U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

We also, thanks to the mythos propping up the Warren Court (which only became the liberal touchstone we remember in 1962 when Goldberg joined), tend to forget the Court has been a nightmare of revanchist counter-revolution for most of its existence.

exactly. It's designed that way and the fact that it ever wasn't was a historical anomaly.

a historical anomaly but one worth re-creating if possible, ASAP.

even if it weren't for McConnell's sinister godawful smug grinning bullshit actions, there would be something truly blood-boiling about Trump getting more justices in one term than Obama got in two. and, obviously, it's hard not to contemplate the alternate universe where 2016 went just slightly differently, and Clinton had gotten three picks. (haha obviously i know Mitch and Cruz and company would have just spent the past four years refusing to vote on them.) i mean this is just more evidence for "all of our rights and fates should probably not hinge on these nine people" but in the day-to-day living under that system it just eats away at you to contemplate it. we were in hindsight THIS close to a 6-3 court of Democratic appointees.

at this point all i can hope for, ghoulishly, is a Trump loss followed swiftly by the retirement/death of Thomas and, in some actuarial alignment, the comparatively spry Alito. also let's be real, the moment a passably liberal appointment can be assured, Stephen Breyer needs to to hang up his robe also. also fuck anthony kennedy forever for condemning the world to possible decades of Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh. in conclusion i'm so angry.

Stephen Breyer needs to to hang up his robe also

^^fucking this. like, immediately.

at this point I wouldn’t be surprised if Thomas bows out in Trump’s watch

(I don’t think it will happen, just that it would have zero shock value for me)

I assumed Thomas would resign this year as a fuck you to dems, but maybe not

xp -- I don't remember the Warren Court, the first very clear memory I have of a decision is Citizens United

(more pertinently, I don't remember a point in my lifetime where half the country -- realistically speaking, way more than half, and not just this country -- was not fundamentally selfish and cruel and compassionless, a mindset that naturally extends to court decisions)

sorry if this point has been made but I really don't see much comfort in the idea of packing the court, because when the republicans take office again they'll just re-pack the court again, and this could go on essentially forever given that roughly half of the country supports trump

― like, I’m eating an elephant head (katherine), Tuesday, September 22, 2020 1:51 PM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

IMO, part of the idea behind expanding the court would be to entrench power while we can and make it less likely for Republicans to gain power again unless they moderate. Trump is *not* supported by a majority of the country, but rulings by the Roberts court on things like campaign financing, voting rights, and gerrymandering have made it easier for Republicans to win elections.

otm

I think speculation about Thomas retiring strategically underestimates how much of a bona fide weirdo he is

my understanding of voting rights/gerrymandering is that a lot of the restrictions either flout SC rulings or rely on the fact that SC rulings will be handed down too late to count (more of an issue in a redistricting year)

the local/state restrictions that is

I can easily imagine Justice Thomas thinking "my millions of enemies would love nothing more than to see me off the court and I will never give them that satisfaction as long as I have breath in my body", then smiling at the thought.

Re Amy Coney Barrett -- I've always found it weirdly dissonant when a highly successful woman in a position of power appears to be in favor of female subservience. Is it a conservative elitist "those rules are really for the masses, not us" thing?

only the white kind of woman

lol she would have been a classmate of my ex-brother-in-law’s at Rhodes College, which is pretty small. I’d check and see if there’s any intel there but honestly that’s a hornets nest I’d rather not kick over. I suspect both he and my sister are secret (shy!) Trump voters this time around.

this is basically the federalist society https://t.co/HerGyZRSbU

— Republic City YIMBY ↙️↙️↙️😷 (@opinion_left) September 22, 2020

"The small-c conservatism that shaped Ginsburg’s public persona and decision-making could not be further out of step with the moment. Hope still exists, but it does not lie with the justices....Hope is in the streets." perfect from @onesarahjones https://t.co/jurwV6YqgN

— paris geller stan account (@tmavuram) September 24, 2020

once again - are SCOTUS justices SUPPOSED to be feminist activist heroes in their actual role? part of being a justice involves issuing rulings you don't necessarily agree with due to precedence/interpretation of law.

Is it?

I no longer think so. If the GOP nominates outright partisans, so should we.

Jurisrashness

If a belief in "originalism" affirms white male power before 1865, then we should make clear what "we" believe in.

Biden thinks a Dem partisan rules 'shoot him in the leg'

are SCOTUS justices SUPPOSED to be feminist activist heroes in their actual role?

SCOTUS justices are supposed to nullify or modify laws which infringe upon the valid rights of citizens. This is not activism, but duty.

Democrats prepare bill limiting U.S. Supreme Court justice terms to 18 years https://t.co/QIynBWPZkh pic.twitter.com/T7iQXBwzVm

— Reuters (@Reuters) September 25, 2020

wouldn't this require an amendment?

i suppose it's more an attempt to introduce the idea that they're willing to fight back, which i endorse

otm

The bill seeks to avoid constitutional concerns by exempting current justices from the 18-year rule. Those appointed under term limits would become “senior” upon retirement and rotate to lower courts.

cool, so this would only affect justices chosen by future Dem presidents. Problem solved!

i mean 'ex post facto' laws are barred via the Constitution, so any reform going forward is going to run into that

i don't think ex post facto clause would apply to this but the article said it exempts current justices from the term limit

its a good idea and it should have been implemented decades ago. the fact that the future of our country was staked on the health of a cancer-ridden 86 year old is insane

It's crazy that there should be lifetime appointments for a living, evolving thing that affects so many, like the law. It would be like lifetime doctor appointments at a hospital.

that Madison, he keeps on givin'

ex post facto is a principal typically applying to criminal law stating that you can't punish someone for something that wasn't a crime when they committed the act. I don't think it has any bearing on SCOTUS term limits.

It's honestly sort of incredible, considering how much power they hold, that no one has ever gone full Pelican Brief.

Here's a good explainer about one possible version of the term limit proposal (which IDK if the current bill is based on) that would arguably not require an amendment
https://fixthecourt.com/2019/11/myth-facts-scotus-term-limits/

sure do wish someone would have had this idea more than 18 years ago

I kind of agree with Alfred way upthread that we should probably start a new thread soon. Whatever you think of RBG, the post-RBG era deserves its own thread title, for obvious reasons no matter what happens over the next few months.

― sound of scampo talk to me (El Tomboto), Monday, September 21, 2020 10:45 PM

Alfred & El Tomboto otm

Done.

U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Ginsberg Edition