But it would be wrong to think that the court-packing issue will simply go away. Over the last few years, the once-unthinkable proposal has clearly become part of mainstream political discourse on the political left. Thanks in part to the bad-faith behavior of Republicans (where the party first claimed it was wrong to vote on a Supreme Court nominee in an election year in 2016, and then took the completely opposite stance when it became convenient in 2020) the "Overton Window" on this issue has moved.
January 29, 2021
Biden's Judicial Reform Commission is unlikely to recommend Court-packing.
According to Ilya Somin (at Reason).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
212 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 212 of 212Mutaman said...
Want to translate that into English, Sparky?
How about you go to a blog or news site that is more on your intelligence level.
Maybe something that uses crayons or finger paint.
Thanks in part to the bad-faith behavior of Republicans (where the party first claimed it was wrong to vote on a Supreme Court nominee in an election year in 2016, and then took the completely opposite stance when it became convenient in 2020) the "Overton Window" on this issue has moved.
I don't remember Republicans taking that stance. I'm sure it's possible to find a handful, but I distinctly recall McConnell saying the Senate wouldn't move on the Garland nomination because the constitution didn't specify time constraints and he didn't want to.
We seem to have a troll farm now here. Time to go see if my Kindle is charged.
"We seem to have a troll farm now here."
Topics that lefties would prefer that people not discuss seem to attract them. And not because they want to talk about them.
Blogger Mutaman said...
It was ok for the Republicans to refuse to vote on the Democrat's Supreme Court nominee because the Dems failed to nominate a Republican.
It was ok for Republicans to refuse to vote on the Democrat's Supreme Court nominee because the constitution gives the Senate the ability to confirm or not confirm a candidate. And part of not confirming can be not voting on it(the confirmation, not the candidate). The situation I described was that if I were a Democrat and in charge of the party's actions in 2016 it would have been a slight win for the dems and a least bad loss, but still a loss, for the Republicans. Just before his passing Scalia was the most reliable and thoughtful conservative on the bench, going from that to a Kennedy-esque figure who is characterized by their squishiness would have been a change in court composition slightly favorable to Dems and moderately unfavorable to Republicans.
I think you and many others on the left, I'm assuming you would describe yourself as on the left though I could be wrong, don't understand just how important the courts are to people on the right. When Scalia died it was early on in the Republican Primary, and laterally every single candidate took the position that the Republican controlled Senate should not under any circumstances confirm a Supreme Court nominee. The perception that the courts have been taken over by ideologically minded judges, who make intellectually dishonest decisions to support and insert current leftist policies into laws written a hundred years prior, led to the creation and very strong support for groups like The Federalist Society. Even the never Trumpers on the right, who while certainly not liking Trump or many of his policies, did very much like the judges he nominated and got confirmed.
Going back at least to the disgraceful Bork episode, SCOTUS appointments have always been a plain power struggle. Senators from each of the political parties vote for their party's interests, never mind the nominee's qualifications. All of the questioning is aimed at figuring out the nominee's position on policy issues, and the expectation is that the successful nominee will perform whatever rhetorical contortions are required to interpret the law to support the preferred policies. We have achieved a level of corruption that used to be reserved for countries ruled by dictators in military uniforms.
Blogger mikesixes said...
All of the questioning is aimed at figuring out the nominee's position on policy issues,
I could see that for maybe a bit of the closed door private meetings with Senators, but for all the public hearing portion it is all about generating sound-bites to generate political capital to support their already decided decision to vote for or against confirmation, and secondarily to get political support from constituents and other groups for their rhetoric during questioning. Think how many video clips you've seen recently either from the right or the left, where someone "Destroys" or "Smacks Down" some other person or their argument. I'm sure this generates donations and other forms of support from individuals and groups.
In in the instance that a Senator's vote is changed by public hearings, it is because some statement or interaction changed the political capital calculus for a Senator. For example, Susan Collins from Maine, (who gets a lot of flack, but I actually don't mind her that much and view her as the best we can get from Maine), probably changed her vote on the confirmation of Kavanaugh during the committee hearing because Kavanaugh's speech in his own defense was so fiery, strong, and effective, that it gave her sufficient political cover so she could vote for confirmation.
The only reason the Dems won’t pack the court is because they have successfully stolen an election. They will win all future federal elections. I’m sure they are working on ensuring their future victories at the state and local levels in all states, too. Dem voters support the cheating until they realize their own disenfranchisement has rendered them helpless & hopeless.
Also, why bother packing the Supreme Court? Looks to be Thomas & Alito versus the justices for the elites.
Ooh! Bad faith behavior by republicans.
narciso@1:37M/
"...just when you think you are cynical enough..."
In solace I would refer you to my oft-mentioned here great political philosopher Lilly Tomlin: "I TRY to be cynical, but I can't keep up!"
"the once-unthinkable proposal has clearly become part of mainstream political discourse on the political left. Thanks in part to the bad-faith behavior of Republicans . . ."
"You MADE me do it," said the bully. "I wouldn't have punched your lights out if you'd just kept quiet!"
It's Roe v. Wade that has destabilized the Supreme Court and the nomination process. Roe v. Wade is why Bork was called a racist, Thomas was called a sex harasser, and Kavanaugh was called a rapist. Roe v. Wade is why the left is talking about packing the Court now. All these threats, all this drama, is because the Supreme Court has said an unborn child is a non-person, and there's a constitutional right to kill her.
You need to fix it. And the only way to fix it is to say, with utter clarity and conviction, that an unborn baby is a person with a right to life.
Post a Comment