The Supremes: The Court, not the Singers!

[Kromm]

The election is over in a few weeks.

The battle over The Supreme Court is what's likely going to dominate this forum after that. Well... at least if the composition of The Senate remains different from the party the President belongs to.

It won't be as fast-paced and insane as an election, but as soon as the chatter about possible candidates starts, the rumor mill when people start digging on those candidates, the anger or acrimony over what the Senators do or don't do, etc. there will be plenty to discuss. 

Also feel free to discuss cases of note (which don't have more appropriate individual topics), sitting Justices, etc.

[car54]

Well this looks promising.  NOT.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/17/politics/mccain-clinton-trump-supreme-court/index.html

[The Crazed Spruce]

Personally, I hope that if Hillary Clinton wins the election, and the Democrats take back the Senate, she throws out Merrick Garland and nominated the "Mexican" judge from the Trump University case.

No way in hell that's gonna happen, but it'd be pretty sweet if it did. :)

[starri]

You just watch.  She wins and the Senate flips, the lame duck session with confirm him.  Because even though he would cause a leftward swing, she'd have the opportunity to make a much bigger one when she takes office.

And I will guarantee a new Democratic Majority will nuke the ability to filibuster SCOTUS appointments.

[Silver Raven]

15 minutes ago, starri said:

You just watch.  She wins and the Senate flips, the lame duck session with confirm him.  Because even though he would cause a leftward swing, she'd have the opportunity to make a much bigger one when she takes office.

And I will guarantee a new Democratic Majority will nuke the ability to filibuster SCOTUS appointments.

Yeah, but when the Republicans get back in power, they can just put it back in again.

[starri]

Sure, but I will further say that RBG is going to be pressured into retiring.

[ruby24]

Whoever Hillary gets on the Court will give us a liberal majority for the first time in 50 years. I can't even tell you how excited I am about that. Most people don't see this as a big issue, but trust me, it IS. So many things are going to be different, so many things could change. That will likely be Hillary's biggest legacy.

Most people don't remember what it was like living under a liberal Supreme Court (and that includes me, but as a history major, I've read up on it). Something like that will protect us even when we someday have to have another Republican president. And if Kennedy retires sometime under Hillary's term (fingers crossed), we could even get a 6-3 liberal majority. Amazing. Ginsberg and Breyer will probably go soon, but their replacements won't change the balance. Scalia's seat does, and Kennedy's seat would too.

This is why Republicans are fighting it to the death and refuse to let Garland even get a hearing. They are totally obstructing the Constitution at this point. It's the president's duty to nominate justices and they're refusing to let him do it, simply because they don't want to lose their majority. They need to suck it up- they got unlucky. This is how it works. We lost that liberal majority years ago and had to live under a conservative one, now it's their turn.

I do wonder if they might rush to confirm Garland in the lame duck session, thinking that Hillary will nominate someone younger and perhaps more liberal, but given what McCain said today, it looks like the Republicans are set on simply obstructing the constitution no matter what. They will likely filibuster any nominee, which will give Dems no choice but to eliminate the filibuster.

Edited October 17, 2016 by ruby24

[MulletorHater]

And, this is why Hillary voters can't rest on their laurels in spite of the polls:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-mccain-hillary-clinton-supreme-court_us_58050653e4b0162c043d4c9a

At least I further understand why Senator McCain was too chickenshit to call Drumpf out until a couple of weeks ago and still "supports" him.

[tenativelyyours]

Even moreso because I think Ruth is ready to step down.  She has had serious health issues over the years and I would like to think her stepping into social matters and politics recently is just being fed up watching the years in which Scalia and led his pet Thomas through every vote and the two suckled greedily from Koch Brothers Teat and had to sit and hear him lauded as the warrior for the Constitution even as he railed with the utmost hypocrisy on same sex marriage which is Constitutional even as he lauded Citizens and Hobby Lobby decisions and the one that upheld NJ police's detaining simply because someone appeared to be a criminal and yet had not actual crimes on their record. 

But I think she is cranky and fed up and will only leave the chambers ankles first if there isn't a President that can replace her properly.  But I do wonder if she also considers what it would be like not to have to sit in the same room and listen to Clarence Thomas pretend to have an opinion and Alito just furl his nostrils over and over again at having the share the same air as lesser mortals (I once had a meal with him pre-Supreme Court among a couple other NJ and Southern PA jurists when I was in college and he was a pompous tool).

[Silver Raven]

McCain's spokesman is backtracking on his comments. 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mccain-will-vote-on-clinton-supreme-court-nominee

[car54]

Time to retire old man.

[maraleia]

McCain is the perfect argument for term limits.

[Kromm]

2 hours ago, ruby24 said:

Whoever Hillary gets on the Court will give us a liberal majority for the first time in 50 years.

Theoretically.

I mean if the Dems don't win the Senate, who says the Republicans will stop blocking nominees?

[atomationage]

Hopefully, the lame duck Senate won't rush through a confirmation of Garland.  The fact is that President Obama has had to appoint many people to positions that require confirmation, like FBI director Comey, because they were acceptable to the GOP in the Senate.  If he thought Garland was acceptable, then Garland is probably too conservative, and Hillary should be able to appoint someone else, like Barack Obama, when he is the former POTUS.   If she doesn't get a majority in the Senate, the SCOTUS may have only 8 members for her entire term.

Edited October 18, 2016 by atomationage
confirmation

[ruby24]

I wonder what Obama does though, if the Republicans suddenly decide to go ahead and confirm Garland. I mean, I guess he agrees, right, since it was his pick and this guy's been sitting around for a year waiting to be confirmed.

Or maybe he talks about it with Hillary first?

[atomationage]

7 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

Or maybe he talks about it with Hillary first?

I think Obama would have to withdraw Garland from consideration if he wants to do that.

[ebk57]

8 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

I wonder what Obama does though, if the Republicans suddenly decide to go ahead and confirm Garland. I mean, I guess he agrees, right, since it was his pick and this guy's been sitting around for a year waiting to be confirmed.

Or maybe he talks about it with Hillary first?

I think he's allowed to withdraw the nomination.  So if discusses it with Hillary and she doesn't want him, he can withdraw Garland before the Senate can confirm him.

I think...

[Constantinople]

The pot smoking hippie freak Douglas Ginsburg's nomination was withdrawn (he was nominated after Bork's nomination went down in flames).

John Roberts nomination as an Associate Justice was withdrawn after Rehnquist died and Roberts was then nominated for Chief Justice.  Harriet Miers was nominated to be the new Associate Justice, and her nomination was withdrawn.

[33kaitykaity]

6 hours ago, atomationage said:

...and Hillary should be able to appoint someone else, like Barack Obama, when he is the former POTUS.   

This is what I want, more than to go on living another second.  Wouldn't the poor Republicans' heads just explode at the thought of our fantastic, glorious, brilliant Barack Hussein Obama II with a powerful, magnificent lifetime appointment?  Especially if they can't do a goddamn thing to stop it.  

Edited October 18, 2016 by 33kaitykaity

[shok]

It's not just supreme court justices that the Republicans have blocked. Appointments to district and appeals courts have been totally stymied too. It's critically important for the Dems to get a majority in the Senate so that they can finally start filling those positions too in order to get some control over the crazy laws that Republican controlled state houses are passing.

[Bean421]

Do you think Mitch McConnell is having a talk with John McCain, "You released our plan too soon buddy." I've already voted for McCain's opponent but 538 doesn't predict her winning.  My sole motivation for that vote was his, and Jeff Flake's, stance on not holding an up down vote on the current nomination. If they wanted to reject him fine, but at least go through the motions! 

If the Senate remains a Republican majority are we just doomed to 4-4 decisions for two years?

[Kromm]

For all that John McCain gained a modicum of respect back for opposing Trump in the media, he's back to his old tricks again and holding the line on the Senate deliberately standing still on The Supreme Court (for as long as they have the votes, presumably)...

Sen. McCain Says Republicans Will Block All Court Nominations If Clinton Wins

As we no doubt all know, in theory there's no specific number of Justices needed. So really that turns the court into a "who dies first" contest for what decisions they render.

Edited October 18, 2016 by Kromm

[Hanahope]

I wouldn't be surprised if that's the new GoP strategy, take away the last remaining entity that was deciding most crucial issues the "wrong" way.  With a potential 4-4 split, SCOTUS will decline to take many devisive cases. Leaving the Court at 8 will hamstring an important method that was stopping some states from enacting very bad laws for anyone not a white male.

Its sickening that our government is being held hostage to the Senate fillibuster, but one political party has absolutely no problem with that because its exactly what they want, little to no government.  Given that some states will never have a Dem senator, the remaining states have got to suck it up and change things.

[starri]

2 hours ago, Hanahope said:

Its sickening that our government is being held hostage to the Senate fillibuster

A rule that exists nowhere in the Constitution.

The Senate has always supposed to be the "Quiet please, the adults are talking" chamber, but I honestly think some of the rhetoric coming from there is as bad or worse than the House.

[Silver Raven]

Quote

I mean if the Dems don't win the Senate, who says the Republicans will stop blocking nominees?

Nate Silver's 538 page has the Democrats with a 77% likely chance of retaking the Senate.

 

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/senate/?ex_cid=2016-forecast

[ruby24]

What McCain said makes me so angry, because it's THIS close to saying they are not going to honor the results of the election. The other party wins, they're not going to let them do their job.

That is so dangerous. It's not the way our government works. You have to suck it up when a person you don't like wins, they get to do the job, whether you want them to or not. And it's listed in the Constitution that the President gets to make judicial appointments. Blocking all court nominations because they come from the other party is not in the job description.

The Republicans aren't going to change one bit after this is over. This is why they ended up with Trump in the first place. They have convinced their voters that government is illegitimate if their side doesn't win. What can convince them to dial back on the rhetoric and stand up to their rabid, frothing base? They encouraged this for years, it's up to them to put a stop to it.

[Kromm]

Stephen Colbert: We Need Supreme Court Justices Who Live Forever

[StatisticalOutlier]

On 10/17/2016 at 2:50 PM, tenativelyyours said:

Even moreso because I think Ruth is ready to step down.  She has had serious health issues over the years and I would like to think her stepping into social matters and politics recently is just being fed up watching the years in which Scalia and led his pet Thomas through every vote and the two suckled greedily from Koch Brothers Teat and had to sit and hear him lauded as the warrior for the Constitution even as he railed with the utmost hypocrisy on same sex marriage which is Constitutional even as he lauded Citizens and Hobby Lobby decisions and the one that upheld NJ police's detaining simply because someone appeared to be a criminal and yet had not actual crimes on their record.

I understand her frustration, but she has got to shut up.  If every time you make one of your pronouncements you have to go back and apologize, then you just look ridiculous.  And addled.  Not to mention that I don't think there's anybody on the planet who's going to go, "Oh, I was thinking X, but now that RBG has come out in favor of Y, I'm for Y."  Just do your job and try to help retain at least some of the dignity the Supreme Court still has.

A personal tidbit:  A few years ago Scalia spoke at the law school where a friend of mine is a professor, and Scalia required that all questions be approved by him in advance.  As if my opinion of him couldn't get any lower.