U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

thanks for the image

I think it will be inconsequential. I think it was probably the best of non-amazing chess move options at the time (the GOP is going to obstruct no matter what, so pick someone who gives them the least excuse to do so), but I wouldn't call it "incredible," and now, as pointed out, Trump is probably going to drown out any effect of that pick in congressional elections.

feel like the only dividends it could possibly pay off at this pt would be if some republicans start to freak out as we get closer to the election and try to push through garland and other republicans still committed to trump will push back and it'll just become another indication of how fractured + broken the party is.

what are the chances of Alito, Slobbo, Roberts, and Tony dropping dead the second Hillz crosses 270 electoral votes in November?

I'm not sure that is hypothetical enough for you to disavow involvement with the sniper oh I've said too much

The more I think about it, why wouldn't Republicans hold out for the next justice to drop or retire? Two of the three oldest are liberal and the other is Kennedy.

Good shot at a conservative majority 7-justice court. What do they have to lose?

i think that type of inaction would make them look extremely bad worse and might lead to some backlash, but maybe i overestimate the distaste that would engender.

I guess maybe finding rhetorical cover for it would be too challenging? But "Republicans will never be able to find rhetorical cover for this" sounds like famous last words.

If they retain the Senate, I'm not sure what difference "backlash" would make.

I guess there's a kind overall brand damage that could happen/is happening.

Yeah, I think it's unlikely that they continue to block a nominee after the election, but certainly not impossible

after the election we'll return to business as usual, i.e. hating Hillary

yeah I don't see them having a "come to Jesus" moment, they're just gonna double-down kowtowing to what remains of their constituency if they retain the Senate.

For people saying you don't see them continuing, why? Have they ever not done the most cynical, calculating, self-interested thing possible in recent memory?

"if some republicans start to freak out as we get closer to the election and try to push through Garland"

I doubt Republicans, in general, can detect the difference between Garland and a theoretically more-liberal Clinton appointee. Even if they can detect it, it's not a distinction they care about enough to push Garland through as lesser of evils. Garland was nominated by Obama, therefore he is stained. Anybody Hillary would appoint would be about as bad, from their perspective; it's not a major difference.

The relevant question is whether they are willing to hold hearings in November (after the election but before the inauguration) or wait until January (to "give the new president a chance"). I suppose there are some dead-enders who think the Court will be fine with eight, seven, or six justices for four years until they have an (imagined) shot at a new president, but that seems unlikely.

Why does it seem unlikely?

after the election we'll return to business as usual, i.e. hating Hillary

this prophecy is all too likely to come true. and the virulence of the hate will probably equal that shown to Obama.

man alive, if they can continue they will, but it will be more difficult because their line since Scalia's death has been that the next president should choose his replacement. It will be tricky to shift to some new excuse after months of delays. Also, there's a good chance Republicans lose the Senate, which will also make it harder to stop a nominee.

Yeah, I guess because this "we must wait until we have a new president to give the people a voice" shit is so new, and so transparent. I think they can stretch it out for a few months but not years at a time. Dunno why I think that. Perhaps I'm underestimating their dickishness. Fortunately in representative democracies, elections can (theoretically) punish dickishness

man alive, if they can continue they will, but it will be more difficult because their line since Scalia's death has been that the next president should choose his replacement. It will be tricky to shift to some new excuse after months of delays.

Nah, they'll just make up a new excuse to justify continued stonewalling. I mean, the Iraq!

Ultimately I see it as a matter of how highly they value a majority on the Supreme Court, which is very, very highly. Yes, they'll keep hating Hillary, but that hate is more the excuse than the reason. There is no single appointed position that matters more politically than a Supreme Court justice, and it's not even close. I mean the likely scenarios during the next term if they keep obstructing are:

1) one liberal dies or retires, 4-3 majority conservative court
2) one liberal and kennedy dies or retires, 3-3 divide, arguably still better off than they are now with the 4-4 split because there's no "moderate" Kennedy vote anymore that's likely to switch sides on key votes.
3) both breyer and RBG die or retire, 4-2 conservative majority

OTOH, I guess if Trump gives dems some gains in 2016 in the Senate, 2018 might be the Dem chance to get a majority. I guess if you really think SCOTUS obstruction is going to be a deciding factor in Senate races when you have a likely unpopular democratic president in office, obstruction risks tipping the balance and you're better off letting the president choose a "moderate." But SCOTUS is a big prize and I wouldn't underestimate what the current GOP will do to get it.

Again "we can't stretch credulity any further with our rhetoric" does not strike me as a likely thought to enter most GOP Senators' heads these days.

thing is, it's not at all out of the realm of possibility for the dems to get a majority in 2016

I imagine if it starts to look likely that will change the GOP's tune.

fwiw, I just looked it up and six is the minimum number of justices to hear a case. Did not know that.

Yeah, whether the current mess with Trump has freed Republicans to explore depths of shamelessness or just made their shamelessness more apparent, it's definitely solid precedent.

this prophecy is all too likely to come true. and the virulence of the hate will probably equal that shown to Obama.

― a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Thursday, June 16, 2016 9:46 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the gop hasnt treated a dem president as legitimate since the 70s

Rumors going around that Thomas may retire after the election:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/end-of-conservative-supreme-court-clarence-thomas-may-be-next-to-leave/article/2594317

^if true, that would be a great blessing to country

Given the source it's presumably an effort to gin up conservative turnout rather than true.

agreed tho it's also weirdly believable

Thomas is weirdly weird. Scalia was his work buddy. Clarence feels lonesome and unappreciated now.

he is so emo

caveats:
1. Washington Examiner
2. "according to court watchers"

Looks like a conservative GOTV reminder to me.

trying to contemplate the mind the would rather drive an RV around the country with Ginny Thomas than hang out with Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

weirdly plausible. the man never had any ideas of his own. with scalia gone, who does he have to tom for?

actually he's worse than Scalia

Ginni Thomas:

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--WD1xIpL_--/18uzp5mrjo1x2jpg.jpg

weirdly plausible. the man never had any ideas of his own. with scalia gone, who does he have to tom for?

can we not do this

the man replaced THURGOOD MARSHALL on the court. not forgivable.

but if you want an apology for my word choice, it's yours.

it's really not just the word choice

fwiw his opinions often differed from Scalia's, and I'm really tired of reexplaining this to people who never actually read Supreme Court opinions but just like the idea that the black conservative guy must have been a lackey to the white conservative guy because no other possibility is fathomable

^^ yeah, this. We've had a flood of articles in the last decade on Thomas' jurisprudence. not to mention a bestseller by Jeffrey Tobin with a whole chapter dedicated to it.

I don't love having to defend him, but he has a distinct judicial philosophy that he is relatively consistent about. It's a weird and reactionary one that is arguably even more conservative and more constitutional-fundamentalist than Scalia's, but in any case he's not Scalia lite.

yup as Alfred notes in many ways he's been even worse than Scalia due to being even more of a bizarrely fanatical "purist"

for all his faults and inconsistencies, Scalia was nimble, he could take a scalpel to issues. whereas Thomas is more like a giant hammer.

in other news:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/us/politics/supreme-court-gun-control-semiautomatic-connecticut.html?_r=0

yeah on further reflection my inability to think of thomas in post-racial terms is more down to the thurgood marshall thing. the idea that george bush considered thomas a suitable replacement for the man who argued "brown" before the court speaks volumes about how white america thinks about race.

the whole sexual harassment thing doesn't help either, but i guess that's an entirely separate issue. still, his ability to embody both racial and gender injustice while simultaneously being the least impressive jurist on the court is impressive.