The War for the Supreme Court (Ginsburg is dead)

[malchior]

She will help kill Obamacare. Sickening how a handful of retarded hateful little people can take away millions of peoples access to healthcare. When they do the next Dem Pres should put the entire healthcare system on the backs of only the rich.

They will eventually kill the ACA. Or knock down Roe v. Wade or something major that will look obviously political. The Democrats will have to make a decision to pack the courts or not. It is only a matter of time. And if they do it's bad. If they don't it's bad. Short-term this will be forgotten. Long-term this is the beginning eh more like middle of the end.

[El Guapo]

She will help kill Obamacare. Sickening how a handful of retarded hateful little people can take away millions of peoples access to healthcare. When they do the next Dem Pres should put the entire healthcare system on the backs of only the rich.

They will eventually kill the ACA. Or knock down Roe v. Wade or something major that will look obviously political. The Democrats will have to make a decision to pack the courts or not. It is only a matter of time. And if they do it's bad. If they don't it's bad. Short-term this will be forgotten. Long-term this is the beginning eh more like middle of the end.

Problem is if the Democrats wait to pack the court until that decision(s) comes down, it may well be too late. The Senate is stacked against them in the long term, so they have to so anything significant in the narrow windows where they have control of the Senate. So that means they really need to address the SCOTUS in 2021 or 2022, because God knows when they would get a second chance.

[malchior]

Right. The larger problem is I think we're past the point of return. If they pack say before the Senate gets away from them, we will think we've stabilized the ship but the legitimacy of the courts will be smashed for a lot of folks. If we don't pack, the legitimacy of the court will eventually be smashed for a lot of folks. The courts are the last firewall. If they had waited for the election to settle out and sat a Supreme Court justice presumably of Biden's choice this was salvageable.

Edit: Salvageable being the court's reputation. Still only a return to the slow but steady rate of the breakdown of our government. We easily could see a 'crisis decision' in the next 4 years. Heck they might not get the Senate and a decision to pack the court will be moot anyway. Whatever 'crisis decision' eventually comes down might very well start a different unexpected chain reaction. Who knows. It won't be anything good.

[Unagi]

She will help kill Obamacare. Sickening how a handful of retarded hateful little people can take away millions of peoples access to healthcare. When they do the next Dem Pres should put the entire healthcare system on the backs of only the rich.

They will eventually kill the ACA. Or knock down Roe v. Wade or something major that will look obviously political. The Democrats will have to make a decision to pack the courts or not. It is only a matter of time. And if they do it's bad. If they don't it's bad. Short-term this will be forgotten. Long-term this is the beginning eh more like middle of the end.

Problem is if the Democrats wait to pack the court until that decision(s) comes down, it may well be too late. The Senate is stacked against them in the long term, so they have to so anything significant in the narrow windows where they have control of the Senate. So that means they really need to address the SCOTUS in 2021 or 2022, because God knows when they would get a second chance.

We need East Puerto Rico and West Puerto Rico and DC added as states the first chance possible

[Carpet_pissr]

We easily could see a 'crisis decision' in the next 4 years. .

4 years? More like 4 months. I can assure you legal teams supporting gun rights and pro-life groups are prepping for big cases on these two issues already as a result of the Barrett (“Amy” if you’re LR :p) nomination.

Those two issues will be attacked immediately, from many directions, as soon as she’s seated.

[Smoove_B]

Or even immigration.

As an appellate court judge, Barrett helped to advance one of Trump’s key immigration policies. She sided with his administration in a case over Trump’s policy imposing a wealth test on the millions of immigrants who seek to come to the US annually. In her whopping 40-page dissent in that case, she laid out why the US has the right to block people who it deems likely to become dependent on public assistance in the future — even if they have never used public assistance in the past.

Of course she was nominated. I have no doubts the GOP will continue to chip away at Roe v Wade. They don't want it to be overturned - it's existence allows them to whip people into a voting frenzy. But they can continue to make it exceedingly difficult (or practically mpossible) for it to legally occur in any capacity.

[Zarathud]

Activist judge.

[malchior]

We easily could see a 'crisis decision' in the next 4 years. .

4 years? More like 4 months. I can assure you legal teams supporting gun rights and pro-life groups are prepping for big cases on these two issues already as a result of the Barrett (“Amy” if you’re LR :p) nomination.

Those two issues will be attacked immediately, from many directions, as soon as she’s seated.

I'm being a little Conservative because this part of the system grinds very slow. It'll take awhile for something big to make its way to them. I don't think they'll be able to get something drastic in front of the SCOTUS for...maybe a year at the least. But who knows. They could take a drastic swing at something completely unexpected but still I think it'll be a bit of a slow burn.

[Paingod]

Some good thoughts from John Oliver on how to cope with what's happening right now, incl. the Supreme Court.

TL;DW: Democrats need to get their shit together and actually reform the government. Dump the filibuster, add DC and Puerto Rico as states, eliminate the Electoral College, set term limits for Supreme Court justices.

[Little Raven]

Of course she was nominated. I have no doubts the GOP will continue to chip away at Roe v Wade. They don't want it to be overturned - it's existence allows them to whip people into a voting frenzy. But they can continue to make it exceedingly difficult (or practically mpossible) for it to legally occur in any capacity.

Only if the state wants it to be. No matter what the SC does, abortion in blue states won't be affected.

[Smoove_B]

]Only if the state wants it to be. No matter what the SC does, abortion in blue states won't be affected.

It's not just about abortion, but women's health. In my Blue state of NJ, look what a single GOP governor managed to do in 2010.

Since 2010, Christie has successfully trimmed the $7.5 million in women's healthcare funding, mostly with vetoes. He first argued that the funding was "duplicative" and that the state couldn't afford it, but said during his presidential bid in 2015 that cut reflected his socially conservative values.

Yeah, NJ is unique because our governor has line-item veto power. But he clearly did this as a political stepping stone to build Presidential cred.The point is that it's not just about access to abortions. It's a much broader movement against women's health.

[Little Raven]

Yeah, NJ is unique because our governor has line-item veto power.

Most states have line-item vetos of one kind or another. And I certainly take your point. But that's a larger battle than Roe.

(as someone who lives a long way away, how the hell did Christie ever get elected? Especially in a state as blue as NJ? He seems like a total tool-box.)

[Smoove_B]

Our governor in NJ (historically) is seemingly always opposite of the President's party. I think the (R) party minority vote in droves when they're feeling oppressed by the federal government and somehow the (D) are just happy and don't vote on an inconsequential governor election.

Christie was actually (mostly) respectable when he ran and when he started. But then he swerved and I think he's desire to be President had him making crazy decisions that harmed the state (like the women's funding above). He was also recently in the news stating that our current governor should have been opening things sooner, so I can only imagine what NJ would look like right now under GOP stewardship.

Sorry for the diversion.

[Paingod]

Something something power corrupts something something.

Term limits. Everything in government needs them.

[Little Raven]

Term limits. Everything in government needs them.

I understand the appeal, but in practice, term limits just shift power from the elected officials to the lobbyists. And you don't get to vote for the lobbyists.

[Zaxxon]

Term limits. Everything in government needs them.

I understand the appeal, but in practice, term limits just shift power from the elected officials to the lobbyists. And you don't get to vote for the lobbyists.

You seem to be under the impression that the power isn't already with the lobbyists.

[NickAragua]

Term limits. Everything in government needs them.

I understand the appeal, but in practice, term limits just shift power from the elected officials to the lobbyists. And you don't get to vote for the lobbyists.

You seem to be under the impression that the power isn't already with the lobbyists.

There was an amusing graphic a while back which basically showed that it's much cheaper for a big company to hire five hundred lobbyists than to comply with some piece of regulation.

"But don't the pro-regulation groups have lobbyists, too?" it asks.

"Yes, they do. His name is Steve, just graduated from Bridgewater State with a degree in communications and lives in a studio apartment with two other guys."

[Little Raven]

You seem to be under the impression that the power isn't already with the lobbyists.

A lot of it is, of course. But there's nothing a lobbyist likes more than a brand new Senator or Representative. I have family in that business, and they'll tell you straight up - terms limits is the best thing that has ever happened in their industry. Means you have a constant source of fresh marks.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not blind to the problems of incumbancy. When someone is a Senator for 40 years...that comes with its own issues. I'm just saying that you're not so much fixing a problem as you are substituting another problem for the one you had.

[noxiousdog]

You seem to be under the impression that the power isn't already with the lobbyists.

A lot of it is, of course. But there's nothing a lobbyist likes more than a brand new Senator or Representative. I have family in that business, and they'll tell you straight up - terms limits is the best thing that has ever happened in their industry. Means you have a constant source of fresh marks.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not blind to the problems of incumbancy. When someone is a Senator for 40 years...that comes with its own issues. I'm just saying that you're not so much fixing a problem as you are substituting another problem for the one you had.

Intuitively term limits should work. The evidence seems to refute it, and Fireball has presented compelling reasons (in my opinion) why.

[Carpet_pissr]

You seem to be under the impression that the power isn't already with the lobbyists.

But there's nothing a lobbyist likes more than a brand new Senator or Representative. I have family in that business, and they'll tell you straight up - terms limits is the best thing that has ever happened in their industry. Means you have a constant source of fresh marks.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not blind to the problems of incumbancy. When someone is a Senator for 40 years...that comes with its own issues. I'm just saying that you're not so much fixing a problem as you are substituting another problem for the one you had.

I’m totally fine with that. Let me find my tiny violin for the lobbyists since they will have to work harder to assert power over their ‘marks’. Making them start over with a newly elected official more often seems like a decent start to controlling the problem.

[Paingod]

I think that while the lobbyists may love fresh marks, they'd probably call tried and true bought politicians their bread and butter. Once they're in, they're in for good unless some massive scandal washes over them. That cow just keeps pushing milk for them.

Naw. Make 'em work for it. It becomes so apparent over time (on both sides) that the longer someone's in office, the more bought and paid for they are.

Term limits, though, should also apply to Supreme Court justices, which are not subject directly to lobbyists' financing.

[noxiousdog]

You seem to be under the impression that the power isn't already with the lobbyists.

But there's nothing a lobbyist likes more than a brand new Senator or Representative. I have family in that business, and they'll tell you straight up - terms limits is the best thing that has ever happened in their industry. Means you have a constant source of fresh marks.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not blind to the problems of incumbancy. When someone is a Senator for 40 years...that comes with its own issues. I'm just saying that you're not so much fixing a problem as you are substituting another problem for the one you had.

I’m totally fine with that. Let me find my tiny violin for the lobbyists since they will have to work harder to assert power over their ‘marks’. Making them start over with a newly elected official more often seems like a decent start to controlling the problem.

You're getting it backwards. Freshmen congressmen are easier for lobbyists; not harder.

[Little Raven]

Let me find my tiny violin for the lobbyists since they will have to work harder to assert power over their ‘marks’. Making them start over with a newly elected official more often seems like a decent start to controlling the problem.

Uh....quite the opposite. Lobbyists WANT to start fresh with a new guy....because the new guy has absolutely no idea what they're doing. They arrive in the legislature, often with zero prior governing experience, and are immediately presented with a whole host of problems and unfamiliar situations. But wait! This super-helpful lobbyist suddenly swoops in with slickly organized videos and presentations. He'll meet with you, listen to what it is you want to accomplish, and give you excellent advice on how to move forward. He'll introduce you to the other members of the legislature, whom he's been working with for years. He'll teach you how to write your bills so that they're likely to survive committee. He'll warn you against the common traps and pitfalls that legislators can fall in to. He'll offer to set you up with a whole host of "experts" who can help you navigate any issue you suddenly need to know more about. He'll be your very best friend, helping you achieve the vision you came to Washington with. Call him any hour, day or night, and he'll be right there beside you when you need him. And, of course, the whole time, he exerts magnificent control over what you see and how you proceed.

Lobbyists have no term limits. The best ones have been doing this game for decades, and have become terrifying good at their job.

I only work adjacent to legislative government, but Fireball actually works in it, and he'll tell you the same thing. It seems like it should work, but it really, REALLY doesn't.

[malchior]

You seem to be under the impression that the power isn't already with the lobbyists.

But there's nothing a lobbyist likes more than a brand new Senator or Representative. I have family in that business, and they'll tell you straight up - terms limits is the best thing that has ever happened in their industry. Means you have a constant source of fresh marks.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not blind to the problems of incumbancy. When someone is a Senator for 40 years...that comes with its own issues. I'm just saying that you're not so much fixing a problem as you are substituting another problem for the one you had.

I’m totally fine with that. Let me find my tiny violin for the lobbyists since they will have to work harder to assert power over their ‘marks’. Making them start over with a newly elected official more often seems like a decent start to controlling the problem.

You're getting it backwards. Freshmen congressmen are easier for lobbyists; not harder.

I'd think it'd be a curve. Freshman get eaten up by lobbyists...and those who have been there longest are the best at peddling influence. I think it'd be worth looking into figuring out a way to get the average length in office down a bit to temper that while not having classes of freshmen that the lobbyists will eat up.

[Fireball]

You seem to be under the impression that the power isn't already with the lobbyists.

But there's nothing a lobbyist likes more than a brand new Senator or Representative. I have family in that business, and they'll tell you straight up - terms limits is the best thing that has ever happened in their industry. Means you have a constant source of fresh marks.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not blind to the problems of incumbancy. When someone is a Senator for 40 years...that comes with its own issues. I'm just saying that you're not so much fixing a problem as you are substituting another problem for the one you had.

I’m totally fine with that. Let me find my tiny violin for the lobbyists since they will have to work harder to assert power over their ‘marks’. Making them start over with a newly elected official more often seems like a decent start to controlling the problem.

You have this backwards. Lobbyists find it much easier to lead new legislators around by the nose. Over time, legislators develop real expertise on the issues they deal with, and become less susceptible to being misled by charismatic paid advocates for a particular point of view.

[Fireball]

It becomes so apparent over time (on both sides) that the longer someone's in office, the more bought and paid for they are.

Your cynicism is unsupported by the evidence. Very few American politicians are “bought and paid for.” Actual corruption — money from interested parties flowing into the pockets of members of Congress — has become vanishingly rare in the United States in the 50 years since we started actually paying members of Congress a decent salary.

Many things happen to members over time in office. On the positive side, they build expertise, they learn the complicated legislative process, they build relationships with other members that make it easier to cut deals and get things done. On the negative side, they often lose connection with their local constituents, become trapped in DC patterns of thinking where they come to believe that the way things are is ordained and unchangeable. One thing members do not do over time is become more reliant on lobbyists for policy expertise.

[Fireball]

You seem to be under the impression that the power isn't already with the lobbyists.

But there's nothing a lobbyist likes more than a brand new Senator or Representative. I have family in that business, and they'll tell you straight up - terms limits is the best thing that has ever happened in their industry. Means you have a constant source of fresh marks.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not blind to the problems of incumbancy. When someone is a Senator for 40 years...that comes with its own issues. I'm just saying that you're not so much fixing a problem as you are substituting another problem for the one you had.

I’m totally fine with that. Let me find my tiny violin for the lobbyists since they will have to work harder to assert power over their ‘marks’. Making them start over with a newly elected official more often seems like a decent start to controlling the problem.

You're getting it backwards. Freshmen congressmen are easier for lobbyists; not harder.

I'd think it'd be a curve. Freshman get eaten up by lobbyists...and those who have been there longest are the best at peddling influence. I think it'd be worth looking into figuring out a way to get the average length in office down a bit to temper that while not having classes of freshmen that the lobbyists will eat up.

One of the real problems we have in Congress is that most members haven’t been there very long. The median member of the Senate has been in office about 10 years. The median member of the House has been in office for 8 years. Our Congress is full of novices, and that’s one reason our legislative process is so broken. We’d be better off if the average member of the House had been in office like 12 or 14 years — they’d be better at legislating, and less reliant on outside expertise. The series of wave elections in 2006, 2008, 2010, 2014 and 2018 has stripped away a lot of legislative skill and institutional knowledge from the Congress.

[Fireball]

If you actually want to decrease the clout of lobbyists in DC, you need to do something about staffing. Members of Congress have staffs that are too small and paid too little. Obviously, I am a biased party here, but I would note that I am one of the few Chief of Staff who does not pay himself the “Speaker’s Maximum” staff salary because I want to be able to pay our middle and junior staff more. A lot of staff struggle with overly-large portfolios, particularly if their boss is on a powerful committee but is not a ranking member of chair of that committee, and the high cost of living in the DC area. Which means we lose talented staff to K Street firms, which also means that those staff will often pull their punches when dealing with lobbyists for fear of souring future job prospects.

Perhaps on the Republican side there’s an actual desire to cash out and go to K Street, but amongst the Democratic staffers I know who have left the Hill for the other side the motivation has never been “I am tired of working for Congress” but entirely “I can’t buy a condo on $50,000 a year”.

The other thing we could do to improve Congress in the long term (though it’ll make things a bit worse in the short term) is increase the size of the House to 667 or 691 members. Smaller districts will make members more accountable to their voters and lower the travel and caseload that wears down members and staff.

[Kraken]

The other thing we could do to improve Congress in the long term (though it’ll make things a bit worse in the short term) is increase the size of the House to 667 or 691 members. Smaller districts will make members more accountable to their voters and lower the travel and caseload that wears down members and staff.

Why those specific numbers?

[Carpet_pissr]

Welp, you’ve (pl) convinced me with sound logic. I feel both enlightened and disgusted re: lobbying at the same time!

[Fireball]

The other thing we could do to improve Congress in the long term (though it’ll make things a bit worse in the short term) is increase the size of the House to 667 or 691 members. Smaller districts will make members more accountable to their voters and lower the travel and caseload that wears down members and staff.

Why those specific numbers?

Two ways of doing the math. 667 is roughly 1 member per 500,000 people, based on census estimates, which is easy for people to understand. 691 is the cube root of the estimated US population, which some political science work suggests is an ideal size for a national legislative body. Both numbers would probably be slightly different based on the actual count.

[malchior]

What a healthy democracy we have!

[Fireball]

That's fine. We should expand the Federal district and appeals courts next year anyway to address the case backlog.

[Smoove_B]

Ted Cruz, continuing to deliver. I do appreciate his honesty in the GOP overall strategy for November.

Ted Cruz says Amy Coney Barrett should not recuse herself from election related disputes: "The entire reason the Senate should act and should act promptly to confirm a 9th justice is so the Supreme Court can resolve any cases that arise in the wake of the election." Cruz adds, "This election is a closely contested election. Joe Biden has already stated that if he doesn’t win, he intends to contest the legitimacy of the election." (This is not what Biden has said.)

Also, F Ted Cruz.

[Smoove_B]

I'm sure there's a perfectly good reason for this:

A tiny religious organization tied to Amy Coney Barrett, Donald Trump’s supreme court nominee, sought to erase all mentions and photos of her from its website before she meets with lawmakers and faces questions at her Senate confirmation hearings.

...

Former members have said the group’s leaders teach that wives must submit to the will of their husbands.

A spokesman for the organization has declined to say whether the judge and her husband, Jesse Barrett, are members.

But an analysis by the Associated Press shows that People of Praise erased numerous records from its website during the summer of 2017 that referred to Barrett and included photos of her and her family.

...

“Our members are always free to follow their consciences, formed by reason and the teachings of their churches,” Connolly said on Monday. “Decision making in the People of Praise is collegial, engaging the entire community in consultation on significant matters that affect us. Additionally, women take on a variety of crucial leadership roles within People of Praise, including serving as heads of several of our schools and directing ministries within our community.”

Adult members of the group take a covenant that includes a passage where members promise to follow the teachings and instructions of the group’s pastors, teachers and evangelists.

It’s unclear whether Barrett took the covenant. But members of the organization and descriptions of its hierarchy show that members almost invariably join the covenant after three to six years of religious study or they leave, so it would be unusual for Barrett to be involved for so many years without having done so.

Among the items that were scrubbed in 2017 were select back issues of Vine & Branches that included birth and adoption announcements for some of the couple’s seven children.

[Defiant]

[Little Raven]

Interesting note: I was talking with one of my Republican friends yesterday, and he mentioned that he did not plan on voting this year.

I was....surprised....to put it mildly. My friend is a VERY driven single issue voter. (guns) When I asked him why he was planning on sitting this one out, he said (paraphrased) "I can't stand Trump, and there's only one issue I care about. And with the new Court, I don't think I have to worry about anyone doing an end-run around the 2nd. So why should I waste my time voting?"

Obviously, this is just a single data point from a single anecdote, but I can't help but wonder how unique my friend really is. I don't think the same logic would apply to ALL single issue voters - but hey, every vote stripped away from Republicans helps.

[Smoove_B]

In case you're wondering where this all is headed:

Top Senate Republicans said on Friday that President Trump's coronavirus diagnosis would not impact their timeline for Judge Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court nomination.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), in separate events on Friday, both indicated that they expect Barrett's nomination to proceed as scheduled, with a days-long high profile hearing set to start on Oct. 12.

"We can move forward. Our biggest enemy obviously is ... the coronavirus, keeping everybody healthy and well and in place to do our job," McConnell told radio Hugh Hewitt. "We don’t anticipate any kind of unanticipated event that could throw us off schedule."

[Enough]

In case you're wondering where this all is headed:

Top Senate Republicans said on Friday that President Trump's coronavirus diagnosis would not impact their timeline for Judge Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court nomination.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), in separate events on Friday, both indicated that they expect Barrett's nomination to proceed as scheduled, with a days-long high profile hearing set to start on Oct. 12.

"We can move forward. Our biggest enemy obviously is ... the coronavirus, keeping everybody healthy and well and in place to do our job," McConnell told radio Hugh Hewitt. "We don’t anticipate any kind of unanticipated event that could throw us off schedule."

[RunningMn9]

Why would they delay because Trump is sick? His involvement in the process is done. He picked who they made him pick.