U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

Democratic Senators refusing to show up to work to block a pro-life SC nominee would definitely increase turnout among anti-Democratic "independents" and GOP voters

Did voters punish the GOP for blocking Garland?

do I need to remind you how many seats the Dems are defending in the Senate? It isn't good, math-wise!

"cower-in-place" sheesh stop it with the hysterical hyperbole, we're on the same side.

You are neglecting to consider that democratic turnout could be increased by the democrats showing a spine.

You are also neglecting to consider just how bad a 6-3 conservative majority for the next 10-20 years will be compared to control of the senate for two years, assuming it could even cost that, which I doubt.

I can imagine McConnell suddenly deciding Pence counts as a member of the Senate as its presiding officer.

the key thing is this is a risky tactic that there is no way you will get the whole Dem caucus to go along with - Manchin, Donnelly and Heitkamp will show up for work because they don't want to get voted out of office. There are not enough angry Dem voters in their states to save their seats if they do this. And Schumer will tell them to do what they need to do to keep their seats. It's that simple. This argument is almost entirely academic.

How are you going to convince those three (and the handful of others in tossup states) that this won't cost them their seats, and the Dems shot at a majority?

and yeah McConnell would find some way around this. He'd probably revel in the ability to compel the national guard to hunt down recalcitrant Dems and force them to show up on the floor if he could find some way to do it. He's got the upper hand here.

You are neglecting to consider that democratic turnout could be increased by the democrats showing a spine.

do the math. There aren't that many Democrats in Indiana, West Virginia and North Dakota.

shit, just bucking the party and showing up to vote "no" would probably *increase* their chances of reelection.

6-3 conservative majorit

it's 5-4 btw

Fair point, I agree it's probably not going to happen. That's why I'm putting most of my hopes on jurisdiction stripping and court-packing come 2020 or 2024.

this seems like a pretty half-assed strategy when no one even seems confident as to whether Pence could count as the 51st vote. and hell, even if he can't, who's to say McCain can't be dragged off his deathbed for a SC confirmation vote?

with solidarity and good messaging I can imagine Dems "holding the line" and making absolutely clear that the time for business as usual is definitively over could be quite galvanizing in unexpected ways

But you're correct that there are a few Dems who would never in a million years consider this even if they thought it might be effective (xps)

One argument against dem obstructionism is that dem voters sometimes hold their representatives to standards and punish them for failing to live up to those standards whereas GOP voters will faithfully cast their vote for the rep who just burnt his constituents' houses to the ground.

I would still urge obstructionism but its worth acknowledging that the potential consequences aren't the same on both sides of the fence.

this seems like a pretty half-assed strategy when no one even seems confident as to whether Pence could count as the 51st vote. and hell, even if he can't, who's to say McCain can't be dragged off his deathbed for a SC confirmation vote?

― evol j, Thursday, June 28, 2018 12:51 PM

His buddy Ted Kennedy did in 2010 for ACA.

I would still urge obstructionism but its worth acknowledging that the potential consequences aren't the same on both sides of the fence.

This is fair, but based on the outpouring of unbridled rage I see soming from so many, I'm choosing to believe most politically engaged people understand that no tactic should go untried.

If I were the GOP I'd probably confirm as close to the election as possible to dampen enthusiasm among democrats.

I want to agree with man alive but shakey is making sense. while morally it would be the right thing to do, clearly obstructing the senate in this manner would be unprecedented and could very easily be a PR disaster for the democrats. I'm not saying they shouldn't do it, but these are obviously things you need to consider

Imagine the GOP taking credit for being the responsible party, the party that wants to Get Things Done.

I really don't think the average democratic voter cares enough about what the senate does or doesn't do in this case, compared to the other issues

Agreed, which is why it's easy as hell to paint Democrats as do-nothing obstructionists.

now, how many of those voters weren't already going to vote for Donnelly, Heitkamp, or Manchin's challenges in the fall is another question.

btw doesn't Manchin have a commanding lead in his own race? What's he worried about?

If I were the GOP I'd probably confirm as close to the election as possible to dampen enthusiasm among democrats.

I think this would actually increase turnout on both sides tbh. Dems would be enraged, and that drives people to the polls.

Manchin does have a big lead at the moment I think. Maybe swap him out for Tester?

altho Manchin is probably inclined towards a conservative SC himself tbf

Manchin is presumably an "in the mold of kennedy" guy, i.e. a conservative justice that occasionally acts like a fucking primadonna who can't make up his mind and once in a while throws liberals a bone, cementing his reputation as "even handed" because liberals have stockholm syndrome.

Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Joe Donnelly of Indiana all voted to confirm Gorsuch

I do not think these 3 will act any different now. Also, Schumer seems unlikely to endorse a no quorum strategy.

To say the least.

Manchin is presumably an "in the mold of kennedy" guy, i.e. a conservative justice that occasionally acts like a fucking primadonna who can't make up his mind and once in a while throws liberals a bone, cementing his reputation as "even handed" because liberals have stockholm syndrome.

― Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive)

otm...and West Virginia is a deeply conservative state

hey why doesn't Trump nominate Joe Manchin to replace Kennedy

hahaha

wait don't give him any ideas

trump expands supreme court to 10 to appoint justices diamond and silk

supreme court justice donald trump jr.

bless the outline for this URL

https://theoutline.com/post/5126/pack-the-court-judicial-appointment-scalia-is-in-hell?zd=1&zi=irzf4v5i

Awful thought occurred to me that if we don’t retake the senate I’ll bet THEY will pack the court.

eh that's picking a fight they don't need to. Any attempt to pack the court from either side will be filibustered to death.

It was not until 1869 that Congress fixed the Court at its current number. In 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt proposed a judicial reform that would have allowed him to appoint a new justice for every existing justice over the age of 70 years and six months. The legislation is sometimes described as a failure or an overreach. The mere threat of court packing, however, achieved the bill’s objective: the Court suddenly began upholding the New Deal measures that helped working people survive the Great Depression.

This is incorrect history. The bill was likely to pass in the Senate, albeit with great reluctance, in large part b/c FDR promised the next open seat to Majority Leader Joseph Robinson. Then the combination of Chief Justice Hughes' canny open letter responding to FDR's accusations about the Court lagging in its workload and Robinson dropping dead of a heart attack killed the bill. Finally, Willis Van Devanter announced his retirement.

the GOP would be stupid to pack the court, given that they already have a near-guaranteed majority even before the senate race

of course, that doesn't rule out them doing it

thx for the correction there Alfred, I was wondering if I was misremembering the details from "Supreme Power"

according to all evidence what made the Four Horseman flinch wasn't the bill (which wasn't announced until well after Election Day) but the size of FDR's victory in November; this development also affected Owen Roberts' move to the liberal camp in West Coast Hotel

Everything sucks.

One person who knows both men remarked on the affinity between Mr. Trump and Justice Kennedy, which is not obvious at first glance. Justice Kennedy is bookish and abstract, while Mr. Trump is earthy and direct.

But they had a connection, one Mr. Trump was quick to note in the moments after his first address to Congress in February 2017. As he made his way out of the chamber, Mr. Trump paused to chat with the justice.

“Say hello to your boy,” Mr. Trump said. “Special guy.”

Mr. Trump was apparently referring to Justice Kennedy’s son, Justin. The younger Mr. Kennedy spent more than a decade at Deutsche Bank, eventually rising to become the bank’s global head of real estate capital markets, and he worked closely with Mr. Trump when he was a real estate developer, according to two people with knowledge of his role.

During Mr. Kennedy’s tenure, Deutsche Bank became Mr. Trump’s most important lender, dispensing well over $1 billion in loans to him for the renovation and construction of skyscrapers in New York and Chicago at a time other mainstream banks were wary of doing business with him because of his troubled business history.

About a week before the presidential address, Ivanka Trump had paid a visit to the Supreme Court as a guest of Justice Kennedy. The two had met at a lunch after the inauguration, and Ms. Trump brought along her daughter, Arabella Kushner. Occupying seats reserved for special guests, they saw the justices announce several decisions and hear an oral argument.

Ms. Trump tweeted about the visit and posted a photo. “Arabella & me at the Supreme Court today,” she wrote. “I’m grateful for the opportunity to teach her about the judicial system in our country firsthand.”

f o l l o w t h e m o n e y

i took p4reene's column as a modest proposal of what the Dems could/should try to do, not what he expects.

Saw it suggested that the Dems should demand a conclusion to the Mueller investigation before appointing another justice, but that could backfire by either making Mueller rush or increasing demands for him to otherwise wrap up early. It also gives the investigation even more of a political charge.

Here's a question that the SC might one day hear: if it turns out Trump was (officially) illegitimate, or a criminal, or a traitor, or a cheat or whatever, and is removed (or even not) from office, could that alone be the legit basis for (at the least) impeaching a justice or otherwise rescinding an appointment? I think it's possible to impeach a justice. A quick little look shows that one justice (under Washington!) was impeached but did not leave. Another, Fortas in the late '60s, resigned before his impeachment. I mean, it would never happen, but we're in an alternate universe where "it would never happen" is meaningless and shortsighted.

Trump is not “illegitimate”; he won the vote of the electoral college, which is where legitimacy begins and ends.

Mueller pulled the Iraq WMD's out of his ass i'm sure even in a crunch he has something up his sleeve

he won the vote of the electoral college

this is in fact how the country works since 1787

He was legitimately elected through the system we have, but if they discover and/or reveal he was illegally assisted, through bribes and hacking and messing with votes, that does muddy things a lot.

Millions of people cast ballots for him, so his legitimacy is unquestioned. The presence of foreign money and influence is another question.