Your new Supreme Court nominee is....

[bmags]

Term limits is only thing that makes sense to me for revamping SCOTUS though, not a fan of making it a vote (I hate local judge races)

[StrangeSox]

Might even be best to have a separate constitutional court with explicit and defined powers of judicial review and then a regular supreme appellate court, as some countries do

[BigSqwert]

Just add 2 more Justices. There's no rule saying it has to be 9 total.  And add a 10-year term limit while we're at it.

[wrathofhahn]

1 minute ago, bmags said:

I’m not sure your second paragraph sounds that bad, it’s the filibuster that obscures it.

if from here on, Congress was straight majority rule, that seems fine, and if a party gets majority in all three branches, they should be able to implement big or whatever changes.

The issue is institutional rules have been changed last decade. So a party 8 years with a president was allowed virtually no judges for 6 of them, then two years in the new party overturns all of those restrictions and puts in hundreds, that’s not something I just shrug at. I want to balance that, as aggressively.

 

But is Congress worse off without filibuster and without hastert rule applied by each speaker? I have hard time seeing that it is moving forward. Seems stronger.

I don't think the democrats have treated Trump judge choices any differently the only difference is the Republicans control the senate and I suspect they'll do the same thing should the Republicans lose control of the senate. They've already attempted to delay when they can despite being in the minority.

I think blaming brinkmanship on either side is dangerous the only way out is for both sides to admit they are wrong and try to tamp down on the all out warfare but part of that has to do with voters as well. We elected Trump. Look at the front runners in your party right now. Warren. Booker. Harris. Maxine Waters. Those aren't exactly centrists.

 

 

[Y2HH]

Just now, BigSqwert said:

Just add 2 more Justices. There's no rule saying it has to be 9 total.  And add a 10-year term limit while we're at it.

I think adding a 10 year term limit is all you’d need in this case, with that limit imposed you wouldn’t really need more justices, as they’d be replaced constantly anyway.

[BigSqwert]

1 minute ago, Y2HH said:

I think adding a 10 year term limit is all you’d need in this case, with that limit imposed you wouldn’t really need more justices, as they’d be replaced constantly anyway.

I kind of wanted to negate the 2 rapist Justices with 2 non-rapist ones.

[wrathofhahn]

1 minute ago, Y2HH said:

I think adding a 10 year term limit is all you’d need in this case, with that limit imposed you wouldn’t really need more justices, as they’d be replaced constantly anyway.

I disagree with idea vehemently for the reasons I already outlined. I don't think it will ever happen either as likely it couldn't be done retroactively and the people making the law would be giving up a tremendous amount of power.

“This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No. 78

[Y2HH]

1 minute ago, BigSqwert said:

I kind of wanted to negate the 2 rapist Justices with 2 non-rapist ones.

What happens if you end up with even more rapist justices?!

[wrathofhahn]

Also a non-lifetime appointment would hardly be as attractive. Imagine going through a contentious hearing like Kavanaugh has to find out you serve 10 years? These people are losing money in many cases millions of dollars versus what they could be making going into private practice.

As Hamilton put it “…that a temporary duration in office, which would naturally discourage such characters from quitting a lucrative line of practice to accept a seat on the bench, would have a tendency to throw the administration of justice into hands less able, and less well qualified, to conduct it with utility and dignity.”

[Y2HH]

Just now, wrathofhahn said:

I disagree with idea vehemently for the reasons I already outlined. I don't think it will ever happen either as likely it couldn't be done retroactively and the people making the law would be giving up a tremendous amount of power.

“This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No. 78

I never said I agree with such a short term limit, I was simply speaking to his idea/point.

I do believe such an important and highly respected appointment requires a longer limit, but I’d be more keen on an age limitation than a term limitation.

Keep in mind, progress doesn’t stop, and the idea that we have potential 90 year olds passing laws about “that internets thing”, bothers the fuck out of me.

[wrathofhahn]

4 minutes ago, Y2HH said:

I never said I agree with such a short term limit, I was simply speaking to his idea/point.

I do believe such an important and highly respected appointment requires a longer limit, but I’d be more keen on an age limitation than a term limitation.

Keep in mind, progress doesn’t stop, and the idea that we have potential 90 year olds passing laws about “that internets thing”, bothers the fuck out of me.

The SC doesn't pass laws. At least not yet.

One of the things I really hope a conservative SC does is it passes the buck more to congress they are supposed to make the laws and the public should demand they do their damn jobs instead putting it in the hands of unelected judges to do it for them,

Edited October 5, 2018 by wrathofhahn

[Soxbadger]

2 minutes ago, wrathofhahn said:

Also a non-lifetime appointment would hardly be as attractive. Imagine going through a contentious hearing like Kavanaugh has to find out you serve 10 years? These people are losing money in many cases millions of dollars versus what they could be making going into private practice.

As Hamilton put it “…that a temporary duration in office, which would naturally discourage such characters from quitting a lucrative line of practice to accept a seat on the bench, would have a tendency to throw the administration of justice into hands less able, and less well qualified, to conduct it with utility and dignity.”

If you went back to private practice after being a SC Justice youd make a huge amount of money.

To be fair, anyone on the appellate circuit is already forgoing much more lucrative careers to be judges. 

[StrangeSox]

A non lifetime appointment would also be less contentious and high stakes in the first place.

[Y2HH]

19 minutes ago, wrathofhahn said:

The SC doesn't pass laws. At least not yet.

One of the things I really hope a conservative SC does is it passes the buck more to congress they are supposed to make the laws and the public should demand they do their damn jobs instead putting it in the hands of unelected judges to do it for them,

Also applies to upholding and interpreting. Sorry I wasn’t more clear. I know what the Supreme Court does.

[StrangeSox]

Everything we've seen from the Roberts court so far is that they'll continue to legislate from the bench and tie Congress's hands on a wide range of policies.

[southsider2k5]

1 hour ago, BigSqwert said:

Just add 2 more Justices. There's no rule saying it has to be 9 total.  And add a 10-year term limit while we're at it.

You'll just get 2 more conservatives.

[Dam8610]

1 hour ago, StrangeSox said:

The scotus can undo what the Congress does, such as Roberts gutting voting rights and campaign finance

But we can't be upset when republican leaning justices legislate from the bench. That ire is reserved only for "liberal activist justices".

[Y2HH]

44 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

But we can't be upset when republican leaning justices legislate from the bench. That ire is reserved only for "liberal activist justices".

?

[Y2HH]

46 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

But we can't be upset when republican leaning justices legislate from the bench. That ire is reserved only for "liberal activist justices".

Or ... we can be equally upset when either side does it and stop pretending it’s just those evil republican leaning justices that do it.

Hence my ultra sarcastic eye roll.

[Dam8610]

53 minutes ago, Y2HH said:

Or ... we can be equally upset when either side does it and stop pretending it’s just those evil republican leaning justices that do it.

Hence my ultra sarcastic eye roll.

I will be just as upset any time a liberal justice does anything as heinous and in flagrant violation of precedent as the Roberts led court did in Citizens United vs. FEC or Shelby County vs. Holder.

[Balta1701]

3 hours ago, Dam8610 said:

I will be just as upset any time a liberal justice does anything as heinous and in flagrant violation of precedent as the Roberts led court did in Citizens United vs. FEC or Shelby County vs. Holder.

I'm going to miss the clean water act a lot. 

[caulfield12]

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/susan-collins-kavanaugh-speech-diagnoses-americas-deepening-division-235214542.html

We are on a dangerous road, and the judicial confirmation wars are going to get a lot worse for our traveling down it,” wrote Benjamin Wittes, editor in chief of Lawfare, in a column for the Atlantic arguing that Kavanaugh should not be confirmed because the preponderance of the evidence, in his mind, “leans toward Ford.”

The story of how we got to this contentious and ugly place has many chapters to it. The most recent was written only 18 months ago when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., did away with the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees in response to a decision by Democrats to refuse to allow a vote. At the time, Democrats were retaliating for McConnell’s refusal to give Obama’s choice in 2016 for the Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland, a vote. And in 2016 McConnell had his own justification for blocking Garland, based on what he saw as Democratic sins of the past.

The tit-for-tat has gone on for decades, escalating over the past 15 years or so.

The losers of this fight are not Democrats or Republicans but the American people, especially minorities and those without power, for whom an independent and trusted judiciary is a crucial bulwark against abuses.

As Collins said in her speech, “It is when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy.” The law is supposed to be a central protection against unfairness.

But the Supreme Court may now be truly broken in that it is viewed as a political institution rather than a body where outcomes are decided by an agreed-upon set of rules.

“There’s no time for nuance; there is only time for war,” wrote Amy Walter, national editor of the Cook Political Report. “So, war it will be for the foreseeable future.”

 

[caulfield12]

One of his classmates disagrees. In a statement obtained by theNew Yorker, which he signed and anonymously submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee and the FBI, the classmate wrote thathe remembers hearing Kavanaugh “talk about Renate many times,” giving the impression that “Renate was the girl that everyone passed around for sex.”

He writes in the statement:

 

I recall that Brett Kavanaugh had made up a rhyme using the REE NATE pronunciation of Renate’s name. I specifically recall one day walking down a hall with Brett Kavanaugh on the way to class, and hearing Brett Kavanaugh sing this rhyme. While I cannot recall the exact words he sang, the general theme was that Renate could be used for sex as a last resort. What I recall from the rhyme that I heard Brett Kavanaugh sing is: ‘REE NATE, REE NATE, if you want a date, can’t get one until late, and you wanna get laid, you can make it with REE NATE.’

 

The above rhyme may not be word for word, but the substance of the message is 100 percent accurate … I thought that this was sickening at the time I heard it, and it left an indelible mark in my memory.

 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/kavanaugh-treatment-renate-schroeder-high-170338460.html

[Balta1701]

10 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/susan-collins-kavanaugh-speech-diagnoses-americas-deepening-division-235214542.html

We are on a dangerous road, and the judicial confirmation wars are going to get a lot worse for our traveling down it,” wrote Benjamin Wittes, editor in chief of Lawfare, in a column for the Atlantic arguing that Kavanaugh should not be confirmed because the preponderance of the evidence, in his mind, “leans toward Ford.”

The story of how we got to this contentious and ugly place has many chapters to it. The most recent was written only 18 months ago when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., did away with the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees in response to a decision by Democrats to refuse to allow a vote. At the time, Democrats were retaliating for McConnell’s refusal to give Obama’s choice in 2016 for the Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland, a vote. And in 2016 McConnell had his own justification for blocking Garland, based on what he saw as Democratic sins of the past.

The tit-for-tat has gone on for decades, escalating over the past 15 years or so.

The losers of this fight are not Democrats or Republicans but the American people, especially minorities and those without power, for whom an independent and trusted judiciary is a crucial bulwark against abuses.

As Collins said in her speech, “It is when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy.” The law is supposed to be a central protection against unfairness.

But the Supreme Court may now be truly broken in that it is viewed as a political institution rather than a body where outcomes are decided by an agreed-upon set of rules.

“There’s no time for nuance; there is only time for war,” wrote Amy Walter, national editor of the Cook Political Report. “So, war it will be for the foreseeable future.”

 

You're missing the point. This is where they've won. The opposing forces have collapsed and been beaten and now they can rape and pillage all they want. Literally everything that Democrats have ever passed or used or believed in will now be unconstitutional. There's a case right now where the Court will get to decide whether the Federal Government can ban insurance companies from denying applicants based on pre-existing conditions, they've won that fight, they can finally kill those weak POS humans off and stop having the important insurance companies foot the bill for their lousy living.

[caulfield12]

Well, short of some crazy wack jobs assassinating Supreme Court justices and turning real life into a Grisham/Clancy/Dan Brown thriller, there isn’t anything left to do except wait for 2020 and make vague intimations of changing the Constitution to make it possible to recall/impeach individual S.C. justices for unspecified “criminal acts.”

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/05/opinions/gop-outplayed-dems-opinion-zelizer/index.html

How the Dems got outplayed (once again) on Kavanaugh

Edited October 6, 2018 by caulfield12