The War for the Supreme Court (Ginsburg is dead)

[Grifman]

Justice Ginsburg, an historic American Supreme Court Justice, has just died. So the war begins and it is going to be as nasty as any in history.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/18/10030697 ... dies-at-87

This is just going to be awful for the country. I wish she could have held on longer, "the spirit was willing but the body was weak". We really don't need this on top of the current election cycle, which is exactly why nothing should be done until after the election but we all know what McConnell is going to do.

I really hate this.

[Defiant]

Fuck.

[Unagi]

OH MY FUCKING GOD , NO

[Archinerd]

2020, the year that keeps on taking.

[Holman]

Above and beyond the political consequences, RBG was a towering intellect and influence on American justice.

It will necessary to pack the courts in order to protect and further that legacy. So be it.

EDIT: And Dems need to declare right now that court-packing will be the response to McConnell rushing to fill the seat. Make the election about that. Make it clear.

[Isgrimnur]

Fuck.

FUCK

[LawBeefaroni]

2020, the year that keeps on taking.

Eh, sometimes ya just gotta say, "que sera, sera".



And then down a fifth of your best scotch before passing out crying in an empty bathtub.

[Smoove_B]

EDIT: And Dems need to declare right now that court-packing will be the response to McConnell rushing to fill the seat. Make the election about that. Make it clear.

Yup. I can only imagine what's happening now at Deplorable-central. Truly we are in the darkest of dark timelines.

What a loss and at such an interesting point in American history.

[Holman]

[Grifman]

Above and beyond the political consequences, RBG was a towering intellect and influence on American justice.

It will necessary to pack the courts in order to protect and further that legacy. So be it.

I have always been opposed to this but McConnell's purely hypocritical position is leading me way from opposing this, even if I'm not sure I can support it. To deny Obama his appointment and then do the opposite because Trump is president is a level of hypocrisy I cannot abide.

[$iljanus]

We really can’t have nice things in 2020, can we?

[Hamlet3145]

I honestly feel like I'm going to throw up.

[Grifman]

Of course, that quote needs updating:

With four words and a proud smile, the Senate majority leader this week confirmed what those who have watched him closely have long understood to be true: If a vacancy on the high court occurs in the election year of 2020, the Republican majority that McConnell leads would vote to confirm President Donald Trump’s nominee. “Oh, we’d fill it,” McConnell said in response to a what-if question about the Supreme Court during an appearance in his home state of Kentucky.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... 20/590452/

[Holman]

EDIT: And Dems need to declare right now that court-packing will be the response to McConnell rushing to fill the seat. Make the election about that. Make it clear.

Yup. I can only imagine what's happening now at Deplorable-central. Truly we are in the darkest of dark timelines.

What a loss and at such an interesting point in American history.

McConnell is actually in a tough spot here.

After Merrick Garland, the hypocrisy of a rushed appointment six weeks before the election will be plain to everyone. Senators' votes will be watched as they were during impeachment. I wonder if GOP senators facing tough fights really want to be put on the spot like this right now.

Then, if Dems retake the senate, court-packing becomes the obvious and uncontroversial response. It's literally only fair.

[Enough]

Fuuuuuuuuucccccccckkkkkk.

[malchior]

Get ready for a shit show of all time.

[Grifman]

Above and beyond the political consequences, RBG was a towering intellect and influence on American justice.

It will necessary to pack the courts in order to protect and further that legacy. So be it.

EDIT: And Dems need to declare right now that court-packing will be the response to McConnell rushing to fill the seat. Make the election about that. Make it clear.

Of course, here's the argument against packing the court:

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/w ... ncna992851

[Skinypupy]

I honestly feel like I'm going to throw up.

My exact reaction as well. Absolutely terrible, for lots of reasons.

[Defiant]

Republicans/Trump are presumably not going to want to push someone in through before Election Day. Apart from the terrible optics, they're going to want to give conservative voters a reason to vote for them (and this will push turnout up). Also, some Republicans in tight races might vote against it.

The question is, what happens between Election Day and Inauguration Day (assuming trump loses and Democrats pick up the Senate)?

[malchior]

Above and beyond the political consequences, RBG was a towering intellect and influence on American justice.

It will necessary to pack the courts in order to protect and further that legacy. So be it.

EDIT: And Dems need to declare right now that court-packing will be the response to McConnell rushing to fill the seat. Make the election about that. Make it clear.

Of course, here's the argument against packing the court:

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/w ... ncna992851

I love how they talk about the legitimacy of the court and we are going to see someone confirmed in ... 3-4 weeks.

[malchior]

Republicans/Trump are presumably not going to want to push someone in through before Election Day. Apart from the terrible optics, they're going to want to give conservative voters a reason to vote for them (and this will push turnout up). Also, some Republicans in tight races might vote against it.

I wouldn't presume that at all.

The question is, what happens between Election Day and Inauguration Day (assuming trump loses and Democrats pick up the Senate)?

Exactly (if they don't push it). This is literally the nightmare scenario. Odds this is a simulation just went up drastically.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

Republicans/Trump are presumably not going to want to push someone in through before Election Day. Apart from the terrible optics, they're going to want to give conservative voters a reason to vote for them (and this will push turnout up). Also, some Republicans in tight races might vote against it.

I would be shocked if Trump hasn’t nominated someone within the next two weeks.

[Skinypupy]

I would be shocked if Trump hasn’t nominated someone within the next two weeks hours.

FTFY

[malchior]

[Holman]

Of course, here's the argument against packing the court:

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/w ... ncna992851

1869 was a long time ago. As with most of the Constitution, the future demands revision.

In the mid-nineteenth century, Supreme Court justices would be appointed after a long and mature career and could then be expected to die before their 80s. The average tenure of all justices prior the current incumbents is under 17 years.

Brett Kavanaugh will probably get at least 30.

Increasing lifespans and a tendency to strategically appoint younger justices warps the historical progress of the court. This makes the "perfect balance" of nine justices something different than it was 150 years ago.

[Octavious]

That is probably it folks. Don't forget to turn out the lights on the way out.

[$iljanus]

Republicans/Trump are presumably not going to want to push someone in through before Election Day. Apart from the terrible optics, they're going to want to give conservative voters a reason to vote for them (and this will push turnout up). Also, some Republicans in tight races might vote against it.

The question is, what happens between Election Day and Inauguration Day (assuming trump loses and Democrats pick up the Senate)?

Not too sure about this administration caring about the optics. Packing the court with conservative judges is a huge “promises kept” thing. Nothing like demonstrating his power to convince conservatives unhappy with his performance with COVID-19 that he’s the guy that has cemented the legal conservative legacy for decades to come.

[Defiant]

Republicans/Trump are presumably not going to want to push someone in through before Election Day. Apart from the terrible optics, they're going to want to give conservative voters a reason to vote for them (and this will push turnout up). Also, some Republicans in tight races might vote against it.

The question is, what happens between Election Day and Inauguration Day (assuming trump loses and Democrats pick up the Senate)?

Not too sure about this administration caring about the optics. Packing the court with conservative judges is one of his big “promises kept” things. Nothing like demonstrating his power to convince conservatives unhappy with his performance with COVID-19 that he’s the guy that has cemented the legal conservative legacy for decades to come.

They'll care about optics right before the election (not so sure about afterwards).

[Grifman]

Above and beyond the political consequences, RBG was a towering intellect and influence on American justice.

It will necessary to pack the courts in order to protect and further that legacy. So be it.

EDIT: And Dems need to declare right now that court-packing will be the response to McConnell rushing to fill the seat. Make the election about that. Make it clear.

Of course, here's the argument against packing the court:

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/w ... ncna992851

I love how they talk about the legitimacy of the court and we are going to see someone confirmed in ... 3-4 weeks.

It doesn't have to be 3 to 4 weeks, they just need to do so before the next president takes office. They've got 3 months, give or take. Doesn't really change the thrust of your argument though

That said, this all started with the Democrats removing the filibuster for judicial appointments, then followed by the removal of home state holds and the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations by the Republicans. Nominations now can be highly partisan because they no longer need the support of 60 senators. This is the perfect example of doing something because you have the power to do so without thinking through the long term implications of your actions. It was a short term solution that resulted in a long term problem.

We really need to look at some reform of the selection process/tenure of Supreme Court justices so that it's doesn't become a political Blood Bowl every time a SCJ dies. The process as it stands now only serves to further inflame partisan political passions. This is another way our country is badly broken

[Defiant]

Republicans/Trump are presumably not going to want to push someone in through before Election Day. Apart from the terrible optics, they're going to want to give conservative voters a reason to vote for them (and this will push turnout up). Also, some Republicans in tight races might vote against it.

I would be shocked if Trump hasn’t nominated someone within the next two weeks.

Nominate, sure.

Get them confirmed before the election? I'm skeptical.

[Smoove_B]

Imagine a scenario where current court needs to decide on some election-related shenanigans like they did in 2000. JFC this is insane.

[Blackhawk]

Oh, fuck.

[malchior]

Another scary note. Trump has been hounding Biden to put out a list of his Supreme Court nominees. Was that show or did they know she was on her death bed? They may have already seized the advantage. And they have all the advantage they need.

[Defiant]

It doesn't have to be 3 to 4 weeks, they just need to do so before the next president takes office. They've got 3 months, give or take. Doesn't really change the thrust of your argument though

Remember that the new Senate gets seated about three weeks before the inauguration.

[Skinypupy]

Republicans/Trump are presumably not going to want to push someone in through before Election Day. Apart from the terrible optics, they're going to want to give conservative voters a reason to vote for them (and this will push turnout up). Also, some Republicans in tight races might vote against it.

The question is, what happens between Election Day and Inauguration Day (assuming trump loses and Democrats pick up the Senate)?

Not too sure about this administration caring about the optics. Packing the court with conservative judges is a huge “promises kept” thing. Nothing like demonstrating his power to convince conservatives unhappy with his performance with COVID-19 that he’s the guy that has cemented the legal conservative legacy for decades to come.

The idea that the GOP would somehow start caring about optics right now is baffling to me.

This is their dream scenario, the ultimate stigginit.

[Enough]

Republicans/Trump are presumably not going to want to push someone in through before Election Day. Apart from the terrible optics, they're going to want to give conservative voters a reason to vote for them (and this will push turnout up). Also, some Republicans in tight races might vote against it.

I would be shocked if Trump hasn’t nominated someone within the next two weeks.

Same, he will force the issue and McConnell will not stand in the way. This is not a friendly timeline. The whole "who had blank blank on their 2020 bingo card" reveals really need to cease. This will definitely get out the vote more all around, come on America don't fuck this up.

[malchior]

Imagine a scenario where current court needs to decide on some election-related shenanigans like they did in 2000. JFC this is insane.

And they will. That's the other side of the coin. Here is the very nightmare scenario. Trump starts suing and it gets to a court that votes 5-3 or maybe even a symbolic 4-4 (Roberts being canny) and hands him the Presidency ala 2000. What happens? I don't know how the country doesn't tear itself to pieces.

[Grifman]

Of course, here's the argument against packing the court:

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/w ... ncna992851

1869 was a long time ago. As with most of the Constitution, the future demands revision.

In the mid-nineteenth century, Supreme Court justices would be appointed after a long and mature career and could then be expected to die before their 80s. The average tenure of all justices prior the current incumbents is under 17 years.

Brett Kavanaugh will probably get at least 30.

Increasing lifespans and a tendency to strategically appoint younger justices warps the historical progress of the court. This makes the "perfect balance" of nine justices something different than it was 150 years ago.

You've asserting a need for change without specifying if there any real reason beyond "packing the court". If 9 isn't the right number, what is and why (if there is an answer beyond pure political needs)?

The problem is what is to prevent the Republicans from packing the court whenever they take control again. You're not really solving the problem. Expand the court to 12, well, why not 15 for the Republicans? 0r 21 for the next Democratic winners? Where exactly does this stop?

[$iljanus]

Republicans/Trump are presumably not going to want to push someone in through before Election Day. Apart from the terrible optics, they're going to want to give conservative voters a reason to vote for them (and this will push turnout up). Also, some Republicans in tight races might vote against it.

I would be shocked if Trump hasn’t nominated someone within the next two weeks.

Nominate, sure.

Get them confirmed before the election? I'm skeptical.

If I were McConnell I would push like hell to get someone nominated and confirmed. Trump’s re-election may not be guaranteed but a conservative justice is for life and it would be a huge conservative win. Presidents come and go.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

Murkowski put out a statement saying she won’t vote on a judge until after the election, but I suppose that still means she could during a lame duck session.