SCOTUS Watch

[hepcat]

Too Soon?

Nah, you can start celebrating the loss of your rights and the sale of our country to Russia at this point.

[Enough]

Just thinking some more. What are the odds of McCain, Collins, Murkoski or Flake joining 49 Dems to gum up the works? Anyone else I forgot? We would need two if all Dems (not a sure thing) stick together.

And on the Dem side, do Manchin and Heitkamp confirm with bruising election fights on center stage?

[El Guapo]

Also, the questions about whether RBG and other age at risk liberals should have retired earlier in the Obama administration will be kicked around.

Because McConnell wouldn't have been so shameless as to stall the confirmation hearings for 2+ years, instead of 1+? Puh-leeeeze.

To be fair - he came up with the plan because Scalia dropped dead. He needed a paper thin justification to do it. I don't know if he would have even thought about it had it not been a balance of court issue.

The Democrats held the Senate until the 2014 elections. So McConnell couldn't have unilaterally stopped an RBG replacement until 2015.

[em2nought]

So much winning!

[Enough]

https://twitter.com/JosephPatrice/statu ... 0377591810

[malchior]

The normally irrational Jeffrey Toobin. I'll say if it does happen...all hell will eventually break loose. I don't know what will happen but that would be drastic.

[El Guapo]

The normally irrational Jeffrey Toobin. I'll say if it does happen...all hell will eventually break loose. I don't know what will happen but that would be drastic.

It's plausible. At the very least, Roe will (continue to be) gutted. The SCOTUS may stop short of overruling it outright, but may cut it back so far that substantially all abortion restrictions are constitutional. I mean, there are already large states where the number of abortion providers are down to one or two.

[stessier]

Ok, this got a chuckle.

John O'Connell @jacko2323
1m1 minute ago
Trump might be able to solve a lot of potential problems by appointing Michael Cohen to the SCOTUS.

[malchior]

I agree it is plausible but I think you can't put that genie back in the bottle without majorly shaking people to their cores. The rulings on unions, voting rights stuff....all that is political noise to most people. This would literally be one of the biggest changes in legal thinking in 50% of the populations entire lives. It could be a moment where many of the people sitting on the sidelines finally realizes how bad things have become. The news is bad now but most people simply ignore it. This will not be something they can just ignore.

[Kraken]

I am confident that Trump will nominate a fair, impartial candidate, as chosen by Fox News.

[pr0ner]

Allegedly the next SCOTUS nominee will come from this list:

[hepcat]

So much winning!

Da, comrade!

[gameoverman]

I agree it is plausible but I think you can't put that genie back in the bottle without majorly shaking people to their cores. The rulings on unions, voting rights stuff....all that is political noise to most people. This would literally be one of the biggest changes in legal thinking in 50% of the populations entire lives. It could be a moment where many of the people sitting on the sidelines finally realizes how bad things have become. The news is bad now but most people simply ignore it. This will not be something they can just ignore.

You hit the nail on the head of what direction I think we are going as a country. For various reasons we are at the point where Donald Trump is going to have a large influence on the Supreme Court. Clearly, the way we as a country are doing things is wonky to say the least.

I think this needs to play out. I think it's going to take something drastic to shake people up. Otherwise we'll just limp along as we've been doing. Look where that got us.

Of course there's always a possibility that a justice or two surprises people by not marching in step with the politicians, but that's a 'maybe' at best. The thing that worries me is that people adapt. You know how sometimes prices rise temporarily for something? Then prices never go back down to where they were. Why? Because people got used to paying the higher prices so the industry never needed to charge them the old prices again. What if Americans get used to new way? Then there won't be a large or organized counteraction and things will just stay that way.

[YellowKing]

We're all frogs being slowly boiled to death. What's frustrating is that 40% of the frogs are actively cheering it on.

[LordMortis]

I am confident that Trump will nominate a fair, impartial candidate, as chosen by Fox News. Sean Hannity.

[El Guapo]

You're not going to believe this, but McConnell is promising a "quick vote" on Trump's eventual nominee by this fall.

If you're Schumer, don't you have to say no vote before the midterms or we're shutting all Senate business down to the maximum extent possible?

[Holman]

If you're McConnell, facing a midterm enthusiasm gap, don't you want to use the nomination vote to bait conservatives to the polls?

The timing is fraught with peril. Kennedy is leaving July 31, and it's likely that between then and November we'll have Mueller's report on Trump's obstruction (targeting him directly) and probably some indictments of close Trump cronies related to collusion. We can probably expect retaliation against the investigation either in anticipation or reaction.

We're looking at a major constitutional crisis with a 4-4 court.

[LordMortis]

If you're McConnell, facing a midterm enthusiasm gap, don't you want to use the nomination vote to bait conservatives to the polls?

The timing is fraught with peril. Kennedy is leaving July 31, and it's likely that between then and November we'll have Mueller's report on Trump's obstruction (targeting him directly) and probably some indictments of close Trump cronies related to collusion. We can probably expect retaliation against the investigation either in anticipation or reaction.

We're looking at a major constitutional crisis with a 4-4 court.

Maybe it will make the midterms about what 2016 should have been about (a message one winning side used and the losing side, not so much). This relies on Ds having the ability and stomach to hold the country hostage and not roll over the way the Rs didn't roll over.

And that's what infuriates me. McConnell set the precedent for a sustained attack on holding the country hostage through legislative minority protest. And of course the Tea Party holds the GOP hostage and the President hold the Tea Party hostage.

McConnell is rotten to the core. His supporters, knowing this after all these years. Well, they move me toward the wrong side of wanting this all to settle down to normal.

https://youtu.be/kP1G45maN4A

[El Guapo]

If you're McConnell, facing a midterm enthusiasm gap, don't you want to use the nomination vote to bait conservatives to the polls?

The timing is fraught with peril. Kennedy is leaving July 31, and it's likely that between then and November we'll have Mueller's report on Trump's obstruction (targeting him directly) and probably some indictments of close Trump cronies related to collusion. We can probably expect retaliation against the investigation either in anticipation or reaction.

We're looking at a major constitutional crisis with a 4-4 court.

That's definitely a risk. But at the same time, this seat is incredibly important for decades to come. On top of that, holding the seat open (if possible) would galvanize liberals too.

It's a risk, but how do you let this go without a big fight?

[Smoove_B]

The timing is fraught with peril. Kennedy is leaving July 31, and it's likely that between then and November we'll have Mueller's report on Trump's obstruction (targeting him directly) and probably some indictments of close Trump cronies related to collusion. We can probably expect retaliation against the investigation either in anticipation or reaction.

Somewhere, a speculative fiction author is almost finished with a novel detailing what happens to Supreme Court Justice appointments that are made by an illegitimate President that's charged with the commission of all kinds of heinous stuff and ultimately impeached. Also, Mitch McConnell is hit by a flaming meteor.

[Holman]

If you're McConnell, facing a midterm enthusiasm gap, don't you want to use the nomination vote to bait conservatives to the polls?

The timing is fraught with peril. Kennedy is leaving July 31, and it's likely that between then and November we'll have Mueller's report on Trump's obstruction (targeting him directly) and probably some indictments of close Trump cronies related to collusion. We can probably expect retaliation against the investigation either in anticipation or reaction.

We're looking at a major constitutional crisis with a 4-4 court.

That's definitely a risk. But at the same time, this seat is incredibly important for decades to come. On top of that, holding the seat open (if possible) would galvanize liberals too.

It's a risk, but how do you let this go without a big fight?

Oh, I am in agreement with you. I was just musing on (1) McConnell's preferred timing, and (2) the general weirdness of the coming months.

Schumer is already calling for no vote in 2018. I hope we can hold that line.

[Combustible Lemur]

Too Soon?

Weird, I would think a Supreme Court that holds corporate interests over individual and religious rights over secular interest would be anathema big ol' southern libertarian you. You're like a self loathing onion.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Holman]

I still think Mueller will loom larger over this election than Kennedy.

That's how I'm getting to sleep tonight, anyway.

[Grifman]

If you're McConnell, facing a midterm enthusiasm gap, don't you want to use the nomination vote to bait conservatives to the polls?

The timing is fraught with peril. Kennedy is leaving July 31, and it's likely that between then and November we'll have Mueller's report on Trump's obstruction (targeting him directly) and probably some indictments of close Trump cronies related to collusion. We can probably expect retaliation against the investigation either in anticipation or reaction.

We're looking at a major constitutional crisis with a 4-4 court.

That's definitely a risk. But at the same time, this seat is incredibly important for decades to come. On top of that, holding the seat open (if possible) would galvanize liberals too.

It's a risk, but how do you let this go without a big fight?

There is absolutely nothing that the Democrats can do. The filibuster is out. They can be as mad as they want, gnash all the teeth they want, cry all they want about the Gorsuch affair, but in the end, this is a done deal, unless . . . this is a judge too far for Collins and Murkowski. Both are pro-choice Republicans, so this will be a real test for them. So far they have supported all of the president’s legal nominees, including a number that were openly pro-life. Will it matter more if the Supreme Court and Roe vs Wade are at stake? I guess we will just have to wait and see.

[Rip]

They will confirm someone before the election. No reason not to.

The threat to hold up senate business rings hollow since they haven't really been able to do much anyways, such is the problem of opposing everything all the time. Holding the senate hostage will be more of a rallying cry than trying to maintain the majority for confirming a judge after.

Crap I would nominate someone for the 4th of July! Have them confirmed by the time school goes back.

[NickAragua]

They will confirm someone before the election. No reason not to.

The threat to hold up senate business rings hollow since they haven't really been able to do much anyways, such is the problem of opposing everything all the time. Holding the senate hostage will be more of a rallying cry than trying to maintain the majority for confirming a judge after.

I seem to recall somebody holding up a supreme court nomination indefinitely just a few years ago. Can't remember who it was though. I guess there were turtles involved or something? You'll have to help me out, all this politics stuff blurs together sometimes.

[Rip]

They will confirm someone before the election. No reason not to.

The threat to hold up senate business rings hollow since they haven't really been able to do much anyways, such is the problem of opposing everything all the time. Holding the senate hostage will be more of a rallying cry than trying to maintain the majority for confirming a judge after.

I seem to recall somebody holding up a supreme court nomination indefinitely just a few years ago. Can't remember who it was though. I guess there were turtles involved or something? You'll have to help me out, all this politics stuff blurs together sometimes.

Sure did, and yes they are being hypocrites, just like the other side is being hypocrites by opposing holding off then but being for it now. Any hope of working together faded long ago when the left turned to attack the right at any opportunity. Shouldn't expect anything but hardball at this point.

[pr0ner]

So it was okay for McConnell to stall the Garland nomination in 2016 because ELECTIONS, but it's not okay for the Democrats to attempt to stall whomever Trump nominates in 2018 because ELECTIONS? Is that right?

[Rip]

So it was okay for McConnell to stall the Garland nomination in 2016 because ELECTIONS, but it's not okay for the Democrats to attempt to stall whomever Trump nominates in 2018 because ELECTIONS? Is that right?

It is ok for them to try. Just saying they are in no position to stop it. Now I am sure some would say they would not have tried had Garland not been held up but only a fool would believe that. The Trump hate is so pervasive that they would have tried to hold it up either way. They can hope to win the midterms so they can hold up the next one, that is about it.

[Skinypupy]

So it was okay for McConnell to stall the Garland nomination in 2016 because ELECTIONS, but it's not okay for the Democrats to attempt to stall whomever Trump nominates in 2018 because ELECTIONS? Is that right?

It is ok for them to try. Just saying they are in no position to stop it. Now I am sure some would say they would not have tried had Garland not been held up but only a fool would believe that. The Trump hate is so pervasive that they would have tried to hold it up either way. They can hope to win the midterms so they can hold up the next one, that is about it.

This has nothing to do with “Trump hate”.

[Kraken]

What would be the process to expand the size of the Court? I have seen some rumblings that the next D government should consider it as a way to counter the stolen Garland seat, assuming there is ever another D government.

[Rip]

So it was okay for McConnell to stall the Garland nomination in 2016 because ELECTIONS, but it's not okay for the Democrats to attempt to stall whomever Trump nominates in 2018 because ELECTIONS? Is that right?

It is ok for them to try. Just saying they are in no position to stop it. Now I am sure some would say they would not have tried had Garland not been held up but only a fool would believe that. The Trump hate is so pervasive that they would have tried to hold it up either way. They can hope to win the midterms so they can hold up the next one, that is about it.

This has nothing to do with “Trump hate”.

Everything in politics has to do with Trump hate. You can't just pick and choose when it should matter and when it shouldn't, it has already been embraced far and wide.

[Apollo]

What would be the process to expand the size of the Court? I have seen some rumblings that the next D government should consider it as a way to counter the stolen Garland seat, assuming there is ever another D government.

If the Bernie wing of the party succeeds in moving the party to the Left at the precise moment that the Political Center is wide open for any takers, there won't be another Democrat majority in my lifetime.

I think our only hope at this point is that the GOP moves so far to the right on social issues that they end up alienating their Corporate Overlords, who then begin backing the Dems.

[Apollo]

...Sure did, and yes they are being hypocrites, just like the other side is being hypocrites by opposing holding off then but being for it now. Any hope of working together faded long ago when the left turned to attack the right at any opportunity. Shouldn't expect anything but hardball at this point.

Bullshit. By that reasoning the Allies were being hypocritical in invading Germany in WWII.

[pr0ner]

What would be the process to expand the size of the Court? I have seen some rumblings that the next D government should consider it as a way to counter the stolen Garland seat, assuming there is ever another D government.

What would make this okay now after FDR tried and failed?

[Skinypupy]

So it was okay for McConnell to stall the Garland nomination in 2016 because ELECTIONS, but it's not okay for the Democrats to attempt to stall whomever Trump nominates in 2018 because ELECTIONS? Is that right?

It is ok for them to try. Just saying they are in no position to stop it. Now I am sure some would say they would not have tried had Garland not been held up but only a fool would believe that. The Trump hate is so pervasive that they would have tried to hold it up either way. They can hope to win the midterms so they can hold up the next one, that is about it.

This has nothing to do with “Trump hate”.

Everything in politics has to do with Trump hate. You can't just pick and choose when it should matter and when it shouldn't, it has already been embraced far and wide.

In your myopic view, perhaps.

For me, this is all about extreme frustration from McConnell’s jackassery with the Garland nomination, and concern about the diminished civil rights and unfettered corporate fuckery that will be further supported with whomever they are bound to nominate for the seat.

Neither of those things have a damn thing to do with Trump.

[Rip]

...Sure did, and yes they are being hypocrites, just like the other side is being hypocrites by opposing holding off then but being for it now. Any hope of working together faded long ago when the left turned to attack the right at any opportunity. Shouldn't expect anything but hardball at this point.

Bullshit. By that reasoning the Allies were being hypocritical in invading Germany in WWII.

You are going to need to be more specific. You think neither side is being hypocritical? Both? You think had Garland gotten confirmed that the left would have not attempted to stop whoever Trump would be nominating to replace Kennedy?

[Rip]

So it was okay for McConnell to stall the Garland nomination in 2016 because ELECTIONS, but it's not okay for the Democrats to attempt to stall whomever Trump nominates in 2018 because ELECTIONS? Is that right?

It is ok for them to try. Just saying they are in no position to stop it. Now I am sure some would say they would not have tried had Garland not been held up but only a fool would believe that. The Trump hate is so pervasive that they would have tried to hold it up either way. They can hope to win the midterms so they can hold up the next one, that is about it.

This has nothing to do with “Trump hate”.

Everything in politics has to do with Trump hate. You can't just pick and choose when it should matter and when it shouldn't, it has already been embraced far and wide.

In your myopic view, perhaps.

For me, this is all about extreme frustration from McConnell’s jackassery with the Garland nomination, and concern about the diminished civil rights and unfettered corporate fuckery that will be further supported with whomever they are bound to nominate for the seat.

Neither of those things have a damn thing to do with Trump.

Other than the fact it will be Trump who makes the nomination. So for you it isn't Trump but unwavering hatred for any conservative positions. Good to know.

[YellowKing]

I don't have unwavering hatred for conservative positions, having been one for two decades. This is still bullshit.

[Kraken]

What would be the process to expand the size of the Court? I have seen some rumblings that the next D government should consider it as a way to counter the stolen Garland seat, assuming there is ever another D government.

What would make this okay now after FDR tried and failed?

FDR's attempt to pack the Court foundered on bipartisan opposition after public support wilted and the press turned against him. Today's politics are a whole different animal. Popular majorities are routinely undermined now, and each side's media constructs its own reality, so any such attempt would most likely divide along strictly partisan lines.

Most likely it's a non-starter, but it's an interesting thought experiment. If it were actually feasible, the Republicans might have already tried as long as they're blowing away norms anyway. 'Course, it's unnecessary now that they've learned they can steal appointments. We're more likely to see more of that.