The War for the Supreme Court (Ginsburg is dead)

[noxiousdog]

If Democrats seriously attempt to add Supreme Court justices I'm done with them too.

[malchior]

Not really


They sat on nominations during Obama and handed them all to Trump.

Leaving aside the specific meaning of 'packing,' which was chosen specifically to apply negative context to potential Democratic fixes only. What the GOP has done is absolutely a different aspect of the same idea--resized the judiciary to make it more amenable to their desires rather than apply the rules equally. (In their case, by resizing the SC to 8 for the remainder of Obama's term, and withholding, then rushing through lower-court judges.)

Trying to differentiate the two is a fool's errand (other than pointing out that one side did it to un-democratically wield more power, while the other is considering the idea in order to restore democratic behavior).

Right and people aren't heeding the history lesson here. The last time we had sustained battling over the Supreme Court it was the run up to the Civil War and the immediate aftermath: 3 Fillmore appointees were blocked, Buchanan's nominee was rejected, and the Court was shrank to prevent Andrew Johnson from seating a justice. Fighting over the judiciary is the alarm bell ringing that our particular Constitutional system is failing or in poor health.

If Democrats seriously attempt to add Supreme Court justices I'm done with them too.

How do you expect them to not address the forced imbalance? The instability this court will bring will be untenable long-term. They will eventually do something radical. What happens then? Shrugging?

[Little Raven]

If Democrats seriously attempt to add Supreme Court justices I'm done with them too.

Fortunately, I'm fairly certain that the Democrats are NOT going to do this. They're not all crazy.

This is rapidly becoming the first of what will no doubt be many cracks in the new super-wide Democratic party. The Progressives want the Court packed, the center does not. Biden is appointing a commission to study the issue.

On Thursday, Biden sought to make a nod to both camps by announcing that as president he would name a bipartisan commission to propose changes to the Supreme Court and federal judiciary, potentially placing a volatile issue on his agenda early in his prospective presidency.

The announcement gave Biden, who is wary of partisan court-expansion plans, a way to address the issue hours before his final debate with President Trump. But there were signs it would not fully resolve the matter, as Trump tweeted that Biden “wants to Pack the Court with Radical Left crazies” and a liberal group denounced the commission idea as insufficient.

In my experience, politicians appoint a commission when they want to give lip service to an idea but have no real interest in touching it....so I'm taking this as a good sign.

[Zaxxon]

If Democrats seriously attempt to add Supreme Court justices I'm done with them too.

How do you expect them to not address the forced imbalance? The instability this court will bring will be untenable long-term. They will eventually do something radical. What happens then? Shrugging?

This. The system is broken. I'm open to hearing alternative ideas (eg the 5-5-5 option I've seen discussed). But if the Ds control all three branches, something absolutely needs to be done. The GOP behavior with Garland and now ACB is unacceptable (and I mean that in the literal sense--it cannot be accepted).

[Edit to expand on this--it's one thing for us cis white guys to shrug, but this behavior has had and will continue to have extreme negative consequences on a lot of folks. That they were appointed undemocratically for likely decades-long terms is, again, literally unacceptable.]

[malchior]

In my experience, politicians appoint a commission when they want to give lip service to an idea but have no real interest in touching it....so I'm taking this as a good sign.

Doing nothing is only a good sign if you prefer political instability in spades. Though I think you're right it'll split the coalition which is going to be fragile to begin with. Nothing will happen and we'll fall further into the abyss.

Edit: Good little clip to put this abominable and inexcusable abuse use of power in perspective.

[noxiousdog]

There's not any evidence, yet, that the conservative court is going to be a disaster. You don't go changing your government on hunches.

[El Guapo]

For the Democrats to do nothing about the courts after a successful decades long push to create a conservative judiciary, and particularly after McConnell blockaded lower court judges and a SCOTUS justice in order to create openings for McConnell to fill, would be idiotic. Unfortunately that's what's probably going to happen, at least until it's too late (when the SCOTUS starts gutting progressive legislation in partisan rulings in 2023), but they really do need to do something.

The part I'm struggling with is that straight 'court packing' (just adding four justices, say) is both problematic and a short-term solution (e.g., the GOP would just expand the majority the first chance they got, and due to the anti-democratic structure of the Senate they'll have full control more frequently than the Democrats). Also the SCOTUS justice replacement process is broken and needs to be fixed before we start seeing 33 year old political operatives appointed to lifetime terms.

There were a few SCOTUS reform plans kicked around in the Democratic primary - Buttigieg recommended a plan that I think was something like Democrats appoint 5 justices, Republicans appoint 5, and those 10 pick 5 remaining justices. I don't know that that's exactly the plan that I would come up with, but what I want the Biden commission to do is to think of a good reform plan that addresses both what the GOP has done over the past few years and puts in place a new and better SCOTUS nomination process as well.

One issue is that just adding justices is clearly constitutional, whereas more reform-oriented plans may or may not be (especially since I assume that they would be decided by the 6-3 SCOTUS at the end of the day).

[Zaxxon]

There's not any evidence, yet, that the conservative court is going to be a disaster. You don't go changing your government on hunches.

There's ample evidence that the GOP has abused the system.

[Paingod]

There's not any evidence, yet, that the conservative court is going to be a disaster. You don't go changing your government on hunches.

Behavior patterns based on personal beliefs and past actions don't specifically equate to "hunches"

I'd rather the imbalance the GOP created by fucking with Obama's last term and his appointees along with the final appointment against their own rules be rectified by Democrats immediately than wait to see if the right-sided (no longer leaning) court strikes down environmental regulations, healthcare options, and women's rights and trying to fix it after that.

[noxiousdog]

You guys sound like Fox News.

Let's break all the rules and norms because the other side is evil! (tm)

[malchior]

There's not any evidence, yet, that the conservative court is going to be a disaster. You don't go changing your government on hunches.

The *already* Conservative court has been a complete mess that has been compounding itself. They gutted the VRA, they gutted anti-gerrymandering efforts, they gutted campaign finance reform, etc. ACA was only saved because Roberts threw himself on the sword to protect the legitimacy of the court. There is a extremely high bordering on certainty that they'll do something that'll blow a hole through the constitutional order. That doesn't require a hunch. It requires only thinking 2 or 3 moves down the board.

You guys sound like Fox News.

Let's break all the rules and norms because the other side is evil! (tm)

Go talk to minorities or other disadvantages groups. They are terrified right now. And it is hilarious you are pointing at norms when they've been smashed almost unilaterally by one group and then you call out the other when they contemplate reacting.

[noxiousdog]

There's not any evidence, yet, that the conservative court is going to be a disaster. You don't go changing your government on hunches.

The *already* Conservative court has been a complete mess that has been compounding itself. They gutted the VRA, they gutted anti-gerrymandering efforts, they gutted campaign finance reform, etc. ACA was only saved because Roberts threw himself on the sword to protect the legitimacy of the court. There is a extremely high bordering on certainty that they'll do something that'll blow a hole through the constitutional order. That doesn't require a hunch. It requires only thinking 2 or 3 moves down the board.

Nothing stops congress from passing a new and improved voting rights act or ACA.

I'll grant you gerrymandering.

Campaign finance is overrated and a free speech issue. It also isn't the end of the world.

You guys sound like Fox News.

Let's break all the rules and norms because the other side is evil! (tm)

Go talk to minorities or other disadvantages groups. They are terrified right now.

Sure, delegitimizing government is a great way to make people feel secure.

edit: It's pretty simple, if Roe or Obergefell is overturned, Congress can make a law reinstating it. At that point, I'll listen about what to do with the courts.

[malchior]

Nothing stops congress from passing a new and improved voting rights act or ACA.

This is pretty disconnected from reality. Say the Democrats take the Senate. Would removing the norm of the filibuster be ok in your framework?

I'll grant you gerrymandering.

Campaign finance is overrated and a free speech issue. It also isn't the end of the world.

You seem to take these thing one at time when it is the total weight of the impacts that is the point. They've been ensuring that the GOP can retain power even as their share of the vote diminishes. Maybe they'll lose the WH this year but unless the Senate is changed then nothing beyond laws tolerable to the right will pass. We'll be returning to hostage negotiation as a governmental model.

Sure, delegitimizing government is a great way to make people feel secure.

edit: It's pretty simple, if Roe or Obergefell is overturned, Congress can make a law reinstating it. At that point, I'll listen about what to do with the courts.

The Republicans have been delegitimizing Democratic rule for decades right in front of us. They have been building out a plan to ensure a permanent counter-majoritarian system in plain sight. They've even said it out loud. Waiting until they get the job done is hardly smart.

[El Guapo]

There's not any evidence, yet, that the conservative court is going to be a disaster. You don't go changing your government on hunches.

The *already* Conservative court has been a complete mess that has been compounding itself. They gutted the VRA, they gutted anti-gerrymandering efforts, they gutted campaign finance reform, etc. ACA was only saved because Roberts threw himself on the sword to protect the legitimacy of the court. There is a extremely high bordering on certainty that they'll do something that'll blow a hole through the constitutional order. That doesn't require a hunch. It requires only thinking 2 or 3 moves down the board.

Nothing stops congress from passing a new and improved voting rights act or ACA.

I'll grant you gerrymandering.

Campaign finance is overrated and a free speech issue. It also isn't the end of the world.

Yeah, there is something that would stop a new improved ACA or voting rights act - it's a 6 justice conservative majority. SCOTUS already gutted the Voting Rights Act which was not viewed as constitutionally problematic prior to that ruling. The prior challenge to the ACA was already pretty aggressive; the new one is even stupider, yet it's being taken seriously because of the composition of the court. And McConnell has already been nakedly partisan about this process in how he handled Garland vs. Barrett. So what's the reason for Democrats to wait until after the damage has been done?

On top of that, if they wait they may well lose their ability to do something about it for a very long time. Assuming that they win control in 2020, they will only be guaranteed full control through 2022. The Senate is structured against them, the House to some degree as well due to gerrymandering. On top of that the SCOTUS has already declined to address gerrymandering (and one can imagine how a 6-3 conservative court is going to treat legislative gerrymandering solutions), and the other week we saw 4 justices willing to overturn a state court interpretation of state law to make it harder to vote. If the Democrats do nothing about the courts, we could easily wind up in a situation where Democrats narrowly lose the Senate in 2022, gerrymandering gives the GOP almost permanent majorities in key swing states (WI, NC, FL, etc.,), those states restrict voting to create GOP friendly electorates in those states, which is then blessed by the SCOTUS (and efforts to expand voting in Democratic states are struck down), and those restrictions plus the GOP friendly bias in the Senate mean that the Democrats are powerless to do anything in response as the court guts any remotely progressive legislation, even as Democrats regularly get more overall votes for the House, Senate, and presidency.

[noxiousdog]

The Republicans have been delegitimizing Democratic rule for decades right in front of us. They have been building out a plan to ensure a permanent counter-majoritarian system in plain sight. They've even said it out loud. Waiting until they get the job done is hardly smart.

Right. Which is why you've seen the historic conservatives on this board switch sides. They are absolutely alienating their constituents. It's not just Trump; it's everything.

Let's at least see how badly they get destroyed in this election before we start changing the government.

(re: filibuster - haven't given it much thought)

[NickAragua]

Sure, delegitimizing government is a great way to make people feel secure.

Let's be honest, government has already been de-legitimized. In order to restore trust in the government, substantive reforms are needed. We'll discuss the urgency of those reforms after the election, because at this point, said discussion is somewhat academic. But they'd need to happen quickly, in order
to negate the "spiked punch" inherited from the current administration and last six years of political maneuvering. You don't turn the steering wheel *after* you've crashed your car, you turn it before.

[Zaxxon]

Let's at least see how badly they get destroyed in this election before we start changing the government.

This is fair. But IMO it would have to be a historically significant destruction to bring any sense of relief (think Biden winning Texas and therefore every battleground state, cruising to a ~410 electoral vote victory with no legitimate challenges to the succession, followed quickly by the GOP undergoing a major overhaul). That might indicate that the electorate has changed significantly to withstand GOP gerrymandering, etc.

But since that is not at all likely to happen, it's also fair to have these discussions about how to react back in reality.

[noxiousdog]

Let's at least see how badly they get destroyed in this election before we start changing the government.

This is fair. But IMO it would have to be a historically significant destruction to bring any sense of relief (think Biden winning Texas and therefore every battleground state, cruising to a ~410 electoral vote victory with no legitimate challenges to the succession, followed quickly by the GOP undergoing a major overhaul). That might indicate that the electorate has changed significantly to withstand GOP gerrymandering, etc.

But since that is not at all likely to happen, it's also fair to have these discussions about how to react back in reality.

It's more likely than you think. According to 538 Georgia, Ohio, are Iowa 50/50.

Texas is now 1:3 and the polling has been mixed.

If I recall correctly the 2022 Senate is even more awful for Republicans.

[Zaxxon]

Let's at least see how badly they get destroyed in this election before we start changing the government.

This is fair. But IMO it would have to be a historically significant destruction to bring any sense of relief (think Biden winning Texas and therefore every battleground state, cruising to a ~410 electoral vote victory with no legitimate challenges to the succession, followed quickly by the GOP undergoing a major overhaul). That might indicate that the electorate has changed significantly to withstand GOP gerrymandering, etc.

But since that is not at all likely to happen, it's also fair to have these discussions about how to react back in reality.

It's more likely than you think. According to 538 Georgia, Ohio, are Iowa 50/50.

Texas is now 1:3 and the polling has been mixed.

If I recall correctly the 2022 Senate is even more awful for Republicans.

Don't tease me.

[malchior]

On top of that, if they wait they may well lose their ability to do something about it for a very long time. Assuming that they win control in 2020, they will only be guaranteed full control through 2022. The Senate is structured against them, the House to some degree as well due to gerrymandering. On top of that the SCOTUS has already declined to address gerrymandering (and one can imagine how a 6-3 conservative court is going to treat legislative gerrymandering solutions), and the other week we saw 4 justices willing to overturn a state court interpretation of state law to make it harder to vote. If the Democrats do nothing about the courts, we could easily wind up in a situation where Democrats narrowly lose the Senate in 2022, gerrymandering gives the GOP almost permanent majorities in key swing states (WI, NC, FL, etc.,), those states restrict voting to create GOP friendly electorates in those states, which is then blessed by the SCOTUS (and efforts to expand voting in Democratic states are struck down), and those restrictions plus the GOP friendly bias in the Senate mean that the Democrats are powerless to do anything in response as the court guts any remotely progressive legislation, even as Democrats regularly get more overall votes for the House, Senate, and presidency.

I'm not too sure people are really understanding the political math here. To have a path out of this mess, we have to start with the Democrats taking the Senate this year and then somehow getting major reform done in 2 years. That's an extremely tall order.

We'll know in about a week if avoiding maximal obstruction is certain at all. Though they might get devious smart and trend back to legislating in more toward the middle to let the courts do the dirty work. It is hard to know yet what the strategy will be. In any case, I don't see this election as anything but preventing the near immediate collapse of the system (<4 years) if Trump prevails. If Biden wins and they get the Senate, there is a chance to stabilize. If Biden wins and they don't get the Senate, the 2024 election has a good chance to be an exercise in complete bedlam as everyone is just incredibly frustrated with a broken system.

If I recall correctly the 2022 Senate is even more awful for Republicans.

No it's the opposite. We're close to no year being a good year for the Democrats in the Senate. It is why the call to add DC and Puerto Rico have been so loud. Power keeps concentrating into fewer hands year after year.

[Little Raven]

And it is hilarious you are pointing at norms when they've been smashed almost unilaterally by one group and then you call out the other when they contemplate reacting.

But here's the thing....Republican power games have decimated their party. We used to have a fair number of conservatives around here....no more. They all jumped ship over the last decade. You have senior party officials...people who have given their lives to the Republican Party...calling for it to be burned to the ground and restarted. Smashing all of these norms has left them in danger of losing Texas.

Why on Earth would anyone look at these guys and think..."Yeah....we should start doing what's THEY'VE been doing." Biden is absolutely crushing it on the promise of restoring norms and civility. There's no need to let our own bull loose in the china shop.

[El Guapo]

On top of that, if they wait they may well lose their ability to do something about it for a very long time. Assuming that they win control in 2020, they will only be guaranteed full control through 2022. The Senate is structured against them, the House to some degree as well due to gerrymandering. On top of that the SCOTUS has already declined to address gerrymandering (and one can imagine how a 6-3 conservative court is going to treat legislative gerrymandering solutions), and the other week we saw 4 justices willing to overturn a state court interpretation of state law to make it harder to vote. If the Democrats do nothing about the courts, we could easily wind up in a situation where Democrats narrowly lose the Senate in 2022, gerrymandering gives the GOP almost permanent majorities in key swing states (WI, NC, FL, etc.,), those states restrict voting to create GOP friendly electorates in those states, which is then blessed by the SCOTUS (and efforts to expand voting in Democratic states are struck down), and those restrictions plus the GOP friendly bias in the Senate mean that the Democrats are powerless to do anything in response as the court guts any remotely progressive legislation, even as Democrats regularly get more overall votes for the House, Senate, and presidency.

I'm not too sure people are really understanding the political math here. To have a path out of this mess, we have to start with the Democrats taking the Senate this year and then somehow getting major reform done in 2 years. That's an extremely tall order.

We'll know in about a week if avoiding maximal obstruction is certain at all. Though they might get devious smart and trend back to legislating in more toward the middle to let the courts do the dirty work. It is hard to know yet what the strategy will be. In any case, I don't see this election as anything but preventing the near immediate collapse of the system (<4 years) if Trump prevails. If Biden wins and they get the Senate, there is a chance to stabilize. If Biden wins and they don't get the Senate, the 2024 election has a good chance to be an exercise in complete bedlam as everyone is just incredibly frustrated with a broken system.

If I recall correctly the 2022 Senate is even more awful for Republicans.

No it's the opposite. We're close to no year being a good year for the Democrats in the Senate. It is why the call to add DC and Puerto Rico have been so loud. Power keeps concentrating into fewer hands year after year.

Yeah, a *lot* depends not just on the presidency, but also on the Senate. One problem is that a Biden presidency + a Senate with 50 - 51 Democrats would simultaneously raise the urgency of acting (because the majority becomes more perilous / unstable), but also narrow the ability to act (because you have to get Joe Manchin and/or Jon Tester on board).

Is the 2022 Senate map terrible? Democrats didn't win their aggressive races that year for the most part, so I wouldn't think it would be that bad. But probably not as good as this map (and by the nature of it being partway through an incumbent presidency, the political winds will probably have shifted at least slightly back towards Republicans).

[El Guapo]

Also, how doable is adding PR as a state? What's the current state of public opinion in Puerto Rico on statehood?

[malchior]

And it is hilarious you are pointing at norms when they've been smashed almost unilaterally by one group and then you call out the other when they contemplate reacting.

But here's the thing....Republican power games have decimated their party. We used to have a fair number of conservatives around here....no more. They all jumped ship over the last decade. You have senior party officials...people who have given their lives to the Republican Party...calling for it to be burned to the ground and restarted. Smashing all of these norms has left them in danger of losing Texas.

They haven't been decimated. They've been replaced by even more radical people.

Why on Earth would anyone look at these guys and think..."Yeah....we should start doing what's THEY'VE been doing." Biden is absolutely crushing it on the promise of restoring norms and civility. There's no need to let our own bull loose in the china shop.

No one is calling for them to do what the Republicans are doing but they need to reform this system. It is sick and broken. And the reform required is going to look increasingly radical as the system distorts.

[Little Raven]

They haven't been decimated. They've been replaced by even more radical people.

I mean, I guess we'll see. But this was supposed to be an easy year for the GOP in the Senate...now they're expected to lose. They've lost the House, and their losses look like they're going to deepen. Trump appears on track for a historic beating. The Republican Party is smaller than it has been at any point in my lifetime.

They're getting crushed out there.

[malchior]

Timely data point about the already Conservative Supreme court making decisions with electoral impact with no explanation. By the numbers, the Supreme Court is acting differently already.

At least nine times since April, the Supreme Court has issued rulings in election disputes. Or perhaps “rulings” is too generous a word for those unsigned orders, which addressed matters as consequential as absentee voting during the pandemic in Alabama, South Carolina and Texas, and the potential disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of people with felony convictions in Florida.

Most of the orders, issued on what scholars call the court’s “shadow docket,” did not bother to supply even a whisper of reasoning.

“This idea of unexplained, unreasoned court orders seems so contrary to what courts are supposed to be all about,” said Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a law professor at Harvard. “If courts don’t have to defend their decisions, then they’re just acts of will, of power. They’re not even pretending to be legal decisions.”

The orders were responses to emergency applications, and they were issued quickly, without full briefing or oral arguments (hence the “shadow docket”).

Compare the shadow docket with the court’s regular docket, the one with real briefs, arguments and elaborate signed opinions. On that docket — the “merits docket” — the court ordinarily agrees to hear about 1 percent of the petitions asking it to intercede. In its last term, it decided just 53 merits cases.

If the court is going to treat emergency applications with something like equal care, it might consider explaining what it is doing. Explaining, Judge Frank H. Easterbrook wrote in 2000, is what distinguishes judges from politicians.

“The political branches of government claim legitimacy by election, judges by reason,” he wrote. “Any step that withdraws an element of the judicial process from public view makes the ensuing decision look more like fiat, which requires compelling justification.” Terse rulings on emergency applications are not new. But “the shadow docket has truly exploded in the last few years,” Stephen I. Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas, wrote on Scotusblog last week.

The Trump administration has been a major contributor to the trend, Professor Vladeck wrote, having filed 36 emergency applications in its first three and a half years. By contrast, the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama filed just eight such applications over 16 years.

More recently, emergency applications in voting cases have spiked. Lower courts have struggled to make sense of the court’s orders, which are something less than precedents but nonetheless cannot be ignored by responsible judges.

Is it possible to trace some themes in the court’s election orders? Sure.

One is that Republicans tend to win. Another, as Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote in a concurring opinion this month, speaking only for himself, is that “federal courts ordinarily should not alter state election rules in the period close to an election.”

He cited the 2006 ruling that has come to stand for that proposition, Purcell v. Gonzalez. Or perhaps “ruling” is too generous a word, as Purcell itself was an unsigned, cryptic, tentative and equivocal product of the court’s shadow docket. It has given rise to a “shadow doctrine,” Professor Stephanopoulos wrote last month in an essay on Take Care, a legal blog.

[malchior]

They haven't been decimated. They've been replaced by even more radical people.

I mean, I guess we'll see. But this was supposed to be an easy year for the GOP in the Senate...now they're expected to lose. They've lost the House, and their losses look like they're going to deepen. Trump appears on track for a historic beating. The Republican Party is smaller than it has been at any point in my lifetime.

They're getting crushed out there.

You're looking at this through a pinhole. The elections matter far less than they should. It's more important to look at how the power compared to their legitimacy - measured in votes - is applied. It's far, far, far out of whack. This is the crux of what most of us are talking about. The system is concentrating power into fewer hands. They don't need to win all the elections. They just need to win the right elections. And winning those elections makes them more radical. Measuring their success against winning general election versus how and what they actually turning into action is completely misleading.

[Zaxxon]

And it is hilarious you are pointing at norms when they've been smashed almost unilaterally by one group and then you call out the other when they contemplate reacting.

But here's the thing....Republican power games have decimated their party. We used to have a fair number of conservatives around here....no more. They all jumped ship over the last decade. You have senior party officials...people who have given their lives to the Republican Party...calling for it to be burned to the ground and restarted. Smashing all of these norms has left them in danger of losing Texas.

They haven't been decimated. They've been replaced by even more radical people.

This. I mean, we can say they've been decimated, and certainly lots of folks have left. But we are in the middle of a pandemic that has absolutely ravaged the country and is clearly and unambiguously due in large part to historically inept or corrupt leadership by the GOP (take your pick as to which adjective you prefer). The President is openly calling for voter intimidation and casting doubt on the electoral process. And Trump has a legit shot to either win (12% per 538 today) or at least not lose terribly badly. And even if he does lose he'll receive a fairly competitive percentage of the popular vote.

We are broken. That's maybe a separate discussion since it won't be solved by rejiggering the courts or adding a state or two. But it's absolutely the case that something needs to be done to restore a democratic order to our system. When SC justices are appointed to lifetime terms without those appointing them having been elected by the popular will of the people (but rather by some hodgepodge system that allows a minority to structurally remain competitive), that's worth discussing. Especially when that same system is reasonably likely to make the next two years a flash in the pan.

I think we'd all prefer that the electorate simply grow out of this system, but it also seems like a stretch to me for the Ds to just assume that this will happen and take a business-as-usual approach. Again, it's easy for those of us here on this board (generally white, generally straight, generally reasonably secure in our place in the world) to get [Susan Collins]concerned[/Susan Collins] when talk of major changes come up. But we aren't generally the ones getting screwed by the present system.

[malchior]

But we aren't generally the ones getting screwed infected and killed by Coronavirus by the present system.

Just to make the point...pointier.

[Little Raven]

As your article points out, this is mostly a response to the Administration behaving differently.

The Trump administration has been a major contributor to the trend, Professor Vladeck wrote, having filed 36 emergency applications in its first three and a half years. By contrast, the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama filed just eight such applications over 16 years.

The Court is just doing what it is supposed to do. It issues rulings. If it gets an emergency application, then it issues an unsigned order. A Liberal court would be doing exactly the same thing.

The system is broken, but the Court is not. Congress is doing nothing - each Congress does less than the last. Presidents are doing too much - partly because Congress is doing nothing, partly because we elected an idiot into office. I'm all for fixing the system, but understand where the problem lies.

[malchior]

As your article points out, this is mostly a response to the Administration behaving differently.

The Trump administration has been a major contributor to the trend, Professor Vladeck wrote, having filed 36 emergency applications in its first three and a half years. By contrast, the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama filed just eight such applications over 16 years.

The Court is just doing what it is supposed to do. It issues rulings. If it gets an emergency application, then it issues an unsigned order. A Liberal court would be doing exactly the same thing.

The Trump administration is doing it because they think they'll win these emergency orders. Your theory on all this is bizarrely focused on the process without the necessary context. This is like we have a factory turning out sausages. One day we find out that our logistics chain got bought up by our local cannibals and they started delivering bodies from the cemetery instead of pork from the slaughterhouse. And you'd point out it still came out a sausage so it is all fine. The factory has no choice but to make those sausages!

The system is broken, but the Court is not. Congress is doing nothing - each Congress does less than the last. Presidents are doing too much - partly because Congress is doing nothing, partly because we elected an idiot into office. I'm all for fixing the system, but understand where the problem lies.

I wouldn't say the problem starts with Congress by itself. There are major problems with the Senate and a less critically flawed imbalance in the House due to gerrymandering. There is also an EC imbalance. Which is exactly what several of us have been saying the entire time. Each of these interlocks with each other. There isn't one problem. We could have solved one problem. This is a widespread attack on the system. The GOP has been intentionally work to press their advantage to exploit the flaws in the system. And we're getting to the critical period now.

[El Guapo]

They haven't been decimated. They've been replaced by even more radical people.

I mean, I guess we'll see. But this was supposed to be an easy year for the GOP in the Senate...now they're expected to lose. They've lost the House, and their losses look like they're going to deepen. Trump appears on track for a historic beating. The Republican Party is smaller than it has been at any point in my lifetime.

They're getting crushed out there.

This was not supposed to be an easy year for the GOP in the senate. These are the senators who were elected in 2014, which was a decidedly pro-GOP year - they picked up *nine* Senate seats from the Democrats that year. This was always going to be a year where it'd be tough for the GOP to gain, and now in a very pro-Democratic year the Democrats will be happy if they pick up 5 or 6 seats.

[Unagi]

I'm pretty sure this would take an amendment/ratification, so it will not happen:

No. The size of the court is set by Congress. If the Democrats control both houses, then there's nothing stopping them from making the Court whatever size they want.

Not sure you read what I was proposing.
I was saying that the House should have a say (vote) on nominations

[Little Raven]

Not sure you read what I was proposing.
I was saying that the House should have a say (vote) on nominations

Oh, sorry. Yeah, THAT would require an Amendment.

[RunningMn9]

You guys sound like Fox News.

Let's break all the rules and norms because the other side is evil! (tm)

How much longer is only one side going to be expected to play by the rules? That’s what got us here.

The idea that there are “supposed” to be 9 supremes is essentially made up. When the GOP needed it to be 8, they made it 8.

If you constantly let your opponent wield power ruthlessly, while you wield yours timidly, what is the point?

I think that adding Supremes is a risky move because without expanding the Senate, it will just get expanded again when the GOP gains control. And you’re off to the races.

But the Democratic Party has to do SOMETHING to address what Mitch McConnell has done to the federal judiciary.

[Little Raven]

If you constantly let your opponent wield power ruthlessly, while you wield yours timidly, what is the point?

Winning?

I mean, if you look around the country, the Democrats are winning. We've been winning for the last 30 years. The country is farther to the left than it has ever been. Weed is legal in lots of states - and Biden may well repeal the Federal ban. Gay marriage is the law of the land. Trans rights are more widely respected than ever. The ACA is far from perfect, but it's the closest to a national health care plan we've ever managed. Online providers are finally deplatforming right wing groups. Republican power games have destroyed their party and gotten them virtually nothing in the way of substantial policy gains. Republicans have to go back to Reagan to find an example of a successful Republican president, while Obama and Clinton are both looked at fondly by much of the country.

I know it's popular to talk about how we're turning in to Gilead. But there's virtually no evidence of that on the ground. We're winning.

[noxiousdog]

+1

[Smoove_B]

Is this where I say that I'm so tired of winning? Because if this is what winning feels like, it sucks.

A reminder that the GOP is currently trying to ram a justice through because they believe the 2020 Presidential election is going to be so close that it will need to go to the Supreme Court. Failing that, they've installed someone that will absofuckinglutely continue the war on women's health.

[Paingod]

If we're winning so handily, how the hemorrhaging hell did someone like Trump end up as President and why is the Senate a majority Republican despite being the social minority? If we're winning, why is the SCOTUS heavily partisan and about to become 6-3 against the "winning" agendas? If we're winning, why wasn't Trump impeached and convicted? If we're winning why have we been enjoying race riots? Why have we lost over 215,000 civilians in the Republican war on logic?

It sure as fuck doesn't feel like winning just because weed might get legalized in some more places and social justice is creeping in everywhere the GOP can't stamp it out. I don't want to marginalize gay marriage and trans rights as a good step forward, but I feel like those were inevitable progress and not hard-fought battles with victory stamped over them. Those little steps, too, depended largely on the courts to force into being, right?

Where are the courts now? How precarious is the ACA?

No. I don't feel like we're "winning" - not when one side can stand in the open and be so morally bankrupt and still have authority.

[NickAragua]

I do have to say I find the idea of arguments in front of a panel of 13 supreme court justices (then 15 during the next president then 17 during the next, and before you know it we've got ourselves basically a House of Lords) mildly amusing.