rightful pick and now will give Trump his. I fail to see how Democrats responding by adding a couple seats to the bench is the end of democracy.

I find it far more persuasive to call this situation the tyranny of the minority. Where did the founders argue that it was their intent that if the Senate was controlled by the opposition party, and the president appoints someone with the right credentials, he should not be able to get his justice confirmed? Sure, the system allows that. But it also allows the opposition-controlled Senate to obstruct all other judicial appointments, and a myriad of executive branch appointments. Our democracy doesn't work when the Senate only thinks of their advise-and-consent role as pure power politics.



There's a difference between a proportional reaction, even an escalation, and lighting our democracy on fire.

Obama had 2 confirmed nominations. There was no massive "block" on Obama like you're trying to claim.

Was it right that his third and final nomination never went to a vote? Probably not. Was the reasoning sound? To a point, yes. The Senate, as elected democratically, by pure popular vote from the states, shifted hard right as a result of the actions of Obama as President. That senate, charged with representing the will of it's constituents opted to use it's majority to wait.

Obama was absolutely terrible for everything Democratic party. They lost seats across the board. House, senate, governors. It was a virtual "red wave" during his second term. The basic theory was, the third nomination, due to the mandate by the people that Obama was making bad choices for the American people, should go to the next to be elected, since he was a lame duck in his last year in office.

Flip that to today. You have a Republican Majority senate with a Republican president. The apparent mandate is clear, "We're still happy." There's nothing, based on McConnell's own reasoning that would prevent the confirmation of a third Justice by Trump. Right? Wrong? I don't know. But I've at least read what he said then and now, it meshes.

Regarding stacking the court with more seats. That's a clear attempt to gain a majority not due to "who happens to be in office at the time" which focuses really on core principles, but instead on "what can we get done right now while nobody can stop us" which denotes activist tendencies. The idea behind the Judicial branch is that there's not supposed to be ANY activism. The only thing that matters is the letter of the law. That's what they're sworn to uphold. For life, in the case of Supreme Court Justices. Letter of the law literally means that personal beliefs are null. Political beliefs are null. ONLY the Constitution matters at the start, and following the Constitution, only statute that has been judged as Constitutionally valid. Even the "precedent" cases as judged by the Supreme Court are not, at heart, valid judgements. The third branch exists to keep the first two in check with each other, and with themselves.

I don't want 987 Supreme Court Justices. And I take a severely hard look at any judgement that's not unanimous. Because there's a very good likelihood it's not based on the law as is, but either precedence or an interpretation that really is not valid.

But, I'm idealistic. I don't want a partisan Supreme Court. I want a foundationalist Constitutionalist as a Supreme Court Judge. Which is almost certainly not what we'll get, regardless of who is appointing them.

And yet you skip over the part where both parties, when they've had the power, respected those norms to a large degree. There was always maneuvering at the edges and nuclear showdowns, but the fact is democrats held the house, senate and presidency under Obama and the republicans held the house, senate and presidency under Trump- and neither ended the legislative filibuster, neither packed the courts, neither tyrannized the minority to the fullest extent they could in the name of power. Even when the minority party obstructed, they've let through numerous picks they could have held up- they gave Bush many judges, they gave Obama many judges, it was never 100% blockaded. I think you underestimate how much room there still is for civil compromise and respect for the checks and balances of the republic even in some of the most hyperpartisan times since the civil war. The fact is that neither side is willing to do everything. And even now the democrats screaming about the potential of being tyrants if they took power, is rightly controversial and getting some measure of rebuke from moderates on both sides.

you can't excuse the arsonists who want to burn down democracy with no holds barred just because there's always been some level of rancor and strife


This post was edited by Goomshill on Sep 21 2020 06:59am