[btomba_77]

Expand the court Republicans do this because they dont believe Dems have the stones to play hardball like they do. And for a long time theyve been correct. But do not let them bully the public into thinking their bulldozing is normal but a response isnt. There is a legal process for expansion.    ~ Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY)

_______

[link=https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2020/10/27/the-rift-that-could-dominate-the-democratic-party-next-year-490716?nname=playbook&nid=0000014f-1646-d88f-a1cf-5f46b7bd0000&nrid=0000014e-f0ed-dd93-ad7f-f8edad790000&nlid=630318]Playbook[/link]: This kind of rift should not be overlooked, because it will come to dominate governance should Washington turn all blue. AOC is seen as one of Schumer’s top potential primary challengers. The simplicity and bare-knuckled nature of her message could resonate among a Democratic base thats looking for knife fights, not senatorial process arguments. While Schumer and Joe Biden say changing the size of the court is on the table, the left is screaming that it should play by the same rules as the GOP which is to say Democrats should not worry about tradition and instead blow up what they consider the quaint processes that govern official Washington.
 

[ruszja]

He’ll want to reform it right until he realizes that he will probably be able to appoint 3 justices himself. Breyer and Thomas will come up during his term and there is always a chance that one of the others sees their term cut short due to health or family problems.

[clickpenguin_460]

Just to be clear, Republicans did nothing wrong nor anything Democrats wouldn’t have done. 
 
The President is elected for 4 years, not 3 years and 9 months.
 
The Senate confirms justices.
 
It’s fine to be mad that Republicans didn’t even vote on Garland but let’s say they had and voted him down.  Would that have mattered in the Dems angst about “tradition” or whatever?  If Dems had the votes now to vote down ACB, they would have.  Is that traditional?
 
Point being, Republicans did absolutely nothing wrong or against any right, tradition, etc.  Adding justices to the court is an extreme partisan move.
 
Also, it will always be Democrats who will have broken norms and “threatened” our democracy as they love to say if they go through with it.  For example, Trump and the Senate Republicans could have changed the filibuster and added more justices within the last 3 years or even now, but they haven’t and they won’t.
 
Being mad that Trump got to appoint 3 justices isn’t a good reason to change the rules.  Especially when Trump won the election fair and square and had the right to do so.
 
The world does not revolve around liberals and what they want. 
 

[kayla.meyer_144]

Thomas, maybe. Breyer would not change balance, the Court would still be packed even if Biden would replace them both. And the line has been crossed so reasonable Court compromise has been fully executed with 2 bullets to the head by Republicans.
 
Democrats have to learn Republican practices now about exercising power, except this time majority power not minority.
 
It’s going to be a 30+ year war as Republicans extended the war against Johnson’s Civil and Voting Rights Acts. Their minority will not easily give up as we have seen.
 
 

[clickpenguin_460]

It’s not packed currently.  Stop conflating things you don’t like with some sort of injustice or rule breaking.  No line has been crossed. 
 
Exercising pure partisan power would be Dems adding justices.

[kayla.meyer_144]

2 Court members got packed in by Republicans. Merrick Garland should have got a hearing and confirmed during the 9 months period before the national election based on his legal merits which were above reproach and hardly radical. 
 
By the same token, RBG’s seat should not have been considered before the Inauguration as we are talking just days before a national election. The only reason Barrett is confirmed os the fear that Republicans could likely lose the presidency and Senate as McConnell has confirmed.
 
You cannot name a situation where Democrats did anything close to similar as Republicans have done these past 5 years. Name it if you can.
 
This was a pure unadulterated power grab. McConnell has described it so since he was concerned about the clock running out.

[ruszja]

Quote from Frumious

2 Court members got packed in by Republicans. Merrick Garland should have got a hearing and confirmed during the 9 months period before the national election based on his legal merits which were above reproach and hardly radical. 

 
He should have gotten full hearings. And it would have been perfectly acceptable for the senate to vote him down.
 
Neither the refusal to confirm a justice nor the confirmation of a justice during a contested election is ‘packing’ in the way the term has been historically used. That’s just the senate doing its job.
 

[kayla.meyer_144]

Quote from fw

Quote from Frumious

2 Court members got packed in by Republicans. Merrick Garland should have got a hearing and confirmed during the 9 months period before the national election based on his legal merits which were above reproach and hardly radical. 

He should have gotten full hearings. And it would have been perfectly acceptable for the senate to vote him down.

Neither the refusal to confirm a justice nor the confirmation of a justice during a contested election is ‘packing’ in the way the term has been historically used. That’s just the senate doing its job.

Yes, but.
 
The argument against Democrats’ opposition to Republican nominees has been that anyone “qualified” should be confirmed as the President’s choice. That’s been the case for decades of Democrats having hearings and voting. Who has been rejected by Democrats as too radical? Bork? And? Bork was when exactly? Bork got a hearing. And reality is, 1/2 or more of AM’s posters were either not yet born or still in diapers then.
 
And how many Republican candidates have Democrats confirmed? And rejected as too reactionary?
 
So it’s not exactly apples and apples, is it. 
 
This was a pure power play, period. As McConnell said:
[link=https://www.wsj.com/articles/mitch-mcconnells-court-tactics-pay-off-in-amy-coney-barrett-confirmation-11603803032]https://www.wsj.com/artic…nfirmation-11603803032[/link]

With Justice Barretts confirmation expected to [link=https://www.wsj.com/articles/amy-coney-barrett-set-to-be-confirmed-as-supreme-court-justice-11603721947]lock in a 6-3 conservative majority[/link] on the Supreme Court, the Kentucky Republican will have pushed through the confirmation of more than 200 judicial nominees during President Trumps first term. That includes three on the Supreme Court and 53 on appeals courts, nearly matching the total number of appeals-court judges confirmed during President Obamas two terms.
 
[b]Weve made an important contribution to the future of this country, Mr. McConnell said on Sunday. A lot of what weve done over the last four years will be undone, sooner or later, by the next election. Wont be able to do much about this, for a long time to come.[/b]

 
THIS! is the sole reason for changing the rules.
 
Retribution is a 2 way street as McConnell warned. Time to remind Republicans of that as they have escalated things for over a decade now. 
 

[btomba_77]

I view the current issue as a fundamental GOP imbalance in the make-up of the Senate.  
 
The Senate has always, by design, favored smaller states.  It just didn’t add up to a partisan advantage for Republicans until recently.
 
Beginning in the mid 2000s the GOP began able to hold more than 50% of Senate seats while representing less than 50% of the US population. There is no reason to expect that trend to reverse itself without new action.
 
Combine that with a GOP tilt (likely only temporary) that favors them in the Electoral College and you end up with the judiciary moving to the right consistently over time.
 
 
That’s why I favor DC/PR statehood as a senate rebalancing maneuver that will, slowly over time, allom Democrats to hold the senate closer to 50% of the time.   (538 analysis says even with DC/PR statehood the GOP would *still* hold a slight edge relative to the popular vote) 
 
 
The intrinsic EC advantage to the GOP I see as likely to be more temporary. Yes, the upper midwest is trending red, but the sun belt is trending blue and is gaining in population.  It might be ten years before Democrats take an EC advantage … it might only be another 4. .,.. it might be already happening.
 
 

[Unknown Member]

One side changes the the rules a little

The other side changes the rules a lot

Not really an apples to apples argument

So republicans should be careful what theyve wished for

[clickpenguin_460]

So the GOP has a transient EC advantage thus we must change the rules?  Only the Dems are allowed to have advantages?  Give me a break.
 
I’m happy to have a realistic conversation about these topics but trying to change the rules to shift things to one party or the other is just partisan.  The election in a week may end up with a Biden win and Dems having the Senate.  Wouldn’t that mean that Republicans need to “re-balance” things? 
 
As you said, it would only take TX and GA to turn blue and then how should Republicans “re-balance” things?
 
Frumi, I’m also happy to have conversations with you about this when you leave partisan la-la land. 
 
As I said, Garland was qualified but Republicans could have just voted him down.  I agree that they should have held hearings and such but if they knew they were going to vote him down then what was the point?  Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and ACB are also qualified and where was the Dem support?  Sotomayor and Kagan got a lot of Republican support.

[kaldridgewv2211]

read this on twitter.  We’d be better off as a country if you could just replace every single person in the congress.

[ruszja]

Quote from dergon

The Senate has always, by design, favored smaller states.  It just didn’t add up to a partisan advantage for Republicans until recently.

 
The senate and EC were designed so Virginia couldn’t steamroll Rhode Island. Now it exists so California and NY can’t ruin the country for Wyoming. 
It has always been a ‘partisan’ situation.

[Unknown Member]

Funny thing is now California and New York are being steam rollers by West Virginia and Wyoming and Mississippi etc

Not only politically steam rolled but economically steam rolled becaus the big states are the ones who pay most of the taxes to support the taker states

You can make any claim you want but thats just not going to last forever

The founders new their document wasnt perfect so they put in a mechanism to change it

Some things are going to get changed

[ruszja]

Quote from Chirorad84

The founders new their document wasnt perfect so they put in a mechanism to change it

Some things are going to get changed

 
They did. The document has been amended a number of times, if you want to change the balance of power, go ahead and amend it to do so.

[btomba_77]

Quote from fw

Quote from dergon

The Senate has always, by design, favored smaller states.  It just didn’t add up to a partisan advantage for Republicans until recently.

The senate and EC were designed so Virginia couldn’t steamroll Rhode Island. Now it exists so California and NY can’t ruin the country for Wyoming. 
[b]It has always been a ‘partisan’ situation. [/b]

 
No it really hasn’t.  The urban/rural  large/small divide didn’t translate into party ID unil the 21st century.
 
Yes, there were different issues for big states and small states and fights over funding etc … but it wasn’t traditionally “partisan” until recently.
 
 
 

[Unknown Member]

Regardless

The founders knew their document wasnt perfect

Thats why they put a mechanism in place to change it

Minority cannot rule majority for very long

[ruszja]

Quote from Chirorad84

Thats why they put a mechanism in place to change it

Minority cannot rule majority for very long

 
Yup. If you dont like it, change it. 

[kayla.meyer_144]

Yup. Gerrymandering and Electoral College as targets for a start.

[ruszja]

Quote from Frumious

Yup. Gerrymandering and Electoral College as targets for a start.

 
Gerrymandering should be the first thing to go.
 
[attachment=0]

[ruszja]

Or this
 
[attachment=0]

[suman]

At this point the only thing that matters in the election is who ends up controlling the Senate.

[clickpenguin_460]

Gerrymandering was all good until it started giving Republicans some House votes. (Although to be fair, I don’t like it for either party).
 
The only reason these issues even get brought up as plausible is because the mainstream media is happy to do the Dems bidding.

[Unknown Member]

When did the democrats gerrymander?

[clickpenguin_460]

Are you seriously saying that Democrats don’t gerrymander?
 

[Unknown Member]

What examples do you have to show the democrats and republicans are the same

You are the one that brought it up

[clickpenguin_460]

I don’t even know how to possibly measure that across time and geography.  That would take weeks of work.  You can just quickly look at the states that have been Dem controlled for a long time (IL, NY, etc.) and states that have been Rep controlled for a long time (OH, NC, etc.) to see that there’s gerrymandering everywhere.  
 
This is another issue of Dem sour grapes because Republicans control more states, not that Dems don’t do it too or wouldn’t do the same thing if they controlled more states.  Like I said, these things get brought up repeatedly in the media as “problems” because the media is liberal and happy to hold water for the Dems.

[Unknown Member]

Do you know what gerrymandering is?

[jennycullmann]

3 amigos and more: “We aren’t winning. We need to complain more and change the system.”
 
Every other American: “Shut up you loser marxists.”
 
Seriously, this is pathetic.

[btomba_77]

[link]https://youtu.be/oYdpwYbQsPw[/link]
 
Biden on courts today:
 
Bipartisan commission … looking at term limits, rotations from circuit courts to SCOTUS and back
 
 
“not a fan of court packing”   but “this is a serious question” for the 21st century.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Quote from dergon

Quote from fw

Quote from dergon

The Senate has always, by design, favored smaller states.  It just didn’t add up to a partisan advantage for Republicans until recently.

The senate and EC were designed so Virginia couldn’t steamroll Rhode Island. Now it exists so California and NY can’t ruin the country for Wyoming. 
[b]It has always been a ‘partisan’ situation. [/b]

No it really hasn’t.  The urban/rural  large/small divide didn’t translate into party ID unil the 21st century.

Yes, there were different issues for big states and small states and fights over funding etc … but it wasn’t traditionally “partisan” until recently.

I would say it really changed when Obama got elected by a big majority. Two times.
 
Rubbed Republicans the wrong way & the wound has been carefully nursed by angry Republicans since.
 
ODS. Obama Derangement Syndrome. We are still dealing with it as Trump has stated several times in these past 5 years. Remember, Trump started & got elected by questioning whether “that guy” was really born in Africa & not the US.

[btomba_77]

[h1][b]Trump Makes 3 a.m. Plea to Justices[/b][/h1]  
President Trump [link=https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1322070135524495360]made a revealing plea[/link] at 3 a.m. ET to the Supreme Courts justices:
 
If Sleepy Joe Biden is actually elected President, the 4 Justices (plus1) that helped make such a ridiculous win possible would be relegated to sitting on not only a heavily PACKED COURT, but probably a REVOLVING COURT as well. At least the many new Justices will be Radical Left!
 
[link=https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/trump-supreme-court-republican-vote-biden-pack.html]Jonathan Chait[/link]: This is a classic Trump appeal, formulated in terms of self-interest, which is the only form of motivation he believes humans are capable of acting upon. Trump is arguing that the Court should rule in his favor, because if Joe Biden wins, he will dilute the power of its incumbent members either by packing the courts, or by implementing a reform that would rotate federal judges through the Supreme Court.
 

[clickpenguin_460]

I think ballots postmarked by the deadline should be counted within a reasonable time frame.  Personally I think 3-5 days is reasonable but honestly the best solution would be to allow them to count them now so it wouldn’t even matter.
 
The issue I think Trump and Republicans have is this nervousness about “found ballots” after Dems see they are losing since they truly believe that is what happened in several CA House races that they were winning on election night and slowly lost over 2-3 weeks.

[kayla.meyer_144]

[link=https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/trump-supreme-court-republican-vote-biden-pack.html]Jonathan Chait[/link]: This is a classic Trump appeal, formulated in terms of self-interest, which is the only form of motivation he believes humans are capable of acting upon.

 
As TRump is reported to have asked Kelly at Arlington Cemetery,
 
[align=left][b]”I don’t get it. What was in it for them?”[/b][/align]
 

[btomba_77]

[h1][b]Biden Orders Study on Expanding Supreme Court[/b][/h1]  
President Biden on Friday will order a 180-day study of adding seats to the Supreme Court, making good on a campaign-year promise to establish a bipartisan commission to examine the potentially explosive subjects of expanding the court or setting term limits for justices, the [link=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/09/us/politics/biden-supreme-court-packing.html]New York Times[/link] reports.
(Of course, commissions are the typical way to kill an idea in Washington.)
 

[btomba_77]

David Jonas:
[h2][link=https://politicalwire.com/2021/04/12/the-real-reason-to-study-supreme-court-reforms/]Biden’s Commission to Study Supreme Court Reform is really a message to the justices[/link][/h2]

Bidens team knows full well that the Supreme Court is a political body unto itself, and like any political body, there will always be institutionalists inside of it who will trade away policy gains in order to preserve power.

The three justices listed above {John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett} are particularly susceptible to these kinds of [link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brushback_pitch]brushback pitches[/link]. After all, these three cut their teeth as Republican attorneys during the [link=https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/17/politics/bush-v-gore-barrett-kavanaugh-roberts-supreme-court/index.html]2000 Bush/Gore recount[/link]. Theyre well-regarded jurists who have shown sizable political awareness to make it this far in their careers.

Just as important, none of them worked this hard just to have their power and prestige watered down by another six appointees on the bench or to return to private practice in 18 years.

As a result, ordering a big study of all the options on the table is a small but effective way to send a message: dont go too far right, or the gears of Supreme Court reform might start turning without any chance for you to stop it.

 

[kaldridgewv2211]

I heard some Stephen Breyer commentary about being careful what you wish for in regards to court packing/expanding. He should do what RBG shouldve done in 2013. Retire and be replaced. Unfortunately I think most or all of the SCOTUS have egos the size of the moon. Time for term limits.

[btomba_77]

[b]Pelosi Wont Bring Up Bill to Expand Supreme Court[/b][/h1]  
Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she has no plans to bring a Democratic-led bill to expand the Supreme Court to the House floor for a vote, [link=https://thehill.com/homenews/house/548443-pelosi-says-she-wont-bring-bill-to-expand-supreme-court-to-the-floor]The Hill[/link] reports.
 
Said Pelosi: No. I support the presidents commission to study such a proposal, but frankly Im not right now, were back, our members, our committees are working. Were putting together the infrastructure bill and the rest.

 

[btomba_77]

[h2][link=https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/554843-democrats-roe-v-wade-blow-would-fuel-expanding-supreme-court]Democrats Warning: Roe v. Wade blow would fuel expanding Supreme Court[/link][/h2]

It will inevitably fuel and drive an effort to expand the Supreme Court if this activist majority betrays fundamental Constitutional principles, said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  
 
Its already driving that movement, he added.
 
Blumenthal said it doesnt mean that a Congress led by Democrats would immediately be able to add justices to the court, but he suggested it would add momentum to reform efforts at a minimum.
 
Chipping away at Roe v. Wade will precipitate a seismic movement to reform the Supreme Court, he said. It may not be expanding the Supreme Court, it may be making changes to its jurisdiction, or requiring a certain numbers of votes to strike down certain past precedents.
[/QUOTE]
 

[clickpenguin_460]

Not petty at all.  
 
Play a game.  Lose the game.  Proper response?  Play better next time.
 
Bitter, sad response?  Change the rules of the game in you favor.
 
Just sad.  Liberals know that the world doesn’t exist to cave to what they want right?  I guess if you walk around thinking everything you believe in is 100% right and morally superior, you would expect as much.

[btomba_77]

I view it as a simple acknowledgement that the courts are now just one more partisan branch of government.
 
Republicans have known that since Roe and have nearly successfully executed a multi-decade plan focusing on the courts to have their political beliefs enshrined in law.
 
If a big Roe restriction is what it takes to get Democrats equally fired up about controlling the judiciary, so be it.
 
 

[kayla.meyer_144]

The “umpires” have a agenda to favor one team regardless of the games’ rules and laws.

[clickpenguin_460]

Quote from dergon

I view it as a simple acknowledgement that the courts are now just one more partisan branch of government.

Republicans have known that since Roe and have nearly successfully executed a multi-decade plan focusing on the courts to have their political beliefs enshrined in law.

If a big Roe restriction is what it takes to get Democrats equally fired up about controlling the judiciary, so be it.

 
The initial Roe decision was one of the most partisan ever.  It would be only fitting that a partisan decision would overturn it, no?  They literally made up a right that didn’t exist – extremely progressive.
 
I fail to see how adding more justices makes the court less partisan.
 
Perhaps every 4/8/12 years, each party gets to put 4 people on the bench and the president picks the 9th member (with senate confirmation)?  Then you’re guaranteed 5-4 and likely that 9th person being relatively moderate.
 
 

[kayla.meyer_144]

Quote from Cubsfan10

The initial Roe decision was one of the most partisan ever.  It would be only fitting that a partisan decision would overturn it, no?  They literally made up a right that didn’t exist – extremely progressive.

Um, do you ever make an effort to learn history or just blindly believe and parrot what you’re told by right wing partisans and media?
 
How exactly was the decision the “most partisan ever” when the Court was primarily made up of Republicans & appointed by Republicans?

The reality is that in 1973, [i]Roe vs. Wade[/i] was decided by a Court that was comprised of a majority of justices who were [link=https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members.aspx]nominated by Republican presidents.[/link]
 

The vote on [link=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113]Roe vs. Wade[/link] was 7-2. Those justices supporting the cases pro-choice outcome were as follows, including the president nominating each and the presidents party affiliation:

[ul][*]Harry Blackmun (Nixon, R)[*]Warren Burger (Nixon, R)[*]William Douglas (FDR, D)[*]William Brennan (Eisenhower, R)[*]Potter Stewart (Eisenhower, R)[*]Thurgood Marshall (LBJ, D)[*]Lewis Powell (Nixon, R) [/ul]
Those dissenting on [i]Roe vs. Wade [/i] only two and both were not Republican-president-nominated to the Court:

[ul][*]Byron White (Kennedy, D)[*]William Rehnquist (Nixon, R; chief justice under Reagan, R) [/ul]
Nixon nominated four justices. Three concurred on [i]Roe vs. Wade[/i] arguably a decisive factor in the outcome of the case.

The bottom line is that Democratic presidents did not nominate the Supreme Court that produced the [i]Roe vs. Wade[/i] outcome that many evangelical Christians believe a Trump/Republican presidency will reverse.

 

 

[clickpenguin_460]

Everyone agrees Roe was an extremely progressive decision and made up a right that didn’t exist.  Doesn’t matter who nominated the justices.
 
I didn’t think you’d choose that to lose your crap on.  
 
Do you not like my idea for the court assignments?

[kayla.meyer_144]

Republicans will never support your plan. It would further dilute their ability to govern as a minority party.

[btomba_77]

The initial Roe decision was one of the most partisan ever. 

 
It was actually broadly bipartisan.
 

Everyone agrees Roe was an extremely progressive decision and made up a right that didn’t exist.

 
I don’t know who this “everyone” is that you are referring to but … No. They don’t agree.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Quote from dergon

The initial Roe decision was one of the most partisan ever. 

It was actually broadly bipartisan.

Everyone agrees Roe was an extremely progressive decision and made up a right that didn’t exist.

I don’t know who this “everyone” is that you are referring to but … No. They don’t agree.

Support is still broadly bipartisan with the majority supporting the “progressive” decision. To this day.
 
 

[btomba_77]

Now, there is *some* agreement that logic of Roe was a bit twisted and that viability was a bit twisted and that the decision to rule through SCOTUS took the US on a very different journey from other western democracies, nearly all of who have legalized abortion through legislation and who now have broad public acceptance of the practice.

[kayla.meyer_144]

I don’t know. The Voting Rights Act was Federal legislation that’s been essentially neutered by the Supreme Court based on nothing. Hours after the Court ruled against the Act several states enacted legislation to make voting more difficult for specific voters.
 
I rather doubt that Roe v Wade would have been protected & upheld had it Congressional legislation instead of a Court case. 
 
Of course, we’ll still have to see what the Court decides now on its former decision.
 
 

[satyanar]

Quote from dergon

The initial Roe decision was one of the most partisan ever. 

[b]It was actually broadly bipartisan.[/b]

Everyone agrees Roe was an extremely progressive decision and made up a right that didn’t exist.

I don’t know who this “everyone” is that you are referring to but … No. They don’t agree.

 
Ironically the bolded is true and evidence of how even then the court was more of a political branch than purely legal/constitutional.
 
But those were the days of bipartisanship in all branches. Sadly this is gone. Anyway to get it back?
 
 

[satyanar]

Quote from dergon

I view it as a simple acknowledgement that the courts are now just one more partisan branch of government.

Republicans have known that since Roe and have nearly successfully executed a multi-decade plan focusing on the courts to have their political beliefs enshrined in law.

If a big Roe restriction is what it takes to get Democrats equally fired up about controlling the judiciary, so be it.

 
Without reading back I believe this is likely the most accurate post on this thread. Sadly. 
 
I used to have hopes for Roberts. With recent decisions those have vanished.

[btomba_77]

[h3][link=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-10-19/court-packing-will-be-back-on-the-table-if-abortion-is-banned?srnd=premium]The Wild Card That Could Put Court Packing Back on the Table[/link][/h3]
[b]If five conservative justices overturn Roe v. Wade, Biden and Democratic leaders might not have a choice but to support increasing the size of the court. [/b]

Put bluntly, if the court [link=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-09-02/supreme-court-ruling-on-texas-abortion-law-isn-t-death-knell-for-roe?sref=UVSpkXfZ]overturns[/link] Roe v. Wade, all bets are off. That ruling would energize the Democratic base before the 2022 midterms, and if the party continues to control the House and the Senate, their voters will bring enormous pressure to bear on the leadership to restore abortion rights. If, as a practical matter, Biden and Democratic leaders in Congress hold the power to pack the court and restore Roe, it might be politically impossible for them to refuse to do so. 
…

The Democratic leadership, led by Biden, genuinely fears that packing the court would destroy the institution permanently as Republicans would do the same when they got the chance. Whats more, moderate Democrats dont want to bear the political cost of alienating swing voters by such a radical act. At the same time, Biden and the partys congressional leaders cant afford to alienate the Democratic base too much by ignoring growing concerns about the courts conservative turn.
 
The first implicit job of the commission was to calm the waters by listening to all points of view and recommending caution. The commissions second job was to send a message to the Supreme Court justices that the idea of court packing is no longer inconceivable, even if it remains disfavored.

[/QUOTE]
 

[btomba_77]

[h1]Quote of the Day[/h1]  
 
The Senate may have entered an era where the only way to confirm a Supreme Court nominee is the party of the president has to be in control of the Senate. And Im pretty certain that the founders didnt have that in mind.
 
Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND), quoted by the [link=https://www.wsj.com/articles/split-on-judge-jacksons-supreme-court-confirmation-highlights-deepening-partisanship-11648987202]Wall Street Journal[/link].
 

[satyanar]

We figure out whom to blame yet?

[btomba_77]

Quote from Thread Killer

We figure out whom to blame yet?

It’s been a tit for tat escalation since Bork.
 
The more polarized a society becomes, the less effective the legislative branch is in passing laws.  So the courts gain relative power.
 
The Supreme Court is so important and so powerful, both as a symbol and in practice, that the no holds barred approach is going to stick around…. probably at least for decades.

[btomba_77]

[link=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/04/supreme-court-trump-clean-water-act-john-roberts.html]https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/04/supreme-court-trump-clean-water-act-john-roberts.html[/link]

Good read on just how disturbing the Clean Water Act shadow docket ruling by the conservative block is:

The courts order on Wednesday in [i]Louisiana v. American Rivers [/i]is an affront to the Clean Waters Act, federalism, judicial restraint, and common sense. It arises out of a dispute between Donald Trumps Environmental Protection Agency and a coalition of states and tribes.
 
The Clean Water Act, first passed in 1972, is a quintessential example of cooperative federalism: It compels the federal government to work with states and tribes before approving a project that could diminish water quality. In a major 1994 [link=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/511/700/]ruling[/link]one was accompanied by many pages of reasoningthe Supreme Court affirmed states and tribes authority to grant, modify, or deny certification of a potentially destructive energy project, like an oil pipeline or coal export facility.

…Now the Supreme Court has agreed and revived the Trump rulethough we dont know why, because the five-justice majority did not deign to explain its action. This silence left Justice Elena Kagan to issue a bewildered dissent, joined by the chief justice along with Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Kagan pointed out that, by law, the Supreme Court can issue this kind of stay in extraordinary circumstances, when there is an exceptional need for immediate relief, including evidence of irreparable harm. Here, the Trump rules defenders insisted that states were obstructing vital energy projects. But, Kagan wrote, they have not identified a single project that a state has obstructed under the district courts decision or cited a single project that the courts ruling threatens. Put simply, they failed to explain how returning to the pre-Trump regimewhich existed for 50 yearswould hurt them [i]at all[/i].

…

It is remarkable that Roberts, who has joined several shadow docket decisions with no apparent basis in the law, signed onto Kagans dissent. And his support was likely quite important to Kagan. Her opinion seems tailor-made to secure Roberts vote, zeroing in on the most egregious procedural aspect of the majoritys decision while excluding the [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/09/03/shadow-docket-elena-kagan-abortion/]harsher rhetoric[/link] from previous dissents. (She even avoided using the term shadow docket, which the conservatives regard [link=https://mobile.twitter.com/JoeDudekJD/status/1511731111390593027]as a slur[/link].) Roberts is a longtime [link=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/04-1034P.ZC]foe[/link] of the Clean Water Act, and he might even agree with the majority on the merits. But here, as in [link=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/02/supreme-court-alabama-racial-gerrymander-roberts-kavanaugh.html]Februarys shadow docket order[/link] neutering the Voting Rights Act, the chief justice drew the line at outright lawlessness. Roberts may eventually vote to gut both the Clean Water Act and the Voting Rights Act in these cases. But unlike his conservative colleagues, he is unwilling to break the courts own rules to do so.

[link=https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1512022246709202949]https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1512022246709202949[/link]
 
Laurence Tribe: On April 4, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said people should “read the opinion” to decide if a Supreme Court decision sounds like law-free policymaking. On April 6, the Supreme Court issued a 54 decision weakening the Clean Water Actwithout issuing any opinion at all. Q.E.D.

[btomba_77]

 
Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) [link=https://twitter.com/FiringLineShow/status/1512473022539739142]told Firing Line[/link] that a Supreme Court nominees qualifications are no longer sufficient in determining whether theyll win a senators vote, pointing to his own vote against Justice Neil Gorsuchs nomination in 2017.
 
Said Coons: That was the point at which I first voted against a nominee for the Supreme Court not based on his qualifications eminently qualified, great temperament, good writer, strong record of service but I disagreed with his philosophy.
 
He added: I will own that Im a part of this problem.
 

[satyanar]

Good for him. Many more need to take ownership.

[btomba_77]

[link=https://www.thedailybeast.com/supreme-court-demands-law-clerks-hand-over-phone-records-in-roe-v-wade-leaker-investigation-cnn-reports]https://www.thedailybeast…estigation-cnn-reports[/link]

[h1]Supreme Court Demands Law Clerks Hand Over Phone Records in Roe v. Wade Leak Investigation[/h1]

Tensions inside the Supreme Court are reaching a new high with news that law clerks will be made to hand over cellphone records as part of an investigation to identify the person who leaked a [link=https://www.thedailybeast.com/supreme-court-draft-decision-would-strike-down-roe-v-wade]draft opinion overturning [i]Roe v. Wade[/i][/link] to the press, [link=https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/31/politics/supreme-court-roe-v-wade-leak-phone-records/index.html]CNN[/link] reports. The courts extraordinary move comes after Politico published the draft opinion on May 2itself an [link=https://www.thedailybeast.com/where-the-right-will-strike-next-after-its-big-supreme-court-victory-on-roe-v-wade]unprecedented breach[/link] of the courts confidentialityrevealing that abortion rights in the U.S. could be about to be restricted. Clerks are also allegedly being made to sign affidavits and some are considering taking on outside legal counsel as part of the inquiry to find the source of the leak. [link=https://www.thedailybeast.com/furious-chief-justice-john-roberts-confirms-leaked-draft-overturning-roe-v-wade-by-supreme-court-is-authentic]Chief Justice John Roberts[/link] is said to have met with the law clerksyoung lawyers considered to be among the most promising in the countryin the wake of the leak, but it remains unclear if interviews have yet been conducted.

[/QUOTE]
 

[kaldridgewv2211]

will be made to sounds like their must be a subpoena right?  Also just guessing but they’re probably only taking this tact with the clerks and not requiring themselves to do the same.  Be a baller move if all the clerks just up and quit.  

[btomba_77]

How John Roberts Lost Control of the Court[/h1]  
[link=https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/25/chief-john-roberts-court-00039237]Politico[/link]: After nearly seven months of deliberations, Roberts found precisely zero takers among his fellow justices for his incrementalist approach that would have avoided overruling Roe for now, but allowed Mississippi to impose a near ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
 
The courts conservatives dismissed Roberts stance as unprincipled and impractical, while the liberal justices called it wrong without detailing their objections.
 
Ultimately, Roberts opinion amounted to an afterthought that had no impact on the outcome of the case.
 
…
 
 
Roberts on Friday found himself alone. He tried to avoid the very fallout that he believed the court could have avoided by stopping short of overturning Roe, and seems keenly aware of how Americans view the Supreme Court. The court continues to drop in its approval ratings with the public and it cant seem to escape the perception that the institutions decisions are being driven by politics, not principle.
 
The snub Roberts suffered Friday would be humbling for any chief justice given the way in which abortion-related decisions bring a white-hot spotlight to the court. But its just the latest in a series of blows Roberts has sustained in recent weeks that have fueled doubts about his ability to manage an increasingly fractious court.
 

…
 
Some experts believe the differences the courts Republican appointees have with Roberts will soon be papered over as the conservative majority focuses on pressing its agenda in other areas like affirmative action and reining in the power of the regulatory state, issues where Roberts tends to be more aligned with his conservative colleagues.
 
This is the moment conservatives have been waiting for, Wermiel said. I think theyll figure out how to continue to work together. … The conservative majority has a lot of work to do next term.
 
Still, when the history of the Roberts court is written, the outcomes of those cases seem unlikely to challenge for top billing the abortion decision where the chief justice essentially stood aside as his conservative colleagues unleashed the most impactful and controversial decision in nearly half a century.
 

[btomba_77]

[b]Supreme Court Approval Plummets[/b][/h1]  
 
 
A new [link=https://law.marquette.edu/poll/2022/07/20/mlspsc09-court-press-release/]Marquette Law School Poll[/link] finds approval of the U.S. Supreme Court has fallen to 38%, while 61% disapprove of how the Court is handling its job.
 
By contrast, approval of the Court stood at 66% in September 2020, with 33% disapproval then.

 

[btomba_77]

[h2][link=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-supreme-court-is-more-unpopular-than-ever-that-could-help-democrats/]The Supreme Court Is More Unpopular Than Ever. That Could Help Democrats.[/link][/h2]

A [link=https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/09/01/positive-views-of-supreme-court-decline-sharply-following-abortion-ruling/]Pew Research Center poll[/link] conducted Aug. 1-14 found that more Americans have an unfavorable view of the Supreme Court than at any other point since Pew began asking the question just over 35 years ago. Only 28 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents have a favorable view of the Supreme Court, down 18 points since January and nearly 40 points since August 2020. Republicans views of the court, meanwhile, have gotten a bit more positive since the beginning of the year, which has created a gaping 45-point partisan gap in the Supreme Courts favorability rating.

…

Americans cant vote Supreme Court justices off the bench, of course, but the [link=https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/09/01/positive-views-of-supreme-court-decline-sharply-following-abortion-ruling/]Pew survey[/link] suggests that Democrats are more and more likely to think the court has too much authority. A solid majority (64 percent) of Democrats say the Supreme Court has too much power, up from only 23 percent in August 2020. Increasingly, Democrats also say that the justices are not making politically neutral decisions. Just over half (51 percent) of Democrats say the justices are doing a poor job of keeping their own politics out of their decision-making, up from 26 percent in January.

This isnt the first time that anger surrounding the Supreme Court has reshaped a midterm election. In 2018, the fight over Justice Brett Kavanaughs confirmation to the court [link=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-kavanaugh-helping-republicans-midterm-chances/]appeared to help[/link] Republican candidates in some key Senate races. At the same time, however, there were [link=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/abortion-may-be-mobilizing-more-democratic-voters-than-republicans-now/]signs that year[/link] that the changing makeup of the Supreme Court and the possible impact on abortion rights was raising the salience of the issue for Democrats. That didnt seem to pay off for Democrats in the 2018 midterms since [link=https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/01/a-look-at-voters-views-ahead-of-the-2018-midterms/]their base[/link] was [link=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-republicans-losing-the-health-care-debate/]motivated by other issues[/link], but 2022 may be different. 

[/QUOTE]
 

[kayla.meyer_144]

Originalism. So much BS packaged as legal theory.But like the Bible, every word is Gods Law!, its all cherry-picking time.
 
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/10/06/ketanji-brown-jackson-supreme-court-alabama-originalism/]https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/10/06/ketanji-brown-jackson-supreme-court-alabama-originalism/[/link]

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. mouthed this notion in [link=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-908.ZO.html]a 2007 case[/link]: The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race, he [link=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/on-race-and-voter-id-john-roberts-wants-it-both-ways/381868/]wrote[/link], is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. The same reasoning echoed in his ruling in 2013s [i]Shelby County v. Holder[/i], which invalidated the preclearance provisions of [link=https://www.justice.gov/crt/about-section-5-voting-rights-act]Section 5[/link] of the Voting Rights Act. Republicans celebrated the latter decision, which reinforced their conviction that Whites are victims of government attempts to address the ongoing inequities suffered by Blacks and other disadvantaged groups.

And that brings us to Jackson on Tuesday. [link=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/10/ketanji-brown-jackson-voting-rights-originalism.html?fbclid=IwAR0BCaf0VbZHWh6WJH_RCu5SRrMykF9nc5VgSIuJNJFL0k22YYhSgbYdDkI]Mark Joseph Stern[/link] writes for Slate:

[blockquote]
In a series of extraordinary exchanges with Alabama Solicitor General Edmund LaCour, Jackson explained that the entire point of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments was to provide equal opportunity for formerly enslaved people, using color-conscious remedies whenever necessary to put them on the same plane as whites.
[/blockquote]
As Stern explains, this was a masterclass in originalism. And by that he means it was historically pristine originalism, not the faux originalism of the right-wing majority that cherry-picks its way through history to reach a desired partisan end.
 

Jackson took her colleagues through the history of the Civil War amendments, revisions to the Voting Rights Act in 1982 and even the [link=https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/report-of-the-joint-committee-on-reconstruction-1866]Report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction[/link] from 1866. Jackson informed her colleagues: The legislator who introduced [the 14th] amendment said that unless the Constitution should restrain them, those states will all, I fear, keep up this discrimination and crush to death the hated Freedman. Jackson observed, Thats not a race-neutral or race-blind idea in terms of the remedy.
 

To borrow from the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who once [link=https://time.com/5890983/ruth-bader-ginsburg-voting-rights/]chastised[/link] Roberts for throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet: The Constitution does [i]not[/i] bar Congress from giving umbrellas to those whove been rained on for centuries.

[btomba_77]

[link=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2022/sep/29/us-supreme-court-biden-republicans-democrats-live-updates]US supreme courts approval rating falls to historical low ahead of new term 
[/link]

[kayla.meyer_144]

Very interesting. Roberts quiet on 2 counts, 1 is the results of the investigation of the leak of Alitos majority argument against Roe, and the 2nd about an evangelical pastor informing Roberts of a prior leak re. Hobby Lobby decision where the very strong suggestion is that Alito himself is the leaker.
 
Popcorn time on Court hypocrisy.
 
 [link=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/20/us/supreme-court-breach-alito.html]https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/20/us/supreme-court-breach-alito.html[/link]
 

A [link=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/19/us/supreme-court-leak-abortion-roe-wade.html]New York Times report[/link] published on Saturday chronicled yearslong efforts by the Rev. Robert L. Schenck, an evangelical minister and former anti-abortion leader, and donors to his nonprofit to reach conservative justices and reinforce anti-abortion views. In 2014, he said, he obtained advance word of the outcome and the author of the decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, a major case about contraception and the religious rights of corporations.
 
That decision like the one leaked this spring, overturning the right to abortion was written by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. Mr. Schenck said he learned the Hobby Lobby details from a donor who had dined with Justice Alito and his wife. Both the justice and the donor denied sharing the information.

 
 

[btomba_77]

[h3][link=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-12-27/trump-legacy-is-supreme-court-s-nostalgia-doctrine?srnd=premium]Supreme Courts Nostalgia Doctrine Is Trumps Biggest Legacy[/link][/h3]

…

What unifies this conservative revolution is a radical vision of the restoration of constitutional law to the state it was in before the liberal decisions of the Warren court created modern constitutional law more than 50 years ago. But this conservative court doesnt only want to roll back the clock. They also want to change how judicial decisions are made: Instead of relying on precedent and principle, they insist on using a nostalgic version of history to decide major cases. And like most forms of nostalgia, the courts approach is less historical than pseudo-historical.
 
In driving a knife through the heart of church-state separation, the conservative majority substituted a vague, undefined test based on historical practices for long-established Constitutional doctrine. In their gun rights case, once again they purported to rely on history that was cherry-picked based on a wildly selective interpretation of evidence going back to the Middle Ages. And[b] [/b]in the abortion case, they manipulated and misconstrued historical sources from English common law that allowed abortion before quickening to conclude there was no historically grounded right to an abortion.

…

The current conservative majoritys constitutional philosophy, like MAGA, invents an idealized past and strives to bring it back. It talks the talk of history without being responsible to reality  and without considering seriously the ways our country and our Constitution are in fact much greater now than they were in the old days. They often use the term historical test, but it would be more accurate to call it a doctrine of nostalgia.

…

…

…

I could go on  and in June, when the conservative majority delivers its next set of body-blows to basic rights, I am sure I will do just that. For now, at years end, it is enough to say that 2022 will go down in constitutional history as the year the Trump court first made its mark. When Trump himself has come to be seen as a one-term outlier, the conservative revolution being undertaken by Trumps Supreme Court justices will remain as his lasting legacy.

[/QUOTE]
 

[kaldridgewv2211]

One inexplicable thing is that Ginni and Clarence didn’t make the J6 report.  It’s about as clear a cover up as you’d want and it seems there’s some pointing to Cheney covering for them.  Keep your GOP bona fides while still taking some whacks at Trump.  Just another reminder that even while she’s trying to come of as righteous, she’s still just as a big a PoS as many of her colleagues.  Talk about reform time to kill life tenure, and at least make them head some ethics.

[kayla.meyer_144]

The criticism of many on the committee was the singular focus on Donald instead of sweeping up all the enablers along with Donald.

[btomba_77]

[link=https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/20/politics/supreme-court-credibility-dobbs-roe-leak/index.html] Supreme Court embarrassed by the opinion leak is embarrassed again

[/link]
 

The [link=http://www.cnn.com/2023/01/19/politics/supreme-court-dobbs-report-leak/index.html]Supreme Courts stunning report Thursday[/link] on its failure to discover who leaked a draft decision reversing abortion rights last year laid bare shortfalls at the nations highest court, in its technology, protocols for confidentiality and overall institutional safeguards.
 
…
Yet each page rings with limitations and dead ends. It also suggests certain boundaries on who was investigated, referring only to employee scrutiny. There was [b]no mention of possible interviews with the nine individual justices or their spouses.[/b]

We looked all over for the source of the leak  … except for the most obvious place.

[btomba_77]

[link=https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/redirect-to/?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fpolicy%2Fcourts%2Frobertss-spouse-made-10-million-commissions-from-law-firms]Chief Justice Roberts’s wife made $10.3 million from top law firms:[/link]
 
 
Very Hunter Biden of her