SCOTUS discussion

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
Lifetime appointments based on luck of timing. It was always doomed. Just a matter of time until that luck ran out for one side or another.
I don’t think it was always doomed. What’s given rise to the issue is the loss of the political middle ground and the undisguised partisanship that has now become characteristic of the whole nomination and confirmation process.
 

Gomer

Premium Member
And not so much in the past either. Wasn’t Garland considered a moderate?
Garland was considered a moderate by most of Washington because his decisions didn't align to a specific party. But I will add the caveat that it was not a univeral assessment as @Willmark has pointed out in the past. Some say Garland had significant pro-government tendancies that did not necesarrily align to left or right, but still could have him considered extreme on a different scale.

That being said, Garland was presented by Obama as a moderate as either an olive branch or a dare to McConnell not to approve depending on which way your bias swings.
 

Jim S

Well-Known Member
What an eye opener-a black conservative justice swearing in a pro life working mom to the Supreme Court. Must be a bitter pill for the democrats to swallow.
 

Willmark

Well-Known Member
Garland was considered a moderate by most of Washington because his decisions didn't align to a specific party. But I will add the caveat that it was not a univeral assessment as @Willmark has pointed out in the past. Some say Garland had significant pro-government tendancies that did not necesarrily align to left or right, but still could have him considered extreme on a different scale.

That being said, Garland was presented by Obama as a moderate as either an olive branch or a dare to McConnell not to approve depending on which way your bias swings.
I cant say for sure what Obama's motivation was with Garland but like Trump with Kavanaugh I think he was not an optimal choice. There is always the possibility that McConnell would have turned down anyone Obama would have put up. As I've said, putting aside my immense dislike for Garland had it not been Obama who nominated him, I doubt there would have been as much rancor.

Barring court packing (more on that in a minute) what I can easily see in the future:
1. Nominee only ever gets through when one party has both the WH and the Senate. In history this is usually the case but has happened with split government in the past.

2. All nominees will now be younger as a requirement. They are now, but this will be reinforced.

3. Strict adherence to the Ginsburg rule which should really be the Biden rule as he instructed her not to answer as she chose in 1993 when he was the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee.

4. No hearings. Although the last time did show that the the party out of power can use it for grandstanding.

5. Far more women will be nominated. Notice the difference between Kavanaugh and ACB hearings. Some will argue that is because of Kavanaugh himself. Its possible. Its also possible that the Dems realized that there was no way they could go after ACB the same way.

Oh and that court packing part? It was a spectacularly bad idea when FDR proposed it, even worse now. The courts are the last branch of government that has the faith of the public, last thing that needs to happen is for that to erode. There is at least a counter-balance there while both major parties try to concentrate more and more power in the office of President but not when their political rivals have the chair.

To me that is the biggest hypocrisy of all and ironic that neither side sees it, or will admit to it. Seems to me people want a dictator but only their dictator. That is to say nothing of the Founders recoiling in revulsion to large swatches of the populace who apparently want the same.
 
Last edited:

drizgirl

Well-Known Member
I cant say for sure what Obama's motivation was with Garland but like Trump with Kavanaugh I think he was not an optimal choice. There is always the possibility that McConnell would have turned down anyone Obama would have put up. As I've said, putting aside my immense dislike for Garland had it not been Obama who nominated him, I doubt there would have been as much rancor.

Barring court packing (more on that in a minute) what I can easily see in the future:
1. Nominee only ever gets through when one party has both the WH and the Senate. In history this is usually the case but has happened with split government in the past.

2. All nominees will no be younger. They are now but this will be reinforced.

3. Strict adherence to the Ginsburg rule which should really be the Biden rule as he instructed her not to answer as she chose in 1993 when he was the Senate chairman of the Judiciary committee.

4. No hearings. Although the last time did show that the the party out of power can use it for grandstanding.

5. Far more women will be nominated. Notice the difference between Kavanaugh and ACB hearings. Some will argue that is because of Kavanaugh himself. Its possible. Its also possible that the Dems realized that there was no way they couldn't go after ACB the same way.

Oh and that court packing part? It was a spectacularly bad idea when FDR proposed it, even worse now. The courts are the last branch of government that has the faith of the public, last thing that needs to happen is for that to erode. There is at least a counter-balance there while both major parties try to concentrate more and more power in the office of President but not when their political rivals have the chair.

To me that is the biggest hypocrisy of all and ironic that neither side sees it, or will admit to it. Seems to me people want a dictator but only their dictator. That is to say nothing of the Founders recoiling in revulsion to large swatches of the populace who apparently want the same.
I also think part of the reason they didn't really go after her is because it was so close to the election. The chance of immediate repercussions was just too high.
 

Willmark

Well-Known Member
I also think part of the reason they didn't really go after her is because it was so close to the election. The chance of immediate repercussions was just too high.
I'm fairly sure they also focus grouped it and had to reign in Fienstein to avoid another "the dogma lives loud in you" moment.
 

TiggerDad

Well-Known Member
I cant say for sure what Obama's motivation was with Garland but like Trump with Kavanaugh I think he was not an optimal choice. There is always the possibility that McConnell would have turned down anyone Obama would have put up. As I've said, putting aside my immense dislike for Garland had it not been Obama who nominated him, I doubt there would have been as much rancor.

Barring court packing (more on that in a minute) what I can easily see in the future:
1. Nominee only ever gets through when one party has both the WH and the Senate. In history this is usually the case but has happened with split government in the past.

2. All nominees will now be younger as a requirement. They are now, but this will be reinforced.

3. Strict adherence to the Ginsburg rule which should really be the Biden rule as he instructed her not to answer as she chose in 1993 when he was the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee.

4. No hearings. Although the last time did show that the the party out of power can use it for grandstanding.

5. Far more women will be nominated. Notice the difference between Kavanaugh and ACB hearings. Some will argue that is because of Kavanaugh himself. Its possible. Its also possible that the Dems realized that there was no way they could go after ACB the same way.

Oh and that court packing part? It was a spectacularly bad idea when FDR proposed it, even worse now. The courts are the last branch of government that has the faith of the public, last thing that needs to happen is for that to erode. There is at least a counter-balance there while both major parties try to concentrate more and more power in the office of President but not when their political rivals have the chair.

To me that is the biggest hypocrisy of all and ironic that neither side sees it, or will admit to it. Seems to me people want a dictator but only their dictator. That is to say nothing of the Founders recoiling in revulsion to large swatches of the populace who apparently want the same.
McConnell announced immediately that Republicans would refuse to consider any Democratic nominee, so don't say he "might" have turned down anyone Obama nominated.

Democratic controlled Senates have approved 13 Republican nominees since 1945, so don't say it's not usually the case. That hasn't been true in reverse, with zero Dem nominees approved by Republican Senates in a longer time, since 1895. Mostly for lack of opportunity. Source: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/presidents-vs-opposing-senates-in-supreme-court-nominations
 

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
McConnell announced immediately that Republicans would refuse to consider any Democratic nominee, so don't say he "might" have turned down anyone Obama nominated.

Democratic controlled Senates have approved 13 Republican nominees since 1945, so don't say it's not usually the case. That hasn't been true in reverse, with zero Dem nominees approved by Republican Senates in a longer time, since 1895. Mostly for lack of opportunity. Source: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/presidents-vs-opposing-senates-in-supreme-court-nominations

I mean... they are literally petulant children.

 

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
Is it petulant when it's in reverse? Both sides take shots at each other, why do you only say something when it's one and not the other?

I will gladly call it out if I come across any of it from any side.

I think I’ve been pretty consistent on here that I think both parties and sides need to come to the centre again. And that I dislike hypocrisy from any side. And I certainly despise this kind of childishness.
 

Willmark

Well-Known Member
McConnell announced immediately that Republicans would refuse to consider any Democratic nominee, so don't say he "might" have turned down anyone Obama nominated.

Democratic controlled Senates have approved 13 Republican nominees since 1945, so don't say it's not usually the case. That hasn't been true in reverse, with zero Dem nominees approved by Republican Senates in a longer time, since 1895. Mostly for lack of opportunity. Source: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/presidents-vs-opposing-senates-in-supreme-court-nominations
In order:
1. McConnell is a politician, there used to be a time where one worked with the other side and he’s one reason that’s gone, but he’s not the only reason.

2. I read through your link which admits (as do you) there is hardly times where the Republicans had to approve someone from the opposite party. Thanks for the info but I’m not sure what this proves? Consider this: would Thomas get through a Democrat controlled Senate now? I think we know the answer to that.

To close great info but I’m not sure that gives the Democrats some sort of moral high ground. As has been noted in this thread things were largely “normal” in the nominating process until 1987, when Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden undid or nearly so everything that came before.

And as I always note I’m not endorsing that Bork should have been confirmed one way or the other. I am pointing out where the modern fight for control of the SC started.
 

TiggerDad

Well-Known Member
In order:
1. McConnell is a politician, there used to be a time where one worked with the other side and he’s one reason that’s gone, but he’s not the only reason.

2. I read through your link which admits (as do you) there is hardly times where the Republicans had to approve someone from the opposite party. Thanks for the info but I’m not sure what this proves? Consider this: would Thomas get through a Democrat controlled Senate now? I think we know the answer to that.

To close great info but I’m not sure that gives the Democrats some sort of moral high ground. As has been noted in this thread things were largely “normal” in the nominating process until 1987, when Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden undid or nearly so everything that came before.

And as I always note I’m not endorsing that Bork should have been confirmed one way or the other. I am pointing out where the modern fight for control of the SC started.
1. Agreed. My point was that you were giving him far too much credit by saying that he might have approved a different nominee.

2. Not saying Dems have moral high ground here, but I don't think it's fair to equate them with Rs when Ds have approved many R justices and the Rs blocked the only one they could, without regard for his qualifications.

I have consistently pointed out that opposition to Bork was also caused by Reagans decision to choose an ideologue with a Watergate history, and not by blanket Dem rejection of his ability to name a justice during the lame duck part of his Presidency. They ultimately approved a more moderate R justice. McConnell refused to even consider a moderate D in an act of pure politics.

If you think the Court was all bunnies and butterflies before Bork, look up the effort to impeach Earl Warren.
 

Willmark

Well-Known Member
1. Agreed. My point was that you were giving him far too much credit by saying that he might have approved a different nominee.

2. Not saying Dems have moral high ground here, but I don't think it's fair to equate them with Rs when Ds have approved many R justices and the Rs blocked the only one they could, without regard for his qualifications.

I have consistently pointed out that opposition to Bork was also caused by Reagans decision to choose an ideologue with a Watergate history, and not by blanket Dem rejection of his ability to name a justice during the lame duck part of his Presidency. They ultimately approved a more moderate R justice. McConnell refused to even consider a moderate D in an act of pure politics.

If you think the Court was all bunnies and butterflies before Bork, look up the effort to impeach Earl Warren.
In order.

1. I don’t give McConnell credit at all actually; he’s a politician and in a different age I have no doubt he’d sell his own mother out for the right price. I hold almost all politicians low in that regard.

2. In regards to the fight and Bork. Up until that time Presidents largely got who they wanted. Sure there was some spats here and there, I’m not arguing or denying that. I’m pointing out that the fight for the judiciary really began in earnest at point and has escalated since.

As far as being an ideologue? Even Justice Stephens who was quite liberal lamented the fact that Bork didn’t make i. Kennedy’s speech about “Robert Bork’s America” sounds like what we just heard about ACB.

Then there is Kennedy spouting off about Souter being another Bork when he was hardly that.

And as noted Garland was no moderate. I’ll leave it at that because of my immense dislike of him so we’re never going to agree on that. So I think best to respectfully agree to disagree.

To sum up? I hear your points, agree with some, disagree with others. I am firm in my belief that both parties share the blame of where we are now and each is going to make it worse. The next step will be packing the courts and the fallouts that will entail.
 
Last edited:

TiggerDad

Well-Known Member
In order.

1. I don’t give McConnell credit at all actually; he’s a political and in a different age I have no doubt he’d sell his own mother out for the right price. I hold almost all politicians low in that regard.

2. In regards to the fight and Bork. Up until that time Presidents largely got who they wanted. Sure there was some spats here and there, I’m not arguing or denying that. I’m pointing out that the fight for the judiciary really began in earnest at point and has escalated since.

As far as being an ideologue? Even Justice Stephens who was quite liberal lamented the fact that Bork didn’t make i. Kennedy’s speech about “Robert Bork’s America” sounds like what we just heard about ACB.

Then there is Kennedy spouting off about Souter being another Bork when he was hardly that.

And as noted Garland was no moderate. I’ll leave it at that because of my immense dislike of him so we’re never going to agree on that. So I think best to respectfully agree to disagree.

To sum up? I hear your points, agree with some, disagree with others. I am firm in my belief that both parties share the blame of where we are now and each is going to make it worse. The next step will be packing the courts and the fallouts that will entail.
Seriously, fights over the judiciary started in 1987? I'm done.
 

Willmark

Well-Known Member
Seriously, fights over the judiciary started in 1987? I'm done.
Read what I wrote again. I said it started in earnest. (Which I’m sure we’ll get someone searching through the thread to see if I’m contradicting myself).

Nothing happens in a vacuum sure but the current crop of leaders in Congress have been around since then are still fighting that fight in ever increasing terms. I’m not sure why that’s so hard to imagine.

It’s your contention that 1987 is of no importance? Note that’s a genuine question.

I’m trying to genuinely be respectful in the conversation and even letting some of your comments pass by without responding to some.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Top Bottom