SCOTUS Thread (News and Discussion): Eight Becomes Nine

[dasva]

Are you seriously asking why we shouldn't amend long standing federal statues just to stack the courts with people we want?

[Andalusian girls]

in his defense it is a leftist tradition

[Quicklet]

probably the only argument you'd be capable of understanding is because the next Republican president with full control of Congress would do the same thing.

Republicans effectively already did that by refusing to hold hearings on Garland, so I'm not sure what the risk is.

Are you seriously asking why we shouldn't amend long standing federal statues just to stack the courts with people we want?

I'm asking for a good argument why one side should adhere to norms when the other side continually violates them in order to maintain a systematic power advantage even though they are a minority of the voting population.

[Zealot]

in his defense it is a leftist tradition

Build a thousand bridges, no one calls you a bridge builder, but try to permanently alter the landscape of ONE country's highest court...

[Andalusian girls]

Republicans effectively already did that by refusing to hold hearings on Garland, so I'm not sure what the risk is.

no, they did not. if you can't see the difference between refusing to vote on a SCOTUS nominee from the minority party in a lame-duck year (a measure i opposed by the by) and overturning federal law that has stood since 1869 in a move that would fundamentally rewire one of the branches of government and give the executive doing the rewiring unprecedented judicial control, you have totally lost perspective.

I'm asking for a good argument why one side should adhere to norms when the other side continually violates them in order to maintain a systematic power advantage even though they are a minority of the voting population.

again probably the only argument you'd understand is that in 2013 Senate Democrats triggered the nuclear option to get rid of a required 60-vote supermajority for the confirmation of federal judicial nominees and executive-office appointments. how do you feel that worked out when it come to the Trumpian cabinet appointments that scraped by with 51 or 52 Senate votes? how did it work out when Republicans extended it even further to apply to SCOTUS appointments to get Gorsuch in with 54?

this fiction that Democrats don't violate norms or behave in an underhanded fashion to achieve their goals is laughable to anyone with even a cursory remembrance of recent history (or have we also already forgotten how Obama went back on his pledge to commit to what would have been the first publicly financed presidential campaign in U.S. history despite McCain's full commitment to such), and each violation erodes institutional safeguards and gives Republicans casus belli to do even worse once they attain power.

[Tyrath]

I don't think they should be increasing the court size or anything like that. However, if dems do take back control they should oppose any nominations by a president that is actively under investigation for collusion with a foreign country.

[Quicklet]

no, they did not. if you can't see the difference between refusing to vote on a SCOTUS nominee from the minority party in a lame-duck year (a measure i opposed by the by) and overturning federal law that has stood since 1869 in a move that would fundamentally rewire one of the branches of government and give the executive doing the rewiring unprecedented judicial control, you have totally lost perspective.

Functionally the two are the same in terms of influencing control of the high court outside of previously accepted norms. If the norm is violated and the only other legal remedy (impeaching Gorsuch) is not an option because of partisanship, what is the remedy when one side games the system to obtain an advantage?

again probably the only argument you'd understand is that in 2013 Senate Democrats triggered the nuclear option to get rid of a 60-vote supermajority for the confirmation of federal judicial nominees and executive-office appointments. how do you feel that worked out when it come to Donald Trump's appointments, how did it work out when Republicans extended it even further to apply to SCOTUS appointments? this fiction that Democrats that don't violate norms or behave in an underhanded fashion to achieve their goals is laughable to anyone with even a cursory remembrance of recent history (or have we forgotten how Obama ), and each violation erodes institutional safeguards and gives Republicans casus belli to do even worse once they attain power.

You're cutting off some history here. McConnell stated from the start of Obama's presidency that his goal was to make him a lame duck president. If we want to go even further back, Newt Gingrich did more than almost anyone to usher in the age of acrimonious partisanship in Congress. This is not something where both sides have acted anywhere near in parity with each other. But I'll take your point at face value about Democrats removing the filibuster for non-SCOTUS nominees, and I'll just argue that McConnell would have done it for SCOTUS anyway. There is no way that McConnell would have allowed Gorsuch to be filibustered even if Reid did not make those changes first.

The idea that Democrats somehow paved the way for Republican illiberal democracy is the kind of false equivalency that completely rankles me. Minority obstructionism structurally favors Republicans, which is a good argument for why the legislative filibuster should be removed. Democrats are likely to regain total control of the legislative and executive branches at some point, but unlikely to achieve the supermajorities they would need to remedy some of the bad legislation that the Republican Congress has enacted with a bare majority under parliamentary rules. We're already down this path, so it doesn't help to turn a blind eye and say "well Republicans will behave better when they're in the minority again." I guarantee the instant Repubilcans lose power, they will go back to the kind of hard obstructionism that was emblematic of their time under Obama's administration.

[archibaldcrane]

Fuck off with your "both sides" here AG.

Also fuck Roberts and his bullshit.

https://twitter.com/SimonMaloy/statu...419682304?s=19

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[dasva]

I'm asking for a good argument why one side should adhere to norms when the other side continually violates them in order to maintain a systematic power advantage even though they are a minority of the voting population.

That's not what you are asking and you know it. You are asking for a hostile take over of our nations highest court by the legislative/executive branches which completely defeats the purpose of even having it. Why not just dissolve it or install the dictatorship you are probably not so secretly hoping for

[Xajii]

this fiction that Democrats don't violate norms or behave in an underhanded fashion to achieve their goals is laughable to anyone with even a cursory remembrance of recent history (or have we also already forgotten how Obama went back on his pledge to commit to what would have been the first publicly financed presidential campaign in U.S. history despite McCain's full commitment to such), and each violation erodes institutional safeguards and gives Republicans casus belli to do even worse once they attain power.

all the good the norms have done us... it absolutely baffles me how anyone with any moral compass or perspective at all can still be arguing that adherence to "norms" is what is important here

norms are gone. institutional safeguards are already being eroded and it ain't by the left. this is a fist fight now, people are dying and being deported and families are being destroyed, major institutions that support critical functions of our country are being eroded. this is not the time to make false equivalencies about what rules and standards we should and should not break.

I don't know that adding more seats to SCOTUS bench is a great solution but your posture here is bizarre. god forbid the left tries to get something done!

[Zealot]

"It's only racist if it says it's racist" has been the Supreme Court's basis for striking down legislation across the country for generations when states try to enact racially harmful policies and get taken to court on it. And I'm talking policies that state and federal courts agree are racist and have a discriminatory effect, but then get upheld at the Supreme Court level.

[Quicklet]

That's not what you are asking and you know it. You are asking for a hostile take over of our nations highest court by the legislative/executive branches which completely defeats the purpose of even having it. Why not just dissolve it or install the dictatorship you are probably not so secretly hoping for

This is an odd thing to say given who currently occupies the Oval Office and his clear disrespect for the separation of powers.

I'll just point out one thing:

You are asking for a hostile take over of our nations highest court by the legislative/executive branches which completely defeats the purpose of even having it.

How is this not already happening with the lower courts, where Republicans held open an unprecedented number of seats during Obama's presidency and are now jamming through (often unqualified) nominees under Trump?

It's hard to take this argument in good faith when it ignores the previous 10 years of conservative behavior.

[Andalusian girls]

Functionally the two are the same in terms of influencing control of the high court outside of previously accepted norms. If the norm is violated and the only other legal remedy (impeaching Gorsuch) is not an option because of partisanship, what is the remedy when one side games the system to obtain an advantage?

You're cutting off some history here. McConnell stated from the start of Obama's presidency that his goal was to make him a lame duck president. If we want to go even further back, Newt Gingrich did more than almost anyone to usher in the age of acrimonious partisanship in Congress. This is not something where both sides have acted anywhere near in parity with each other. But I'll take your point at face value about Democrats removing the filibuster for non-SCOTUS nominees, and I'll just argue that McConnell would have done it for SCOTUS anyway. There is no way that McConnell would have allowed Gorsuch to be filibustered even if Reid did not make those changes first.

The idea that Democrats somehow paved the way for Republican illiberal democracy is the kind of false equivalency that completely rankles me. Minority obstructionism structurally favors Republicans, which is a good argument for why the legislative filibuster should be removed. Democrats are likely to regain total control of the legislative and executive branches at some point, but unlikely to achieve the supermajorities they would need to remedy some of the bad legislation that the Republican Congress has enacted with a bare majority under parliamentary rules. We're already down this path, so it doesn't help to turn a blind eye and say "well Republicans will behave better when they're in the minority again." I guarantee the instant Repubilcans lose power, they will go back to the kind of hard obstructionism that was emblematic of their time under Obama's administration.

again there is a lack of perspective. a sprained ankle is not a gunshot wound, and the refusal to confirm a judicial appointment (which, you know, is the Senate's constitutional right) is not the same as permanently altering the landscape of the nation's highest court so it adheres to the wishes of the executive in power. if you can't see it there's nothing i can say.

and your dismissal or 'taking at face value' the Democrats nuking the filibuster is, what? Newt Gingrich was an asshole? McConnell would have done it anyways? it's pretty weak tea for the Democrats overturning 40 years of precedent and in so doing directly leading the way for the confirmation of people like Betsy DeVos and Scott Pruitt. it was and remains a textbook example of short-sighted maneuvering for immediate political gain that led to unintended consequences.

and to your last paragraph i'm not sure who you're arguing against for the majority of it but it isn't me. though i will say there is a fundamental difference in opinion if you believe the filibuster ought be ousted entirely and the majority party in the Senate given total control, as the majority party in the House possesses. i've always viewed the rights afforded the legislative minority one of the more important safeguards of our democracy given the virulent insanity of which our majorities are capable.

[Andalusian girls]

How is this not already happening with the lower courts, where Republicans held open an unprecedented number of seats during Obama's presidency and are now jamming through (often unqualified) nominees under Trump?

which, again, they're able to do because, you guessed it, the 2013 Democratic decision to nuke the filibuster for federal judicial appointments.

by the by the number of judicial appointments by recent 8-year presidents

Bill Clinton 378
George W Bush 327
Barack Obama 329

indeed Trump being presently only at 42 after 15 months in office puts him rather behind schedule.

[archibaldcrane]

i've always viewed the rights afforded the legislative minority one of the more important safeguards of our democracy given the virulent insanity of which our majorities are capable.

Republicans are happy to use reconciliation in ways never considered when it was invented, in order to avoid the pesky "legislative minority".

They don't care about norms so we can't. That's the argument everyone is making.

[Quicklet]

though i will say there is a fundamental difference in opinion if you believe the filibuster ought be ousted entirely and the majority party in the Senate given total control, as the majority party in the House possesses. i've always viewed the rights afforded the legislative minority one of the more important safeguards of our democracy given the virulent insanity of which our majorities are capable.

I might be more sympathetic to this argument if Republicans didn't use budget reconcilation to gut the ACA. As it stands, I don't think allowing one side to effectively undo policy with 51 and then requiring 60 to redo it is a healthy dynamic.

Anyway, I look forward to all the reasonable takes when Democrats refuse to confirm Trump's judicial nominees for the remainder of his presidency.

[archibaldcrane]

Anyway, I look forward to all the reasonable takes when Democrats refuse to confirm Trump's judicial nominees for the remainder of his presidency.

Dems are not likely to get 51 Senators in 2018, and even if they did there's no chance all 51 will be lockstep in blocking Trump's judicial nominees.

[synistar]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...rtion-decision

Ruling 5-4 overturns California law requiring faith-based crisis pregnancy centers to inform their patients of their access to subsided medical care which includes abortions.

[Andalusian girls]

the solution to reconciliation abuse is to strengthen the Byrd rule, disallow any significant policy changes to be enacted with reconciliation, and mandate that any significant revision to spending or revenue require a revised budget resolution. you decry the Republicans attempting to gut Obamacare using reconciliation but the reason they were able to do so is because part of Obamacare was passed by, you guessed it, Democrats using reconciliation following the death of Ted Kennedy and the loss of their 60-seat supermajority.

the remedy to a hollowing out of the democracy is not to hollow it out further. if you care about the rights of the legislative minority you protect them when they are under attack, you don't degrade them further when your side is in power.

[Tymon]

Did I read the ban upholding order wrong?

Because I'm pretty sure SCOTUS just ruled that the President has executive power to issue such an order, and that no language in the order itself were discriminatory. Both of these things are facts given that the lawsuits were based around the interpretation of the order based on STATEMENTS by Trump himself. This should and will be challenged and I assume will be a different ruling.

Why wouldn't a sitting President not have the power to institute something like this? Presidents need to have the ability to do things like this in legitimate cases of national security. We just happen to have an idiot in office using them for bad reasons. That does not mean that the policy is wrong or unconstitutional.