I heard an interesting argument about expanding SCOTUS to something like 36 justices. The idea is that they would operate something like the appellate courts where in most cases you'd have a smaller number of judges ruling (rather than the total number of those on the bench for that particular appellate court) and in only a very small set of cases would you have the full set of justices ruling on the matter. The reasoning behind this is that a very small percentage of the cases appealed to SCOTUS are ever heard. By expanding the court to 36 justices, you'd be able to hear over 4 times the number of cases that SCOTUS currently does, and then a select number of those could be heard en banc. I'm not sold on the idea that this is a better solution to the current court, but I also admit that I can't think of any overwhelming reasons why our current system is preferrable to it.
Again, the question is what do you expect Biden to nominate? The person will be a corporatist, bank loving, mostly conservative judge. Yes, they will probably be better on abortion. GLBT rights would be questionable. They are probably going to be for the dismantling of affirmative action protections. They are probably going to be tolerant of government intrusion into our lives, and the dismantling of neutrality on the internet. They will get a rubber stamp because we fixed all problems by electing Biden. Maybe one of the reasons I am not so horrified by RBGs death in a political sense is we are not going to get a justice that wants to protect people over corporations. RBG seemed pretty progressive and in defense of the people. In my view no matter who is elected we are going to get a judge that is very corporate friendly and who will differ on a couple of issues. I do not think trump will be able to get a rediculous person like ted cruz nominated because the margin is too slim. I think the end result is going to be pretty much the same, and here is why. A crazy choice will waste the window trump has to get the nomination. So if he nominates a crazy he will drive a couple of republicans away. However, if he nominates a corporate stooge who they can pretend is on the side of religion because he is conservative they might get him through if he is not overly against the social issues like abortion and LBGT work rights. Trump does not care about abortion and RFRAs except where it gets his voters up. He wants a judge who is going to side with corporations and bank money making. He is going to float a conservative corporatist before the election that looks reasonable to independents and rich people. If that does not work we have one of two things that happens. 1 Trump gets re-elected, does not have to please his base anymore, and is going to put a corporate stooge in there because money talks. The dems will pass it because many of them are corporatist. This person will have some small social liberal decisions that they can sell as big. 2. Biden wins. No one is going to be looking because we defeated the giant evil and now Biden will set things right. Biden loves his corporations and bankers more than anyone so we will get the same basic person. They will be a giant corporate stooge with a couple of social liberal plusses to please the masses and pretend they are progressive. The end result is a judge who will uphold the values of citizens united, protect corporations from lawsuits, make watered down decisions on social issues, and support the power of the elite and federal government over the people. I guess I could be wrong and trump floats a loonie, but I think his corporate buddies are telling him to chill and nominate someone they like.
I can agree with this to a certain extent. I think some of the arguments against confirming for Obama become more relevant when we are less than two months away from the election. It is an argument of timing, if you believe that there is a certain time before the election where a SCOTUS nomination should be kicked to the next president. Let us say you made an argument that if in august a SCOTUS nomination will be kicked to the next term automatically. That is not a hypocritical argument of timing. If you want to find hypocrisy you need to find those dems who said a president should be able to nominate someone right up until they leave office. I would say there are probably some of them out there. However, disagreeing with the idea that it was too early to cut off an Obama nomination is not hypocritical to thinking they should cut off nominations until the next president is inaugurated, or if trump is re-elected he can nominate after the election is decided for him. Frankly, I think we should have an actual established cut off on presidential nominations in an election year. It is just a matter of deciding a date. I think letting it be decided on the whims of the house speaker or other person is a load of crap. SCOTUS does not need emergency nominations because it can do it's job without a judge or two.
Fuck. As if the upcoming election wasn't going to be contentious enough. Obviously it bears repeating that the judiciary should not be political and it is a flaw in the system that this is even an issue.
I would just like to point out that FF is being the edgelord troll here. His comments seem to be mostly antagonistic and based on memes and pointless edgelordiness. he is not even backing his opinion. He is just shouting it for reaction. I promote reactions but I also support my point and argue it, and most people do around here also. @Tuckerfan you have made a fine argument and established your point well. You win. I am calling it unless Federal Farmer wants to actually explain himself.
Maybe they should invent a couple of AIs that understands the laws and can understand arguments and come to a decision based on the laws we have established. I would think something like the Magi in evangelion where they can argue amongst themselves. They might even have different personalities. We would probably want to reset them to original status before each case. but until such a thing is an option, a person really cannot be without political bias in how they regard the law. We cannot just strip all the junk out to get an unbiased opinion.
For much of US history, the number of SCOTUS seats was tied to the number of US federal circuit courts. That stands at 13 now. And even the Founders played politics with the number of seats. Adams and the Federalists reduced the number of seats from 6 to 5 so Jefferson couldn't make an open appointment. The number of seats has changed 7 times since inception. Add that to the fact that DC and Puerto Rico both want statehood... and that massive amounts of money are flooding into to battleground states with RBG's death, things could look VERY different two years from now.
Oh, enough with this "both sides" shit. We already have media outlets saying things like "unsurprisingly, the parties have switched positions" and trying to make this into an "a pox on both their houses" situation. Mitch McConnell is the hypocrite. It's not "switching positions" to say "Okay, you declared that this rule was a thing, so live by it."
This is like Thurgood Marshall being replaced by Clarence Thomas. You had a judicial giant being replaced by one of the smallest legal minds to ever enter a courtroom. Trump will pick a woman from the far right. And I wouldn’t be surprised if his instructions are to dismantle the very system of equality and justice under law RBG fought for. A 6-3 judicially active conservative majority is good for corporations on the face of it, and bad for capitalism in practice. It’s also good for religious entities seeking newfound rights, and a nightmare for everyone else looking to uphold the Constitution. It appears that expanding the Supreme Court is the only way to preserve the Constitution many of us hold dear.
I saw a few right wingers trying to say that dismantling the filibuster and expanding the Supreme Court is a bridge too far. That’s rich coming from Mitch McConnell’s political party. Acting as if we live in this genteel time with decorum and respect for precedent. We’re already hurtling towards the situation where 30% of the population will elect 70% of the Senators. That’s a total breakdown of republican (small r) government.
It's so fucking obvious from the outside that a situation where this becomes the norm is unstable in the long term that it's mind boggling to see people defend it.
Ah, 2020. I wonder how things will go when the election is contested and there's an empty seat on the supreme court? It pretty much means that there's no way for half the country to accept the election either way because you can't call an incomplete court legitimate.
Seriously, it's like we're in that scene of "Revenge Of The Sith", where Palps is going "the Jedi must be destrooyyyyed or it will be civiiiill war withooout eeeend!! ". And people like FF are Anakin going "I agree ".
Excuse me but I think you are forgetting the most perfect document ever created of all time: the US Constitution. Checkmate.
Interesting to see how the conservatives have responded to the death of Justice Ginsberg compared to how the liberals responded to the death of Herman Cain. https://wordforge.net/index.php?threads/muh-nine-nine-nine-plan.120366/#post-3264917 I mean, not really. But I thought I'd point it out anyhow.
RBG killed herself with covid-19 by being a science denying jackass? No? Oh, okay, then you can shut up and go back to Blue Room then, chucklefuck.
In a perverse sort of way, I'd like to see Cruz nominated (not get the nomination, mind you, just sit in the hotseat and sweat), just to watch AOC make him cry.
Because RBG fought cancer for over a decade to stay on the job. Cain died of stupidity. It's obvious you can't see the difference.
