Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Leaving willingly because you know your replacement will be somebody on your side. If Trump wins, there's an outside chance that Breyer dies or leaves, but it's unlikely. Thomas gets swapped out one for one. At best, the GOP picks up another seat. If Biden wins, no Conservative justice is going anywhere anytime soon. Breyer retires and is replaced, resulting in zero net change.
What I said wasn't wrong, but as always there's complexities to these things. The Dems have zero chance of replacing a Conservative justice with a Liberal one.
RBG's seat is the only SCOTUS seat on the ballot. All I'm suggesting is that we take that seat off the ballot.
The fact that the Justices are trying to time their exits to coincide with the presidencies of either Republicans or Democrats tells me that the Court is already too politicized. I never want to get to the place where there's a rule, spoken or unspoken, that Justices must only be replaced by others who share their political leanings. They should be replaced as slots open up, as in fact has happened now.
As to your middle point, that the Dems won't be able to replace a conservative Justice with a liberal one . . . does this mean that the Republicans shouldn't be able to replace a liberal Justice with a conservative one, if the opportunity arises -- which in fact it has?
Honestly, we could solve this problem by saying that Supreme Court justices must serve a fixed term (20 years sounds right to me) and then retire, and that they are to be replaced by whatever president and senate is in office at the time. This wouldn't work if a Justice dies in office, but otherwise it would go a long way toward mitigating some of the issues regarding replacements that we're having now.
For the Supreme Court, McConnell eliminated the 60% majority rule for a SCOTUS nominee to a simple majority.
Harry Reid (D-NV) eliminated the 60% majority rule for lower court nominees to a simple majority. It apparently never occurred to him that a move that was intended to reduce the power of the opposition party might someday be used against his own party. But I don't think the GOP should be hindered by Harry Reid's shortsightedness.
The fact that the Justices are trying to time their exits to coincide with the presidencies of either Republicans or Democrats tells me that the Court is already too politicized. I never want to get to the place where there's a rule, spoken or unspoken, that Justices must only be replaced by others who share their political leanings. They should be replaced as slots open up, as in fact has happened now.
As to your middle point, that the Dems won't be able to replace a conservative Justice with a liberal one . . . does this mean that the Republicans shouldn't be able to replace a liberal Justice with a conservative one, if the opportunity arises -- which in fact it has?
Honestly, we could solve this problem by saying that Supreme Court justices must serve a fixed term (20 years sounds right to me) and then retire, and that they are to be replaced by whatever president and senate is in office at the time. This wouldn't work if a Justice dies in office, but otherwise it would go a long way toward mitigating some of the issues regarding replacements that we're having now.
Can you blame them? Precedent used to mean something but lately it means nothing.
As in every Senate contest, only 1/3 of the Senator seats were up in 2018 and mostly in Red states. In Florida - the swing state, the seat was won by a 50.1% vote. I wouldn't say that Senate election was representative that the people of our entire country spoke.
For the Supreme Court, McConnell eliminated the 60% majority rule for a SCOTUS nominee to a simple majority.
Every move is a power play move by him. Good for him, maybe you if you like Trump, but not for the country. Our country is getting more and more divided with these partisan driven moves, and both China and Russia will be cheering as our country splits apart. I don't necessarily mind if Barbara Lagoa is appointed to the court. If Ginsburg had passed away last year, we'd already have had this happen and we'd had move on. The Kavanaugh show was mainly as a result because the Democrats were p*ssed from Garland.
I just dislike the politics behind by Mitch McConnell especially from 2016-2020. Likewise, I hope the Democrats take the high road, but I see them throwing a big fight and it will likely hurt them in the long run.
If there is a dominant conservative majority and if Obamacare is repealed, more Americans will suffer but hopefully Congress and the President (whether its Trump or Biden) will work together on a new healthcare law that is better.
No he didn't Reid eliminated the 60% majority rule.Thanks Harry.
I won't even comment on the posts celebrating the death of a SCJ. Their words are all we need to know about them.
Let's get back to the Senate and their plans to ram through a new SCJ. Here is their chance to show me that they do in fact have a soul and back up their own words.
“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.”
Mitch McConnell, March 2016.
2018, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.”
“I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.”
~Lindsey Graham
2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term - I would say that if it was a Republican president.”
2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”
2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”
2016, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”
2016, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”
2016, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”
2016, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”
2016, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”
2016, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”
Unless I missed it I didn't see anyone address this so I'll give the conservatives another chance.
Status:
"Let this year be over..."
(set 22 days ago)
Location: Where my bills arrive
19,219 posts, read 17,095,590 times
Reputation: 15538
Quote:
Originally Posted by bus man
Harry Reid (D-NV) eliminated the 60% majority rule for lower court nominees to a simple majority. It apparently never occurred to him that a move that was intended to reduce the power of the opposition party might someday be used against his own party. But I don't think the GOP should be hindered by Harry Reid's shortsightedness.
And why should they get a pass? Like most things decisions can cut both ways and if will now bite his own party in the a**, oh well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
