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.
२९ जानेवारी, २०२१
Biden's Judicial Reform Commission is unlikely to recommend Court-packing.
According to Ilya Somin (at Reason).
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२१२ टिप्पण्या:
212 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Thanks in part to the bad-faith behavior of Republicans
Those poor, pure Democrats.
Nobody stopped Ruth from retiring when Obama was pres.
Ilya Somin is a smart guy, but prone to stupid dishonest statements. Court packing isn't going away as an issue because liberals don't like the current make-up of the court and when liberals are on the losing end, they will always look for other ways to win. (No, Trump arguing the election was stolen is not an example of Republicans looking for other ways to win, it is an example of Democrats closing off legitimate objections to protect their win.)
Progressive-ism is not compatible with America's system of government.
"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself."
Joe Biden, 1992
Nothing is bad faith if the Democrats do it.
Completely ignoring the Dem bad-faith.... Why can’t we get opinions that at least mention all significant factors, even if they are downvoted in the writers view?
"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 . . ."
OMFG. Left does something awful, right to blame.
And what Tim said. Somin needs to get a grip: the left is trying to solidify total control.
Time to choose sides, even for the Somins and Althouses of America.
(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)
This is true, but then again, the Dems were in favor of it in 2016 and then took the completely opposite stance when it became convenient in 2020 too, so y'know.
Liar.
Joe Biden declaring his Biden Rule on the Senate floor in 1992
"Bad faith behavior"
That is so rich it's wealthy.
mainstream political discourse on the political left
If it's only on the left, how can it be mainstream?
Somin sometimes doesn't examine his own logic very well.
The ridiculousness of the concept is that when the opposite party takes control, it will simply add more justices in order to get a majority. Somewhere around 2040 there will be 23 justices on the court.
Of course that won't happen. Unless the masses wake up to what's going on, we will soon have a one party state. Social Media is cracking down on all opposing views to Democrat policies. Add DC and Puerto Rico as states, allow mass immigration with a path to citizenship, and allow easy voting with no means of audit.
With control of the Presidency, both Houses, all that is left to do is pack the Supreme Court with leftists and you no longer have to worry about constitutional challenges to policies that will ensure the continued control of all government.
Biden's Judicial Reform Commission is merely window dressing. If this commission does not recommend court-packing, the Democrats will do it anyway. Because they can, because power at any cost and by any means is how they roll, and because they will strike while the iron is hot. This article is naive. Especially with the Manchin "won't" business.
The Amy Coney Barrett confirmation probably cost Donald Trump the election. It sent the signal, I need to do this in a hurry now because I am giving to lose. Bill Clinton sent a similar signal when he did not resign in 1998. The signal was, a diminished Bill Clinton would be a better President than Al Gore.
Ilya Somin should, in his own words, specify his own understanding of "The Biden Rule".
After Somin has done so, then he can explain how the Republicans have followed or violated The Biden Rule in 2016 and 2020.
I hope each and every Biden voter gets exactly what they deserve with the 3 dozen or so Executive orders he has signed (and didn't know what he was signing) when they go broke. I am going to point and laugh at every one of you. Enjoy your own downfall. He doesn't care about you..only their own power and wealth. Continue hating!!!
We have to destroy the institution in order to save it.
Joe Biden, 1992
! This reference violates government policy towards history. See the United States updated Terms of Service.
I hope each and every Biden voter gets exactly what they deserve with the 3 dozen or so Executive orders he has signed (and didn't know what he was signing) when they go broke.
Same goes for all you 'principled conservatives' and 'Trump's tweets are unpresidential' -ists. They'll come for you first...
"bad faith" behavior from Republicans? Give me a break, please. Has Ilya Somin ever heard of of a fella named Harry Reid?
If the Left would do their job, exercise their earned power and legislate the issues and policies that are important to them rather than trotting everything through the Judicial system the relevance and importance of the Supreme Court occupants would be less.
We have to create a commission to investigate SCOTUS reform.
We have to pass the bill to know what's in it.
Same thing.
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
Yet another lie being repeated ad nauseam through the media to provide justification for the unjustifiable.
Has President Biden identified exactly what about the Court requires Reform? Or is this an answer in search of a question?
Obama administration White House counsel Bob Bauer, who will also co-chair the commission... Back in July 2018, he wrote an article in The Atlantic entitled "Liberals Should Not Pack the Courts,"
Forgive me for not automatically trusting that any former Obama administration is not a hypocrite.
Reason Magazine doesn’t really have any actual Libertarianism going in. It is infected by smart ass leftists who call themselves Libertarian because of pot. Which, you know, ya pretty much won that one. And that’s it since 1978. Buncha bitches.
ya think?
Of course they will pack the Court -- increase the number of seats or otherwise create some way to game the system and gain partisan control -- but without calling it "packing." They will do what they always do, which is redefine their terms to fit their agenda.
Somin is the worst of the Conspirators. He refuses to even admit there is sometimes more than one reasonable, constitutional, legal, conclusion. (how many unanimous SCOTUS decisions exist?)
The supposed "shift" in the Republican handling of SCOTUS appointments has been put in historical perspective, and surprise, The party with the power, always exercises the power, to advance their interests.
For Somin to use the 2016 and 2020 as some sort of legal reasoning shows Somin is not offering an opinion in good faith.
Thanks in part to the bad-faith behavior of Republicans
Isn't it always????
Everything is a soap opera hysteria pity party with you people. If the Democrats shoot the moon, there is your weakness to exploit. Quit crying. That's the worst thing about Trump, he made it a badge of honor and a requirement for you to be whining bitches.
Textbook battered wife syndrome.
Yeah. It's the Republicans' fault. Always.
This is the latest act in a 90 year old drama going back to the New Deal--or if you want to get even deeper--the Wilson administration. Rule by experts is nowhere in the US Constitution.
"Science" isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Frankly I'm more surprised that the Ds, given their rejection of the Constitution and its overarching thesis of limiting government, aren't pushing the con-con idea more.
We all know where they want to go.
Let's face it, if you can steal a presidential election via massive fraud, what can't you do.
Why would the D's need to pack with court with Roberts at the helm?
“For Somin to use the 2016 and 2020 as some sort of legal reasoning shows Somin is not offering an opinion in good faith”.
He’s smaht!
Howard said: "Everything is a soap opera hysteria pity party with you people."
I just love this. Howard apparently missed the behavior of "screaming at the sky" crowd in 2017. Or the pussy hat protests in the major cities. Howard, go stand in the corner and take a timeout.
The best I can say of Ilya Somin is that he is consistent.
I gave up on Somin a few years ago. The TDS was all consuming. And it has led, as Tim M says, to a lot of factual errors and bad logic in his postings.
Blogger Left Bank of the Charles said...
The Amy Coney Barrett confirmation probably cost Donald Trump the election.
You mean that was her running those absentee ballots through the scanners multiple times ? I thought she looked familiar, except for being black and all. Good pickup.
The bad faith goes back to the Democrats and Bork. If it doesn't matter anymore who started it, then I guess we should blame the Belgians and the Czechs for WWII. Somin is very smart, and very good, but his prejudices leak in all the time.
Howard, go stand in the corner and take a timeout.
No, this is obviously the high point of Howard's life. Pretending to be a Marine, like Dan Rather, should have been enough but he is higher than Timothy Leary these days. Maybe for the same reason.
Funny how important stuff doesn't seem to make it to the Supreme's much anymore. Standing...Laches...Bwoop!
If the Democrats have the votes to pack the court, they will pack the court.
That's the rules of the game.
"Bad faith behavior"
Like accusing a distinguished judge of being a teen-aged gang rapist with no proof whatsoever.
Look, at this point it’s irrelevant what they do. They’re at the smash-and-grab stage. The one that comes right before the ODing-in-an-alleyway stage. America is in the denial stage of grieving for their old form of Establishment government. Something new will be along shortly and there’s a good chance that it will be more democratic and more accountable than what we’ve numbly accepted in the past.
This kind of thinking will be memory holed after one adverse ruling of some sort. You intransigent Republicans have forced our hand...
There's a Reason I don't spend much time at Reason anymore.
I don’t think the goal is court packing. I think the goal is to find a rationale for Biden to ignore court rulings.
Reason Magazine is just political porn for pot smoking fabulists.
The stateless mercenaries in the global elite are shorting America. If we all go long we can break them.
Can't wait for the racial reform commission.
They will be meeting in front of a bullet-pock-marked brick wall just to set the tone.
Yes, once again it was those Damn Republicans who FORCED the D's to think about packing the court. If only they'd "played fair", why the D's would never have done anything.
LOL. All the D's had to do was win the 2016 election. Its not like Mcconnell kept Scalia's seat open for 3 years. He delayed it 8 months. Plus, did the D's want Ginsberg's seat filled before the 2020 election? Of course not.
Its hilarious how leftists (and Reason is now a leftist mag) just keep repeating same lies over and over and over again.
All the D's had to do was win the 2016 election.
That horrible cackle was the death knell of the SC.
Btw, unless you're a gullible rube, you won't believe all this crap about "the commission is expected to not recommend court packing".
This is the standard way the left operates. when they don't have the power for force things they do play the "Lets just think about this" game. And then every step of the way, they'll tell people "we're never going to do this" or "I'm not a fan of this" or "we're just looking into it" or "we're just having a conversation".
And then, they DO IT. Remember all that shit about Open Borders or Gay Marriage. Hey, they were ALL against it. It was CRAZY of the R's to say they were in favor of it. Then it was, hey lets talk about it. And then it was We're doing it. And then it was, "I was always in favor of it".
So the executive branch of the federal government appoints a commission to reform one of the other two independent branches. Constitutionally arrogant, awkward, or suspect. Take your pick. The optics of this would be terrible, if the electorate wasn't so willfully blind.
The purpose of the commission is to move the Overton Window.
We were also told it was unlikely Biden would tinker with the Supreme Court at all. And that it was unlikely Biden would attack fracking. And that it was unlikely Biden would try and shutdown the oil pipeline. And that it was unlikely Biden would fire people for political reasons since he was going to be moderate. We were told it was unlikely Biden would try any number of things that he has most certainly done.
So... color me skeptical.
Howard said: "Everything is a soap opera hysteria pity party with you people."
You obviously missed AOC's recent multi-tweet rant about Ted Cruz trying to murder her.
“... bad faith behavior of Republicans ....”
Somebody needs to explain to Somin the difference between a lame duck President and a President actively seeking a second term.
That magazine is just named wrong. But then so is Christianity Today so, whatever.
tim maguire said...
(No, Trump arguing the election was stolen is not an example of Republicans looking for other ways to win, it is an example of Democrats closing off legitimate objections to protect their win.)
********************
How exactly did Democrats do that?
Republicans never said it would be "wrong" to vote on a Supreme Court nominee in a presidential year. They said they weren't going to do it, and they didn't.
It was not a moral pronouncement. It was a reflection of where the political power resided. Republicans had it and used it.
Thus no bad faith, and no hypocrisy, with regard to the RBG vacancy.
hombre said...
“... bad faith behavior of Republicans ....”
Somebody needs to explain to Somin the difference between a lame duck President and a President actively seeking a second term.
************************
Oh yeah, that's the salient issue: not that it should have been up to the voters to decide (as the GOP hammered for 8 months in 2016), but because Trump was not yet a "lame duck" in October 2020.
Not going to pack the court like they're not going to ban fracking or shut down pipelines....
"Bill Clinton sent a similar signal when he did not resign in 1998."
-- Bill Clinton didn't resign because the Democrats decided that Bill Clinton was powerful and important enough that it didn't matter how many interns he took advantage of through his power discrepancy in office. They'd have lined up the interns if it helped him keep power. Because, most high ranking politicians of either party aren't often the best people.
There's ZERO reason to have a "Commission". There's ZERO Reason to "think about" court packing. There's ZERO Reason to consider this anymore than a naked, unconstitutional, unethical power grab.
But conservatives ALWAYS play the left's game. Lets accept their premise. Lets impute good faith to them. Lets "reach across the aisle". If the R' in 2017 had started a commission on court packing, how do you think the MSM would've reacted? Well, that's how we should react.
Mattman26 said...
Republicans never said it would be "wrong" to vote on a Supreme Court nominee in a presidential year. They said they weren't going to do it, and they didn't.
*******************************
Huh.
Here's what McConnell said in 2016:
February 13, statement on the day of Scalia's death: "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president."
February 16, Washington Post op-ed with Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa: "Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. It is today the American people, rather than a lame-duck president whose priorities and policies they just rejected in the most-recent national election, who should be afforded the opportunity to replace Justice Scalia."
February 22, press statement: "[W]hile finding the right person to take the seat [Scalia] occupied will clearly be a monumental task, it's one we think the American people are more than equipped to tackle. Some disagree and would rather the Senate simply push through yet another lifetime appointment from a president who's on his way out the door...I believe that it is today the American people who are best-positioned to help make this important decision."
February 23, Senate floor speech: "The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter after the American people finish making in November the decision they've already started making today....[Mr. Obama] could let the people decide and make this an actual legacy-building moment, rather than just another campaign roadshow."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court-vacancy-election-year-senate/
Arturi Uri, in your own words, what is The Biden Rule?
Oct 2020: I say to you again and again, I will not stop the keystone pipeline or fracking.
Jan 2021: Here's my exec order banning fracking and the keystone pipeline.
Oct 2008: I'm against Gay Marriage
Jan 2011: I'm totally for Gay Marriage, and always was.
Oct 2020: I'm totally against open borders, we must enforce immigration laws.
Jan 2021: Here's my exec order stopping all deportations, ordering DACA, and building the border fence.
Ilya Somin is smart but he knows better.
A straight line can be drawn from Robert Bork and continuing through Clarance Thomas, Sam Alito, John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.
Everything flows from two things: Bork and abortion.
The original sin of Bork, with Thomas just for show.
The left's obsession with turning the judicial branch into a legislative branch.
Stop using the courts to legislate and none of this happens. None.
I could go on for a couple of thousand words but it's pointless.
The left is on a mission of trashing not just all our institutions, but the very premise of our country, equality.
Not equity, equality.
The left is on a mission to socialize our country. This isn't hyperbole, they tell you this time and time again.
Everything we used to hold dear, even our founding documents and founding principle are under attack from the left.
Now I'm depressed.
Commission is such a heavy word. My earliest recollection of it being used as a noun was hearing sermons on the Great Commission, which clashed with my experience with it as a verb watching Dragnet or a Adam 12, or maybe the news, which back in the day used to report on local things like the commission of crimes. What is this commission’s mission Joe? Has anyone articulated an actual thing wrong with the SCOTUS as is?
That's the amazing thing about the liberal/left. They just lie and lie. You prove them wrong. And the next day, its like it never happened. They're back saying the same lie.
McConnell said there's no precedent for approving a SCOTUS nominee in an election year. WHEN THE SENATE IS RUN BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY. Obviously, if the Senate and POTUS are of the same party they can do what they want. But a Senate run by the opposite party is under no obligation to vote on a Presidents nominee in an election year. Period.
There's a good reason for this. What if Ginsberg and Breyer had decided to resign in July 2016. According to the Left, McConnell would've been under an obligation not only to confirm Garland - but 2 other SCOTUS judges appointed by Obama. This is crazy, and shows how absurd the D's position is.
"Ilya Somin is smart but he knows better."
Asserted without evidence.
You’re killing it rcocean
What a disingenuous load of crap from Ilya Somin. He knows that Democrats would have done exactly the same thing he's accusing Republicans of doing and we would be no better off than we are now. America's problem in short: Assholes like Ilya Somin.
This assumes courts remain relevant to public behavior. Their performances at all levels during and after the 2020 elections suggest they no longer are.
"Has anyone articulated an actual thing wrong with the SCOTUS as is?"
-- See, sometimes it makes decisions that are SETTLED LAW. Like when it decides that something is a tax. But sometimes, it is on the Wrong Side of History.
Ideally, all of their decisions would be SETTLED LAW. So, we need to reform it so it makes fewer decisions that are on the Wrong Side of History.
The Senate is never under obligation to vote for, consider, or hold a vote on any Supreme Court nominee whatever. That's what "advice and consent" of the Senate means.
If the President wants his nominee voted on, he can choose one acceptable to a majority of the Senate, or waste everybody's time.
Reason was a high quality, thought-provoking magazine when Virginia Postrel ran it. It degenerated into a superficial, late night, freshman year bull session pretty quickly after her departure. It has never recovered.
I used to look forward to the latest issue arriving in the mail, but I let my subscription lapse without regret at least a decade ago.
The Republic is lost, we bow to our CCP masters...
The Republic is lost, we bow to our CCP masters...
That's the spirit!
The commission need not recommend court packing. It is already favored by the Dems.
If Democrats want Republicans to pack the court with five new justices the next time Republicans take the Senate, Democrats should proceed with their dopey plan to pack the court with three new justices now.
Democrats are like children, incapable of gaming anything out beyond today. It’s a bit like how Republicans went to the Supreme Court in 2020 arguing the dopey principle that it would have been entirely proper for California to sue Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania to overturn the results of the 2016 election and hand the presidency to Hillary Clinton.
I see Somin mischaracterizing (I should say 'lie,' because I am sure he knows better, but I try to be a little bit polite) what happened in 2016. The issue was about when a President is of a different party than controls the Senate, and goes back to one Sen. J. R. Biden back ca. 1992, the argument being that when an election is near and the relevant entities (Pres who nominates and Senate that confirms) are divided, it is best to give the voters a chance to weigh in, in the upcoming election.
You may or may not agree with that, but the idea was originally a Democratic one at a time when the Pres was GOP and Senate was Dem, and what McConnell did in 2016 was consistent with that.
Like everything else that might get in the way of the Democrats--down the memory hole.
What we believe:
Our God-given, inalienable rights are enshrined in the Constitution. These rights are interpreted by judges and their pronouncements are superior to politics. Anybody who messes with this setup is in for a heap of trouble.
Reality:
The elites (left and right) use the courts to insulate policy making from democratic politics. The Supreme Court is too powerful and too anti-democratic and it sabotages meaningful change.
The Democrats want to do a thing they know that most people think is wrong. They blame the Republicans for making them want to do the thing.
This sounds like an abusive relationship. I wouldn't want to pack the Court if you didn't make me so mad.
Since Article III of the US Constitution states that Congress may ordain or establish inferior courts, and Congress may determine the scope of SCOTUS appellate jurisdiction, does that mean Congress doesn't need POTUS's signature to do so?
I hated when McConnell tried to create some complicated justification for not filling Scalia's seat. Just admit that you're making a political decision because you think it helps the conservative side. There's nothing wrong with that. The idea that the judiciary is some sort of sacred priesthood disconnected from politics is part of what got us into the mess we're in now.
how about this arrangement
name any number of justices to the SC > 12+
for each and every case the parties get to voir dire and seat 12 of their choosing.
you can even have multiple seatings and cases going on at the same time.
why is 9 sacred
"I hated when McConnell tried to create some complicated justification for not filling Scalia's seat. Just admit that you're making a political decision because you think it helps the conservative side."
-- It wasn't that complicated. "We don't want to do it; our justification is because Biden said it was a good idea," is basically saying it was a political decision, with a bit of a fun "and screw you" added on.
Reason was in full TDS mode a few weeks ago.
But now Biden is President, not much on the anti Biden stuff.
What a disappointing double standard.
how about this arrangement
name any number of justices to the SC > 12+
for each and every case the parties get to voir dire and seat 12 of their choosing.
you can even have multiple seatings and cases going on at the same time.
why is 9 sacred
Nine seems to be a good number just because the larger the group the harder it is to get anything useful done. A large court would end up with muddled decisions and indecision.
Personally, I'd be fine with something similar where the court was 15-17, but only the eight senior-most associate justices, along with the chief justice, voted on cases. The rest handle circuit court duties, serve in an advisory capacity, and step up to fill a role if one of the nine cannot hear a case.
Biden's Judicial Reform Commission is unlikely to recommend Court-packing.
According to Ilya Somin (at Reason).
Nice smarmy word there "unlikely". Oh, sorry it happened but we thought it "unlikely", not impossible, just unlikely.
Over the last few years, the once-unthinkable proposal has clearly become part of mainstream political discourse on the political left.
There is an imperative! It is the only real way to f-over Trump and those vile people that voted for him for good!
I had the same thought as CWJ... exactly how/why is it the Exec's job to change the makeup of the Judiciary, SCOTUS in particular? I guess I'll need to do some research... I know its been done before - just want to understand the constitutional basis and under what circumstances it was done before, since it does seem like intrusion into one of the other branches.
"for each and every case the parties get to voir dire and seat 12 of their choosing."
-- That's a terrible plan for a court with no way to appeal. The idea is that the Supreme Court should reliably be able to come to a single conclusion that settles the matter unless they decide to revisit it later. If you have 50 some justices, you have no way to ensure that a decision will be decided in a way that people will feel is "settled." They'll think, "If only we'd gotten A and B instead of C and D, then X would have been resolved differently."
The Supreme Court is the last stop. You can't have that many variables on it. There's nothing sacred about the number nine in this case; it's just a number that works out well (5-4 decisions, for example, feel like there's at least a split. With 3, one dissenter doesn't feel right. With 5, 2 is also a bit low. Seven could maybe work, but 9 is about as big as it can get before it gets unwieldy, I think.)
Ilya Somin is an example of why I call myself small government type rather than a libertarian. The brand is ruined.
This article was hilarious. The only purpose of the commission is to prepare the ground for expanding the court. What other purpose could it have? With control of the Senate, I am pretty damned certain the court will be expanded before the next presidential election. The Democrats might not be able to do it in a 50/50 Senate, but that won't be the case after the midterms, and the D.C. statehood bill is likely to pass a 50/50 Senate as soon as the filibuster is eliminated for bills for statehood.
This sounds like an abusive relationship.
Fifteen signs you're in an abusive relationship with your government
Unlikely is the equivalent of inconceivable.
Mike Sylwester said...
Arturi Uri, in your own words, what is The Biden Rule?
****************************
Specifically, Joe Biden stated in 1992 that a supreme court nomination should wait until after the election had taken place (as opposed to after the next administration taking office). There was no actual nominee under debate at the time, and no actual vacancy, so this was just a theoretical offering. McConnell of course hid behind this untried theory in 2016 and then tossed it in the dumpster in 2020 so what is your point exactly?
rcocean,
"But the Senate is under no obligation to vote on a Presidents nominee"
FIFY.
All the other conditions you include just distract us from the main point, which is that not-even-scheduling-a-vote on a nominee is simply a high-handed way of not consenting, and it is perfectly within the Senate's legitimate constitutional power to act in that way.
Of course they won't be recommend "court packing".
They will recommend "restoring balance".
As in "Trump appointed 3, so Biden gets to appoint 3. That's only fair."
They will just remove the minor, trivial, technicality about having to wait for an open seat.
Blogger Arturo Ui said...
tim maguire said...
(No, Trump arguing the election was stolen is not an example of Republicans looking for other ways to win, it is an example of Democrats closing off legitimate objections to protect their win.)
********************
How exactly did Democrats do that?
1100 affidavits could explain that to you if you really wanted to know.
So is altering size of court as has been done before.
>>If Democrats want Republicans to pack the court with five new justices the next time Republicans take the Senate, Democrats should proceed with their dopey plan to pack the court with three new justices now.
No, that's not how it works. Trump was a unique threat to our country, so the D's adding 3 to counteract his is "fair". If the next R Senate (assuming such a thing is even possible in a few years) wanted to add 3 more, that would be sedition and treason and inciting insurrection.
You seem like a smart guy. I'm surprised I had to explain this to you. :)
Article 3 states "judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.'
so its Congress's role to make any change. The six past changes, prior to 1869, were done mostly for political reasons, too - ex. reducing to deny SCOTUS appointments or adding to get required votes. Its been 152 years at 9 Justices. FDR plan was to ask justices over 70 at the time to retire. If they didn't, he would add one to the court. There were 6 over 70 at the time, hence he may have added 6 to the court, for a total of 15. The bill was shot down in the Senate, 70-20.
Amazing, just amazing. "Bad faith" by republicans. Said with a straight face by people who lynched a black judge and claimed another was a serial rapist.
Amazing.
In other words it's politics as the post explains.
Unknown said...
Amazing, just amazing. "Bad faith" by republicans. Said with a straight face by people who lynched a black judge and claimed another was a serial rapist.
Amazing.
***********************
Clarence Thomas was murdered? Boy, I hope someone opens a criminal investigation, sounds serious.
>>The bill was shot down in the Senate, 70-20.
The Senate vote to add more justices will be 255 to -12, in what will be universally acknowledged as the most secure and transparent vote in Senate history.
And if you question the vote tally, you will be blocked from working, using social media, or having a bank account. You will then be charged with several federal felonies such as inciting riots. AOC will claim that you assassinated her at least 3 times.
There will also be a $25 dollar fine.
Not packing the Supreme Court, but perhaps trying to pack the circuit courts (by creating new judgeships for Biden to fill) -- that was the take on a commentary about this commission I saw yesterday (forget where I read it, though). As that commentary pointed out, when Clinton was elected in 1992, the Dem Congress authorized new judgeships on the circuit courts, giving Clinton and Team Dem the power to appoint new judges at that level after 12 years of Reps controlling the WH.
Currently, after Trump/McConnell got 56 circuit judges confirmed in his 4 years, there are more Rep-appointed judges on the circuit courts than Dems, and there are only 3 open judgeships at the circuit level (two that Trump/McConnell couldn't fill in time and the one created by Garland's appointment as AG). The vast majority of appellate cases in the federal system are decided at the circuit level, and only 100 or so get to the SCOTUS. Of that 100, most of them are routine conflicts about statutory interpretation where the circuits have disagreed, requiring SCOTUS to step in an announce a uniform national rule. So, as a practical matter, the circuits are where most of the battles are fought, and won/lost.
Don't be surprised if this commission recommends nothing about SCOTUS but does recommend the creation of new circuit judgeships, and perhaps even a realignment of the circuits. There have been perennial demands to split the Ninth since it is so huge and unwieldy. One of the hold-ups in getting that done has always been the refusal of the more conservative states at being stuck in a newly configured circuit completely dominated by California judges. I doubt that the Dems will be all that concerned about such issues.
Michael K said...
1100 affidavits could explain that to you if you really wanted to know.
****************************
No, but seriously, how did "Democrats close off legitimate objections to protect their win"? You mean they won every single court case? That would be the judges who closed off these "legitimate objections", not the evil evil Democrats.
Joe Biden said he wouldn't tell you what he thought about court packing until after the election.
When will the media demand their answer?
Interestingly, the packing bill lost ground over the course of the debate because one of the Justices switched his votes, or voted differently than expected, and gave FDR the rulings he desired, for the most part. This justice was Owen Roberts. Any relation to our current CJ, I wonder... Anyway, the phrase "a switch in time saves nine" came to be when the legislation died.
"When will the media demand their answer?"
-- They'll circle back with us on it.
Related: Google Blocked Ads From Legal Group Opposing Democrats’ Supreme Court-Packing Plan
I wonder if CJ Roberts changed his ACA decision at the last minute to "save nine". Wouldn't surprise me if Obama made that threat to him.
Arturo Ui at 10:57 AM
... a supreme court nomination should wait until after the election had taken place (as opposed to after the next administration taking office). .... McConnell of course hid behind this untried theory in 2016 ...
You say that McConnell hid behind this untried theory in 2016, as if following The Biden Rule was sneaky or deceptive.
I think you might have done better to say something like McConnell followed The Biden Rule in a bi-partisan spirit.
Why do you mischaracterize McConnell's 2016 bi-partisan spirit as sneaky?
I wouldn't trust that, Ann.
Arturi Ui at 11:11 AM
Clarence Thomas was murdered? Boy, I hope someone opens a criminal investigation, sounds serious.
Thomas called it a high-tech lynching.
Mike Sylwester said...
You say that McConnell hid behind this untried theory in 2016, as if following The Biden Rule was sneaky or deceptive.
I think you might have done better to say something like McConnell followed The Biden Rule in a bi-partisan spirit.
Why do you mischaracterize McConnell's 2016 bi-partisan spirit as sneaky?
****************************
Because (obviously) McConnell reversed himself the moment a vacancy opened up in the 2020 election year, proving that his 2016 arguments were made entirely in bad faith. But you already knew that.
I hated when McConnell tried to create some complicated justification
That’s so weird, you hating something that never happened. There has never been a SCOTUS vote in an election year with the Senate held by the opposite party to the president. So that never happened, yet your mad because you wanted Mitch to break with precedent. You might be the one complicating this simple issue.
No, but seriously, how did "Democrats close off legitimate objections to protect their win"? You mean they won every single court case? That would be the judges who closed off these "legitimate objections", not the evil evil Democrats.
Seriously, does someone pay you to post this ?
Judges denied hearings on such grounds as Texas having no "Standing" to challenge another state changing laws at the last minute to "elect" a president of all the states.
Now that the election is stolen, I notice all you lefty trolls appearing.
Ui asked: "Clarence Thomas was murdered? Boy, I hope someone opens a criminal investigation, sounds serious."
Mike S. responded: "Thomas called it a high-tech lynching."
Ui knew that. He/she/it is just playing games
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...
There has never been a SCOTUS vote in an election year with the Senate held by the opposite party to the president.
********************************
LOL, that pretzel logic "principle" was only invented in October 2020...
Aruturo Ui at 11:44 AM
Because (obviously) McConnell reversed himself the moment a vacancy opened up in the 2020 election year, proving that his 2016 arguments were made entirely in bad faith.
Suppose that Justice Ginsburg had not died in 2020, and suppose that we were discussing only the 2016 situation.
Would you still be saying accusingly that McConnell hid behind The Biden Rule, or might you agree with me approvingly that McConnell followed the Biden Rule in a bi-partisan spirit?
By the way, here is Joe Biden's own description in 1992 of The Biden Rule. If you never have watched this speech, then you should do so now.
The Republicans reversed themselves. Of course they came up with justifications. But to sound reasonable in 2016 they gave a reason that would have precluded going forward in 2020.
Michael K said...
Now that the election is stolen, I notice all you lefty trolls appearing.
*******************
LOL. Trump lost the election fair and square, and he lost badly. He lost by 74 electoral voted. He lost the popular vote by over 7 million votes. The American people SOUNDLY rejected a second term for this vile administration, and rightly so.
Mike Sylwester said...
Thomas called it a high-tech lynching.
******************************
Yes, I am aware of the extraordinarily offensive and self-serving language Thomas used to defend himself during his hearing. I am aware of the profound disrespect he showed the many thousands of actual victims of lynching in this country's history. It was a disgraceful thing for him to say.
@Readering:The Republicans reversed themselves.
They didn't. In 2016 the Senate and the President were different parties. In 2020 they were not.
Mike Sylwester said...
Suppose that Justice Ginsburg had not died in 2020, and suppose that we were discussing only the 2016 situation.
Would you still be saying accusingly that McConnell hid behind The Biden Rule, or might you agree with me approvingly that McConnell followed the Biden Rule in a bi-partisan spirit?
********************************
That's a pretty useless hypothetical, considering the RBG death is the very piece that proves McConnell never meant what he said in 2016, so no not playing this game.
Gabriel said...
@Readering:The Republicans reversed themselves.
They didn't. In 2016 the Senate and the President were different parties. In 2020 they were not.
********************************
That was a justification only invented in 2020 as a bad faith defense of their obvious, flagrant reversal.
It's one thing to argue in bad faith. It's one thing to lie. To accuse someone else of bad faith by lying about what they said and did is some whole other level of thing. Getting bored with it.
I'm used to the "it's wrong when Republicans do it" standard but now we have a standard retroactively invented which was not the one invoked at the time, and "it's wrong when Republicans don't do what they never said they would do".
The GOP controlled the Senate in 2016 and 2020.
That’s all that mattered.
In 1992, when the Dems controlled the Senate, they did not give hearings to several of Bush’s appellate court nominees.
We can deduce their beliefs by actions. The arguments dress windows.
Gabriel said...
It's one thing to argue in bad faith. It's one thing to lie. To accuse someone else of bad faith by lying about what they said and did is some whole other level of thing. Getting bored with it.
**************************
Who is lying about what they said and did, and what was the specific lie?
@Arturo Ui, redering:that was a justification only invented in 2020 as a bad faith defense of their obvious, flagrant reversal.
When Biden laid down the principle, the Senate and Presidency were held by different parties.
And by your own standard if Republicans reversed in 2020 then Dems did in 2016. You can;t have it both ways.
Gabriel said...
@Arturo Ui, redering:that was a justification only invented in 2020 as a bad faith defense of their obvious, flagrant reversal.
When Biden laid down the principle, the Senate and Presidency were held by different parties.
And by your own standard if Republicans reversed in 2020 then Dems did in 2016. You can;t have it both ways.
*******************
Good point. When Joe Biden was God Emperor of Judicial Appointments in 1992 and his every utterance immediately made law across the land, the pure hypothetical that he raised should have risen from the dead and imprisoned Senate Democrats in 2016 for even daring to defy his wishes.
@Arturo: The gaslighting has failed, now move the goalposts.
It doesn't work any more boss.
Why is anyone arguing with this Arturo guy?
My answer is this: to the victors go the spoils. I don't care about Democrat handwringing on this. Adding ACB to the court may be what saves what's left of the Republic over the next 4 years with this senile crook in office. Arturo can suck on it for all I care.
Because we all know that if the parties were reversed, the Dems would have done the EXACT same thing.
Bad faith my ass. Anyone who cannot see the difference between a President facing an opposition controlled Senate and a Senate controlled by your party is not trying to be reasonable. If Obama had wanted to appoint the next Justice, all he had to do was go to Mitch and say "which of these 5 people can you support?" and he would have gotten a nice moderate Sandra Day O'Conner out of the deal. Instead, he proposed a liberal Merrick. In the absolute knowledge that Hillary was going to win and it would not matter. Well guess what, Obama bet wrong and lost the homestead. Too bad, so sad.
"Gabriel said...
@Arturo: The gaslighting has failed, now move the goalposts.
It doesn't work any more boss."
Yeah, it's like watching a drowning swimmer trying to keep their head above water. A valient effort, but everyone knows it's just a matter of time.
The American people SOUNDLY rejected a second term for this vile administration, and rightly so.
Are not the 74 million voters who cast their ballots for Trump also to be included in the category of the "American People"?
Is not the Pacific also vast?
Roughcoat said...
The American people SOUNDLY rejected a second term for this vile administration, and rightly so.
Are not the 74 million voters who cast their ballots for Trump also to be included in the category of the "American People"?
*****************************
I'll rephrase: the overwhelming majority of the American people SOUNDLY rejected a second term for this vile administration.
between biden and leahy defamation was the name of the game, chris buckley even satirized it in his own roman a clef, before he went insane, leahy of course hired the podestas who brought the slime buckey, they succeeded in torpedoing bork, they failed with thomas, and they tried again with alito,
Aruturo Ui at 12:08 PM
Yes, I am aware of the extraordinarily offensive and self-serving language Thomas used to defend himself during his hearing. I am aware of the profound disrespect he showed the many thousands of actual victims of lynching in this country's history. It was a disgraceful thing for him to say.
Since you do not like Thomas's expression high-tech lynching, maybe you approve an alternative -- high-tech slander.
Arturo Ui said...How exactly did Democrats do that?
Is that a serious question or are you just jerking people around? You know exactly how the Democrats responded to Republican objections to voting irregularities, no matter how much you may pretend not to.
Huh. Weird. Wonder what happened to that rock solid, totally good-faith principle I keep hearing about:
Chuck Grassley won't consider a Supreme Court nominee from President Trump in 2020
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/10/10/chuck-grassley-supreme-court-nominee-2020/1588100002/
Mike Sylwester said...
Since you do not like Thomas's expression high-tech lynching, maybe you approve an alternative -- high-tech slander.
*****************************
Sure! It's inaccurate, but dramatically less offensive.
tim maguire said...
Is that a serious question or are you just jerking people around? You know exactly how the Democrats responded to Republican objections to voting irregularities, no matter how much you may pretend not to.
***********************************
Not sure how this happened, but you misspelled "every judge the Republican objections got near" with the letters "Democrats".
You keep repeating v this same lie: “ The Republicans reversed themselves. Of course they came up with justifications. But to sound reasonable in 2016 they gave a reason that would have precluded going forward in 2020”
No inconsistency in the position at all and it’s up to you to point it out if you can find the contradiction. Your assertions are empty.
Point to the SCOTUS by name who was appointed by a president in an election year and confirmed by the senate run by the other party. Use any D or R admin that fits the scenario. Go ahead.
not a quality troll, somin has proven himself a little too gullible,
Clinesmith walks. Our federal judicial system is hopelessly compromised.
Changing the numbers on the SC won't make a dime's worth of difference.
"The ridiculousness of the concept is that when the opposite party takes control, it will simply add more justices in order to get a majority. Somewhere around 2040 there will be 23 justices on the court.
Of course that won't happen."
Because the opposite party will never take control again.
yes whole sale fraud, sourced by a suspected russsian spy, doesn't earn any serious penalty,
As for Somin:
He doesn't know which people will be on the commission.
He doesn't know how many people will be on the commission.
He doesn't know what their mandate will be.
Yet he knows how it will decide.
Former communist John Brennan said recently that libertarians were unholy extremists and a danger to the country.
When he's right he's right.
Then troll persists. Do they pay by the comment or by the hour?
I'll rephrase: the overwhelming majority of the American people SOUNDLY rejected a second term for this vile administration.
Since there is no reliable evidence that ballots represented "people" you are a liar.
Thanks in part to the bad-faith behavior of Republicans
Somin singles out Republicans but of course this is nonsense. Dems have opposed every single nominee since the Clarence Thomas hearings proved to them public opposition helped radicalize their voters. No Rep nominee since then received fewer than 22 opposed votes (Roberts) and the next fewest was 42 (Alito).
By contrast after Thomas Reps tried to return to the former norm confirming Ginsberg with 3 opposed votes and Breyer with 9. Both are at least as far left at Thomas is right. Only after the Dems proved they would oppose every nominee and reasons were irrelevant did Reps move to do the same.
Dems bad faith actions predate Garland by 2-3 decades. But since law is controlled by left wingers they are never judged by the same standard as the out-group.
Well, there is obviously no point in trying to debate this Arturo troll. Maybe it is Chuck with a new ID. Sounds like him.
Michael K said...
Then troll persists. Do they pay by the comment or by the hour?
I'll rephrase: the overwhelming majority of the American people SOUNDLY rejected a second term for this vile administration.
Since there is no reliable evidence that ballots represented "people" you are a liar.
**********************
It must be so painful to live each day believing that every elections official that counted the ballots is part of a massive conspiracy to defraud the American people, as well as every judge that agreed with them. You know, it's much easier (and actually truthful) to just accept that sometimes, you lose. But do go ahead and drive yourself insane if that is your preference. We'll just savor our well-earned victory.
just when you think you are cynical enough:
https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/29/the-biden-administration-just-made-peter-strzoks-wife-a-top-sec-official/
the court empowered all these ring wraiths by not taking up the challenges
https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/29/netflix-sponsored-antiracist-grifter-ibram-kendi-supports-totalitarian-government/
"Why is anyone arguing with this Arturo guy?"
I have previously, but it's apparent she's not here to discuss anything so I'm done with her. Typical leftie- ignores evidence offered contrary to her lies and a half hour later, repeats them like they were never refuted.
Click to the right of the three dots after "Troll said..." and the problem goes away.
Well, there is obviously no point in trying to debate this Arturo troll. Maybe it is Chuck with a new ID. Sounds like him.
Actually, as a matter of style he sounds a lot like ritmo. BTW Arturo Ui is a character out of Brecht.
And by your own standard if Republicans reversed in 2020 then Dems did in 2016. You can;t have it both ways.
Ah, the double-edged scalpel apology. If we have learned anything, yes, they can abort the baby, cannibalize her profitable parts, sequester her carbon remains, and have her, too. In fact, the modern-date elite characterize it as forward-looking, forward-thinking, progressive: one step forward, two steps backward.
So, within days of being sworn in, Biden began assembling his Court packing commission-
But some bird brain from Reason says actual Court packing is unlikely?
This catches the eye of Althouse, but has never mentioned once the militarization of the U.S. Capitol?
that's henry rogers btw, professional mau mau grifter,
Suppose that Justice Ginsburg had not died in 2020
I wonder if she had an epiphany that motivated her bitter-sweet clinging to life. An inconvenient truth, a burden, for people who relied on her religious (i.e. "moral", "ethical", "legal", behavioral protocol) perspective and followed her lead to the grave.
Lying to the FBI is a crime. Lying for the FBI in FISA court is good citizenship and nicely rewarded. Durham we hardly knew ye. I hope Carter Page prevails civilly because his country sure has officially mistreated him in thanks for helping catch bad Russians for them. Incredible how cold the press is to this little guy in order to kiss up to the big guy. Icy.
The only way D.C. becomes a State is with court packing.
More importantly, and this main reason for court packing-
The only way to disarm the American citizen is through court packing. This is all the left has cared about for nearly a century.
It will happen.
And no, we will not comply. And yes, people will die.
#1 on RCP's most-read list today:
I & I Editorial Board January 29, 2021
Biden’s Worst Executive Order Went Almost Entirely Unnoticed
'...The order also seems harmless enough, going by the seemingly innocent title “Modernizing Regulatory Review.” Except this order isn’t about modernizing regulations. It’s about unleashing the regulatory state with a ferocity never before seen in this country.
Biden’s order – which didn’t get released to the press until late in the evening of his first day – aims to effectively toss the cost-benefit analysis that for many decades has served as at least a modest brake on the ambitions of regulators. In the past, regulations where the cost of compliance far exceeded the benefits could be stymied by the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Biden wants the review process instead to be “a tool to affirmatively promote regulations” and “to ensure swift and effective federal action” on everything from the pandemic, to the economy, to racial inequality, to the “undeniable reality and accelerating threat of climate change.” In other words … everything.
Clyde Wayne Crews, a regulation expert at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said that Biden’s order is “likely to do away with cost-benefit analysis by elevating unquantifiable aims as benefits and deny costs of regulation altogether.” In doing so, it will “put weight on the scales of whether or not to regulate such that the answer will always be in the affirmative.”'
"...One of Trump’s biggest – unsung – achievements in the White House was his effort to rein in the regulatory state. A lifelong businessman, Trump understood – in a way lifelong politicians cannot – the avalanche of regulations that fall on a business and the enormous costs they impose. One of his very first actions was the two-for-one order.
CEI’s Crews says that Trump actually exceeded that goal, with agencies getting rid of 4.3 rules for every new one."
"...Unfortunately, with this one executive order, Biden shows that he’s intent on giving regulators carte blanch to impose massive new rules on businesses and households, on virtually anything and everything they do, regardless of costs. There’s little else Biden has done so far that will have as wide-ranging an impact."
https://issuesinsights.com/2021/01/29/bidens-worst-executive-order-went-almost-entirely-unnoticed/#comments
Stephen Fearby-
My progressive niece said it this way, "Humanity – not economics", after the election. Now it makes sense.
@ BrianE
Everything has a cost. For example:
'...Humanity's pricing begins with the aforementioned $2-per-user-per-month Starter plan, which focuses on basic scheduling for teams. This plan has a $60-per-month minimum, paid annually. There's also a $3-per-user-per-month Classic plan, also paid annually; the month-to-month subscription costs $4 per user per month and is aimed at midsize companies. The Starter plan features cloud-based employee scheduling, centralized administrative dashboard, employee-centric shift trade, availability and time-off management, as well as mobile access and notifications (through SMS, email, and in-app notifications).
https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/humanity
But some bird brain from Reason says actual Court packing is unlikely?
Fool us once. Fool us again, and again, and again. Well...
never mentioned once the militarization of the U.S. Capitol
Unprecedented on an imaginary scale over four trimesters, less and more.
That said, around a half a million assembled, several hundred at the capital, and several dozen inside who may and were not "Trump supporters". A novel apology for self-defense against an unarmed woman. An officer, assaulted, who may have died of a forced medical condition. The representatives of the People who denied civil rights, democratic governance, hid behind a braying press, and skirted their service.
Arturo Ui said...Not sure how this happened, but you misspelled "every judge the Republican objections got near" with the letters "Democrats".
Not sure how this happened, but when I said “Democrats,” I didn’t say judges, I said Democrats.
Blogger Readering said...The Republicans reversed themselves. Of course they came up with justifications.
True, it was a brazen bit of political game playing by McConnell. And unnecessary. Garland should have been voted down. That’s the proper way to do it.
"Garland should have been voted down. That’s the proper way to do it."
Wouldn't have mattered, they'd be complaining about something else then. When it comes to Democrats, the only action you can take that doesn't end up with them whining is to do what they want. They're Like three year olds, except without the sophistication.
"And unnecessary. Garland should have been voted down."
What leads you to believe he would have been voted down?
The bad faith is on the part of those that ignore the actual precedents cited by the GOP, specifically Mitch McConnell, that supported their stance of denying a president of the opposite party the appointment of a justice during an election year, a standard first enunciated by Joe Biden in 1992. 2020 was not such a year and it was not hypocritical to appoint a justice in that election year because the situations were different the President and Senate controlled by the same party - not a lot different, but different in that key respect, which is, of course, denied in bad faith by the stupid or disingenuous people who refuse to deal with the actual principled argument with which they're confronted.
Yeah, the Republicans made us do it!
tim maguire said...
Not sure how this happened, but when I said “Democrats,” I didn’t say judges, I said Democrats
***************
I know it must have been tough for you when the Q theories didn't pan out January 21. Maybe they meant Trump gets surprise inaugurated FEBRUARY 21st? Maybe it was just a scheduling misfire?
Just keep hope.
Clicking to the right of the three dots works fine.
I'm surprised Ilya Somin would put it that way. I haven't read him in a bit, but I certainly don't remember him being much of a fan of the left. I wonder if there has been some editorial guidelines at Reason to try to phrase things to be more emotionally appealing to the Left. I've noticed a fair bit of other writers there seeming to phrase things to appeal to the left over the last few years.
The Vault Dweller said...
I'm surprised Ilya Somin would put it that way. I haven't read him in a bit, but I certainly don't remember him being much of a fan of the left. I wonder if there has been some editorial guidelines at Reason to try to phrase things to be more emotionally appealing to the Left. I've noticed a fair bit of other writers there seeming to phrase things to appeal to the left over the last few years.
******************
A more likely alternative is that the Right has gone fully off the rails the last 4 years and genuine libertarians want nothing to do with them.
Remember all the progs complaining about Obama nominating a white male for SC, when there are so many qualified women of color (and gender and sexual orientation) available?
I don't either.
They knew Garland wasn't going to get a vote, and they knew that if he did get a vote he'd be voted down.
All for show.
every figure of note, hillary, biden, obama, schumer, filibustered or demagogued against roberts alito, kavanaugh and co,
an actual terrorist group, fronted by thousand currents, is nominated for the nobel peace prize, you can't make that up
boatbuilder have you found your way, to james d's alternate site,
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2021/01/29/9-11-terrorist-khalid-shaikh-mohammed-will-reportedly-be-offered-covid-19-vaccine-before-most-americans-1023180/?utm_source=Push%20Notifications&utm_medium=BPR
It is a possibility Arturo, but generally the Libertarians are characterized by a general dislike of both Republicans and Democrats. Besides just from a political bargaining position if the Democrats actually wanted to seat a replacement for Scalia in 2016 they should not have nominated Merrick Garland and instead chosen someone closer to Kennedy. Dems needed Republicans' approval in the Senate, and Republicans very well could have decided that better to settle for a squishy middle guy rather than risk what may happen after the 2016 election. And for Democrats a seat going from Scalia to a Kennedy-type is a decent win for them. Though I guess that supposes one can accurately predict who is or will turn out to be a Kennedy type. But I think that the recent history has suggested more judges moving to the left than the right when seated on the court. I can't really think of any lefty justice that after a bit on the Supreme Court seems to have moved to the right.
"it is an example of Democrats closing off legitimate objections to protect their win."
We gave you the option of Rudy speaking in front of a landscaping store with the hair dye dripping down his face. We gave you the option of 60 separate lawsuits. We gave you the option of bad mouthing Dominion Voting Systems until they threatened lawsuits which shut everyone up in a hurry. We gave you the option of dedicating in the Capitol.
"if the Democrats actually wanted to seat a replacement for Scalia in 2016 they should not have nominated Merrick Garland and instead chosen someone closer to Kennedy"
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.
"The bad faith is on the part of those that ignore the actual precedents cited by the GOP, specifically Mitch McConnell, that supported their stance of denying a president of the opposite party the appointment of a justice during an election year, a standard first enunciated by Joe Biden in 1992. 2020 was not such a year and it was not hypocritical to appoint a justice in that election year because the situations were different the President and Senate controlled by the same party - not a lot different, but different in that key respect, which is, of course, denied in bad faith by the stupid or disingenuous people who refuse to deal with the actual principled argument with which they're confronted. "
Want to translate that into English, Sparky?
Mutaman said...
Want to translate that into English, Sparky?
******************
LOL, thank you
tcrosse said...
Well, there is obviously no point in trying to debate this Arturo troll. Maybe it is Chuck with a new ID. Sounds like him.
Actually, as a matter of style he sounds a lot like ritmo. BTW Arturo Ui is a character out of Brecht.
***************
Myself, I'd say it's another nom de poo of "Freder Fredersen", the main character in Fritz Lang's "Metropolis". Lang an Austrian, Brecht a German, both contemporaries.
(Alas, Brecht struggled all his life to read Lang in the original Austrian.)
I did sign on, narciso--but I havent looked at it much.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/09/historical-precedent-supports-republicans-on-supreme-court-nominations/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/history-is-on-the-side-of-republicans-filling-a-supreme-court-vacancy-in-2020/
Arturo Ui said...
A more likely alternative is that the Right has gone fully off the rails the last 4 years and genuine libertarians want nothing to do with them.
Yeah all of the Genuine Libertarians that are supported by Google money think censorship of opposing viewpoints is a good idea.
That is what libertarianism is all about.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा