HawkShack.com

After the Merrick Garland injustice and now jamming through a Justice with an election underway to create the most conservative court in 70 years its just time to change it up. Its been proven one not even need the WH, just the Senate to block a qualified nominee and it's the luck of the draw who keels over when and provides an opening. Frankly I think the voters should decide in any election year but its time to change the model to have a court that reflects the American mainstream, not a time when blacks sat in the back of the bus.

Hawktawk wrote:After the Merrick Garland injustice and now jamming through a Justice with an election underway to create the most conservative court in 70 years its just time to change it up. Its been proven one not even need the WH, just the Senate to block a qualified nominee and it's the luck of the draw who keels over when and provides an opening. Frankly I think the voters should decide in any election year but its time to change the model to have a court that reflects the American mainstream, not a time when blacks sat in the back of the bus.

This is just like the complaints about the electoral system: If you can't win a game, let's change the rules so you can win.

Let's assume that the Democrats add 4 justices and bring the total to 13. What's to stop the Republicans when they regain power from adding 4 more and bring the total to 17? The court packing plan was madness when Roosevelt proposed it and it's madness when butt hurt Dems are proposing it today.

Besides, the court might be have had more appointments made by conservative presidents, but the rulings haven't always followed that pattern. SCOTUS has been the one institution that we have that's worked. Outside of coming to some type of agreement on the timing of confirmation of nominations, I see no need to mess with it.

Hawktawk wrote:After the Merrick Garland injustice and now jamming through a Justice with an election underway to create the most conservative court in 70 years its just time to change it up. Its been proven one not even need the WH, just the Senate to block a qualified nominee and it's the luck of the draw who keels over when and provides an opening. Frankly I think the voters should decide in any election year but its time to change the model to have a court that reflects the American mainstream, not a time when blacks sat in the back of the bus.

Hi, I'm hawktawk. I read the papers and decided to take the line against Trump. It doesn't matter that Coney Barrett is highly qualified and that the court hasn't actually made many right wing decisions. Evidence is irrelevant in the Trump Era. All that matters is what I think absent any relevance to the way the court has actually voted or what laws are really in effect in the land. So I'm going to make some really dumb extreme statements that have no relevance as to what Amy Coney Barrett would vote like.

Just a few statistics: Out of the 63 cases decided by SCOTUS in the 2019 term (the 2020 term is just beginning), Chief Justice Roberts was in agreement with the judgement 96.8% of the time. The two Trump appointees, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, were in agreement 93.5% and 85.5% respectively. In contrast, the two other conservative justices, Thomas and Alito, agreed just 68.3% and 71.4% respectively. That's lower than the 75.6% average of the 4 liberal judges (Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayer, and Kagan).

Obviously that's not a completely accurate graphic and is open to various interpretations, but it does show that Roberts and the Trump appointees aren't lining up in lock step with the the conservative wing of the court and were more likely to side with the 4 liberals. The country isn't in danger of making this huge shift to the right due to the make-up of SCOTUS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_term ... ted_States

It's also interesting to note that both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch voted AGAINST Trump in his attempt to keep his tax records from the Manhattan District Attorney in an ongoing criminal investigation against him.

RiverDog wrote:Just a few statistics: Out of the 63 cases decided by SCOTUS in the 2019 term (the 2020 term is just beginning), Chief Justice Roberts was in agreement with the judgement 96.8% of the time. The two Trump appointees, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, were in agreement 93.5% and 85.5% respectively. In contrast, the two other conservative justices, Thomas and Alito, agreed just 68.3% and 71.4% respectively. That's lower than the 75.6% average of the 4 liberal judges (Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayer, and Kagan).

Obviously that's not a completely accurate graphic and is open to various interpretations, but it does show that Roberts and the Trump appointees aren't lining up in lock step with the the conservative wing of the court and were more likely to side with the 4 liberals. The country isn't in danger of making this huge shift to the right due to the make-up of SCOTUS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_term ... ted_States

It's also interesting to note that both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch voted AGAINST Trump in his attempt to keep his tax records from the Manhattan District Attorney in an ongoing criminal investigation against him.

The entire reason judges are appointed for life and extremely difficult to remove is to avoid political bias. I'm still not sure why people think otherwise. Judges should follow the law and be apolitical in accordance with common law and the Constitution. If they're not following that, then they are not following the law.

Biden has been very wishy washy when asked to either support or refute the court packing idea, simply sayin that he's "not a fan" of the proposal. Last Thursday, George Stephanopoulos pinned him down, asked Biden if he didn't think that the American public had a right to know his position before voting, to which Biden agreed.

If Biden agrees to this scheme, it could affect his chances of beating Trump in a close election. Surveys have shown that a clear majority of Americans are against the plan, and even amongst Dems, there's only luke warm support, which explains why both Biden and Harris have been tap dancing around the question and would rather the issue just go away.

The Dems could be opening a real can of worms if they pursue this proposal.

In 16 the Republicans floated the idea of reducing the size of the court if Hillary won. Were youas vocally against that plan?

c_hawkbob wrote:In 16 the Republicans floated the idea of reducing the size of the court if Hillary won. Were youas vocally against that plan?

That's the first time I've heard of such a proposal. I'm not even sure how it would be done. Through attrition?

But to answer your question, of course I'd be against such a proposal.

c_hawkbob wrote:https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/10/supreme-court-2016-election-fewer-justices-would-curb-power/

https://www.npr.org/2016/11/03/50056012 ... t-nominees

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11 ... ion-battle

That's not quite 'reducing the court's size'. They were talking about not filling a vacancy should Hillary have won, which would have lasted only until one party held both the Senate and Presidency. It's not on the same scale that would occur if they were to add justices as the Dems are proposing as once on the bench, the size of the court could not be changed except by impeachment or through attrition.

But you're right in the sense they were using a similar argument that the Dems are now using to justify packing the court.

So now what's your point? Are you suggesting that since the R's talked of leaving a SCOTUS seat vacant that the Dems are now justified in packing the court?

No, my point is you didn't hear about it then because it was a non issue but you're hearing about it now because the R's want it to suddenly be an issue. Obfuscation.

c_hawkbob wrote:No, my point is you didn't hear about it then because it was a non issue but you're hearing about it now because the R's want it to suddenly be an issue. Obfuscation.

I apologize for my ignorance, but I'm still not clear on your point. The R's want the Dem's court packing plan to be an issue? The Dems are the ones that brought up the topic, why wouldn't the R's make an issue out of it?

I sure as hell hope Biden doesn't embrace this proposal. It's an unpopular idea and could make a difference in a close election.

Dems are the ones that brought up the topic

Not sure that's accurate. I believe Chris Wallace is the first one to bring it up this election cycle.

Dems are the ones that brought up the topic

c_hawkbob wrote:Not sure that's accurate. I believe Chris Wallace is the first one to bring it up this election cycle.

Not that it makes a great deal of difference who brought up the subject, but I stumbled across this piece and thought it might shed some light on the topic, and before you get bent out of shape about my source, I have no idea if it's conservative or liberal. I'm posting it because It highlights why I'm against packing the court or manipulating the nomination process to shape it in a particular party's mold:

For much of the period from 2017 to 2019, there was an active public debate over "court packing." The first round of that debate was kicked off by prominent conservative law professor Stephen Calabresi, who (along with Shams Hirji) drafted a plan for Republicans to increase the number of lower-court federal judges, so as to enable Donald Trump to tilt the balance of these courts to the right with new appointments (for the record, I strongly opposed their idea). With the 2018 nomination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, it was the left's turn to advocate court-packing in order to offset what they viewed as the illegitimate GOP appointments of Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch; the latter's seat, they argued, was "stolen" as a result of the GOP-controlled Senate's refusal to hold hearings on Judge Merrick Garland, Barack Obama's nominee to fill the seat vacated by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016.

The conflict over court-packing seemed to abate after the Democratic Party chose a presidential nominee—Joe Biden—who has said he opposes the idea. In addition, court-packing has been pushed out of the news by the coronavirus pandemic, the death of George Floyd and resulting protests over police brutality, and other events. Now, however, some progressive activist groups are trying to get the idea back on the political agenda.

The once-fringe idea of packing the court got a major boost during the Democratic presidential primary, when several candidates said they were open to the plan or supported it. Democrats have argued the hardball tactic is needed after Republicans blocked former President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland and others on the lower courts.

If the Democrats pack the court, the GOP will respond in kind as soon as they get the chance. The predictable result will not only be a loss of "credibility" for the Supreme Court, but also the elimination of judicial review as an effective check on the other branches of government. If the president can pack the court any time his or her party control both houses of Congress, they can prevent the court from making decisions that curb unconstitutional policies they may wish to enact.

This dynamic is a key reason why court-packing is a standard tool of authoritarian populists seeking to undermine liberal democracy, recently used in such countries as Hungary, Turkey, and Venezuela. Comparative research indicates that judicial independence is a crucial safeguard for civil liberties and other individual rights. Court-packing, if it succeeds, is an obvious threat to that independence.

https://reason.com/2020/06/14/the-retur ... t-packing/

Why would I get bent about your source, it reinforces my position: "The first round of that debate was kicked off by prominent conservative law professor Stephen Calabresi".

c_hawkbob wrote:Why would I get bent about your source, it reinforces my position: "The first round of that debate was kicked off by prominent conservative law professor Stephen Calabresi".

You said Republicans, which I took to mean Republican politicians, ie Senators and Congressmen. But that's not my point. My point is that I don't care who brought it up or when. Like I said earlier, it was wrong when Roosevelt proposed it and it's wrong today.

And again my point is that it's a non issue, it obfuscation from the right (is that better?) because they have no real political legs to stand on with this incumbent clod in office. They have to create tangents wherever possible. "Let's create an argument we can win"

c_hawkbob wrote:No, my point is you didn't hear about it then because it was a non issue but you're hearing about it now because the R's want it to suddenly be an issue. Obfuscation.

Yep. Bob is right. Republicans making an issue of nothing to push scare tactics just like the Dems are arguing Roe vs. Wade would be removed. Just more BS fear-mongering by Dems and Repubs.

Oh Dems are going to pack the court to push their liberal agenda. Dems are Amy Coney Barrett will overturn Roe vs. Wade and help Trump keep the White House if she is appointed.

These parties suck. They can't convince us to vote for them on the strength of good plans for the nation. So they both have to pretend they're some kind of evil villains out to get people from the other party.

We need to really push for a third party or some kind of change in this system. This isn't working well any longer.

This isn't just Republicans pushing the issue to scare voters. George Stephanopoulos, a Democratic advisor to Bill Clinton, was very insistent that Biden respond to the question rather than ducking it like he has. Biden could put this issue to rest tomorrow if he would just come out and say that he's opposed to it, but he won't do it. His refusal to do so keeps the issue alive. It's giving credence to Trump's claim that Biden is a wolf in sheep's clothing and will cave into the liberal wing of his party.

Aseahawkfan wrote:
Hi, I'm hawktawk. I read the papers and decided to take the line against Trump. It doesn't matter that Coney Barrett is highly qualified and that the court hasn't actually made many right wing decisions. Evidence is irrelevant in the Trump Era. All that matters is what I think absent any relevance to the way the court has actually voted or what laws are really in effect in the land. So I'm going to make some really dumb extreme statements that have no relevance as to what Amy Coney Barrett would vote like.

Im sure ACB is a decent jurist. Most qualified? hell if I know. weirdly enough no accusations of being a drunk rapist or otherwise lacking in moral character against her or even Neil Gorsuch who was really the tip of the spear in this current fight. Just sayin...Things that make ya go HMMM...

You miss the point.How she might rule on certain things is irrelevant. She will imperil Roe V Wade and Obamacare immediately and wont say what she would do if the pres wont leave office, if there's a contested election, whether he can pardon himself.WHETER HE CAN DELAY THE ELECTION WHICH IS ESTABLISHED LAW!!!!! Its so Fing weird and wrong and not OK.A failed president likely to lose and employ these tactics is picking someone who may decide his fate in a few weeks. ALMOST 30 MILLION HAVE VOTED ALREADY. Its so wrong with Garland not even respecting the man enough to give him an up or down vote in 10 months and coronavirus spiking they have time for a hearing and vote to jam this jurist through and cant come together for the american people who are already decided and polls show have in fact decided.

The founders have been proven to be in great error in 3 major areas that greatly impact us all.One is the 25th amendment. I rest my case................................ One is Impeachment. Its a joke. Presidents are able to be utterly lawless (and mentally ill)and the only remedy is to (maybe) vote them out?If Putin figures out how to actually change votes in 6 or 7 battleground states which he is surely hard at work at maybe orange crazy man wins and loses the popular vote by 10 million?
One person one vote. That's my solution. Electoral college has become a joke.
And my 3rd is SCOTUS. A president who lost the popular vote by 3 million and governs to his 43% base is not the man who should put 3 people on the court. I despise Hillary, she's as responsible as Vlad Putin, Fox News and a bunch of racist idiots in early primary states for this 4 year apostasy weve gone through. But I agree with her on one thing. The judiciary process for the supreme court is irrevocably broken.

I have little hope Biden will strip himself of power, put in and agree to sign some safeguards to protect future generations from an increasingly lawless executive branch, to franchise disenfranchised voters with election law reform. To push for an amendment that allows secret voting in the senate when debating an impeachment vote like jurists everywhere else do. But I hope he will. Right now we are ruled by an emperor for whatever their term is.

Id like to see a court of 21.

9 people , many aged and capable of dropping dead in the dying throes of an utterly failed administration shouldn't carry nearly the weight it does right now. The fight wouldnt even be happening. More minds than 9 should be involved in deciding our fates for the rest of my life.More diversity of opinion, more "stealth" potential to prevent their ideologically rigid president from packing the court. The dumbest reason to do anything is cause that's how it was always done.

Hawktawk wrote:Id like to see a court of 21.

9 people , many aged and capable of dropping dead in the dying throes of an utterly failed administration shouldn't carry nearly the weight it does right now. The fight wouldnt even be happening. More minds than 9 should be involved in deciding our fates for the rest of my life.More diversity of opinion, more "stealth" potential to prevent their ideologically rigid president from packing the court. The dumbest reason to do anything is cause that's how it was always done.

Under that logic, why should we stop at 21? Why not 25? 35? Heck, let's make it like Congress and expand it to 535. After all, the more diversity of opinion, the better the decision. Right?

IMO the biggest problem with the Supreme Court is the nomination/confirmation process, not the number of justices or the fact that they're appointed for life. In my former line of work, the way the union and company decided on an arbitrator to hear a case that had reached binding arbitration was that they petitioned the FMCS for the names of 5 arbitrators. Each side would then alternately cross off one arbitrator they didn't want to hear the case until one was left.

I'm not sure how that would work with a SCOTUS nomination as I do think that the party in power should have an advantage in naming SCOTUS justices, but some sort of method should be developed to keep the court from lurching to one side or the other of the political spectrum.

RiverDog wrote:This isn't just Republicans pushing the issue to scare voters. George Stephanopoulos, a Democratic advisor to Bill Clinton, was very insistent that Biden respond to the question rather than ducking it like he has. Biden could put this issue to rest tomorrow if he would just come out and say that he's opposed to it, but he won't do it. His refusal to do so keeps the issue alive. It's giving credence to Trump's claim that Biden is a wolf in sheep's clothing and will cave into the liberal wing of his party.

This is my thought as well. It is an easy one for Biden to shoot down if there are no legs to it at all. I know I would feel better about things if he were to so. I would like to think the idea of packing the court would be universally disliked if somebody were being objective. Packing the court, obviously is a slippery slope, and has the potential to do a lot of damage to the balance of power set up in our government. Personally I am in favor of a court of 9 or even reducing it to 7.

RiverDog wrote:
IMO the biggest problem with the Supreme Court is the nomination/confirmation process, not the number of justices or the fact that they're appointed for life. In my former line of work, the way the union and company decided on an arbitrator to hear a case that had reached binding arbitration was that they petitioned the FMCS for the names of 5 arbitrators. Each side would then alternately cross off one arbitrator they didn't want to hear the case until one was left.

I'm not sure how that would work with a SCOTUS nomination as I do think that the party in power should have an advantage in naming SCOTUS justices, but some sort of method should be developed to keep the court from lurching to one side or the other of the political spectrum.

I think the current system works. Obviously there are issues and it's not perfect, but it does what it is supposed to do. It separates power, gives the people a voice through their representatives, and typically has led to a pretty good ideological split amongst judges in our country. Here is a pretty cool graph that shows ideological leanings in judges over time. It does seem to show a that the average judge votes slightly more liberal over time, although that is not the case with all judges obviously. I know it's Wikipedia- take it for what it's worth, but it is interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideologic ... t_justices

Hawktawk wrote:And my 3rd is SCOTUS. A president who lost the popular vote by 3 million and governs to his 43% base is not the man who should put 3 people on the court. I despise Hillary, she's as responsible as Vlad Putin, Fox News and a bunch of racist idiots in early primary states for this 4 year apostasy weve gone through. But I agree with her on one thing. The judiciary process for the supreme court is irrevocably broken.

Right now we are ruled by an emperor for whatever their term is.

Like it or not the reason that the SCOTUS nominations by Trump have gone through is because the Senate was/is Republican. It's Republican because that's who the people voted in. It's not because Trump is in the oval office doing whatever he wants. The founding fathers put safeguards in to protect us from exactly what you are talking about and by and large they have worked. Although Trump is a blowhard who speaks like he can do anything he wants the truth is he hasn't been able to. The system has worked to check his power, even with his party having political control for most of his presidency. The system isn't broken, in fact this president has put it to it's second greatest test yet and it is working. What's not working, IMO, is the people. We want to blame Trump- the collective 'we' voted him in. We want to blame the SCOTUS nomination process- the collective 'we' voted those people in to nominate/confirm him. We need to do a better job at communicating, pushing for proper education, and treating each other with respect and empathy if we want America to be what it can be. We need to hold people/media accountable for leading to the divide that is happening in our country. Both political sides are to blame. I have seen more hate and lost friendships over this election than any I have ever witnessed. One thing Trump had right was that there are good people on both sides (I know he wasn't talking about Republicans/Democrats and yes I am using that quote tongue and cheek), but the idea holds still holds true.

Like it or not the reason that the SCOTUS nominations by Trump have gone through is because the Senate was/is Republican. It's Republican because that's who the people voted in

And the same will be true if and when the Senate is under Dem control, I don't wanna hear complaints about what they do with that control that seems to be OK with conservatives while it's under their control. Packing the court to re-balance it is no different from forcing through a candidate after an election has already started to insure that it is a conservative court after those same Senators guaranteed they wouldn't do exactly that 4 years ago.

RiverDog wrote:IMO the biggest problem with the Supreme Court is the nomination/confirmation process, not the number of justices or the fact that they're appointed for life. In my former line of work, the way the union and company decided on an arbitrator to hear a case that had reached binding arbitration was that they petitioned the FMCS for the names of 5 arbitrators. Each side would then alternately cross off one arbitrator they didn't want to hear the case until one was left.

I'm not sure how that would work with a SCOTUS nomination as I do think that the party in power should have an advantage in naming SCOTUS justices, but some sort of method should be developed to keep the court from lurching to one side or the other of the political spectrum.

mykc14 wrote:I think the current system works. Obviously there are issues and it's not perfect, but it does what it is supposed to do. It separates power, gives the people a voice through their representatives, and typically has led to a pretty good ideological split amongst judges in our country. Here is a pretty cool graph that shows ideological leanings in judges over time. It does seem to show a that the average judge votes slightly more liberal over time, although that is not the case with all judges obviously. I know it's Wikipedia- take it for what it's worth, but it is interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideologic ... t_justices

I agree, the system works as well as any and better than most in our government. I was just musing about what it might look like in a perfect world, similar to the changes I'd make in the electoral college if I had my druthers. There are a lot more things right with SCOTUS than there is wrong, such as lifetime appointments and a very high removal standard. It has the effect of insulating justices from political pressures.

c_hawkbob wrote:
And the same will be true if and when the Senate is under Dem control, I don't wanna hear complaints about what they do with that control that seems to be OK with conservatives while it's under their control. Packing the court to re-balance it is no different from forcing through a candidate after an election has already started to insure that it is a conservative court after those same Senators guaranteed they wouldn't do exactly that 4 years ago.

I do think there is a difference. One is a slippery slope that would require a change to our constitution and has the potential to be abused over and over while the other is a singular act that wouldn't require a change to our constitution. Personally I don't like the idea of packing the court, because I think it's bad for our country and it would have an effect on who I vote for if I knew that one side or the other was planning on it. At the same time if it is legally done I am not going to blame Biden as some sort of power hungry mobster doing anything he wants as president. I don't see Trump nominating somebody at this point of time as a problem at all. He is fulfilling his obligation as president. Do you think that the Democrats would do anything differently? Here's a Biden quote from 2016, "“I would go forward with a confirmation process as chairman, even a few months before a presidential election if the nominee were chosen with the advice, and not merely the consent, of the Senate.” If Biden were president right now I would feel the same way about him nominating somebody. If Trump were calling for us to pack the house I would still be against it.

c_hawkbob wrote:Packing the court to re-balance it is no different from forcing through a candidate after an election has already started to insure that it is a conservative court after those same Senators guaranteed they wouldn't do exactly that 4 years ago.

Yes, it is different. Ramming through a confirmation before an election puts one justice on the court. Packing the court adds multiple justices. Besides, if the Republicans were to win both the Senate and White House, the effect of ramming through an appointment before the election would be moot. You will have ended up with the same justice anyway.

But I agree about the hypocrisy. It was outrageous for the R's to hold up an appointment back in 2016. There have been over a dozen justices throughout our history that were confirmed during an election year, the most recent of which happened in 1988 when McConnell himself voted on a SCOTUS appointment. I would have had no problem with Trump making an appointment and the Senate confirming it had it not been for the stunt the R's pulled 4 years earlier.

RiverDog wrote:
I agree, the system works as well as any and better than most in our government. I was just musing about what it might look like in a perfect world, similar to the changes I'd make in the electoral college if I had my druthers. There are a lot more things right with SCOTUS than there is wrong, such as lifetime appointments and a very high removal standard. It has the effect of insulating justices from political pressures.

I think that our founding fathers do a pretty good job constructing our government but the Balance of Powers is exceptional. It really is difficult for any one person or party to gain complete control over our government unless they change the constitution go do so. I believe that the current set up of the SCOTUS is a big reason why we have been so successful as a country which is why I am so against messing with it in anyway.

mykc14 wrote:I think that our founding fathers do a pretty good job constructing our government but the Balance of Powers is exceptional. It really is difficult for any one person or party to gain complete control over our government unless they change the constitution go do so. I believe that the current set up of the SCOTUS is a big reason why we have been so successful as a country which is why I am so against messing with it in anyway.

I do think that they left some holes in the Constitution regarding SCOTUS and would be for addressing them through the amendment process. This caustic, divisive political culture that we're currently in could literally rip it to shreds. The number of justices needs to be limited to a specific number and a nomination/confirmation process needs to be more clearly spelled out.

But given the current divide that exists in the country, we wouldn't be able to get 2/3 of Congress and the states to agree on the time of day.

RiverDog wrote:I do think that they left some holes in the Constitution regarding SCOTUS and would be for addressing them through the amendment process. This caustic, divisive political culture that we're currently in could literally rip it to shreds. The number of justices needs to be limited to a specific number and a nomination/confirmation process needs to be more clearly spelled out.

But given the current divide that exists in the country, we wouldn't be able to get 2/3 of Congress and the states to agree on the time of day.

That's true there are holes. There are 'political' avenues that a group could take to put the country in a bad situation. At the same time the process for nomination/confirmation are pretty well spelled out, it just isn't ideal maybe, like possibly limiting how late in an election year a president can nominate somebody. There's also the threat of a political avenue that the government 'could' take but probably really shouldn't, like when Pelosi said she would think about pushing for impeachment for Trump if he nominated a justice before the election.

If Amy Coney-Barrett is put on the court, I predict she will do well. Roe vs. Wade will not be over-turned. She will vote the law with an emphasis on the Constitution. If this is not what you want as an American, then I'm not sure what you think the law should be.

Aseahawkfan wrote:If Amy Coney-Barrett is put on the court, I predict she will do well. Roe vs. Wade will not be over-turned. She will vote the law with an emphasis on the Constitution. If this is not what you want as an American, then I'm not sure what you think the law should be.

Yeah, I tend to feel the same way.

mykc14 wrote:That's true there are holes. There are 'political' avenues that a group could take to put the country in a bad situation. At the same time the process for nomination/confirmation are pretty well spelled out, it just isn't ideal maybe, like possibly limiting how late in an election year a president can nominate somebody. There's also the threat of a political avenue that the government 'could' take but probably really shouldn't, like when Pelosi said she would think about pushing for impeachment for Trump if he nominated a justice before the election.

It is? The only thing that's spelled out is that the President will nominate and the Senate will give their "advice and consent". That seems awfully vague to me. Over the course of time, the Senate has interpreted that "advice and consent" clause from a 2/3 majority to 60 votes to a simple majority, chose not to offer their advice and consent or did so in an expedited fashion in order to beat a self imposed deadline, and now there's talk of expanding the number of justices.

It's ironic that they spell out so many other things in the Constitution, like qualifications for President, Senators, and Representatives, the ratification of treaties, impeachment and removal from office, ect., but very little is said about the Supreme Court. Indeed, they lump SCOTUS appointments into the same group that includes ambassadors and other low level offices.

RiverDog wrote:
It is? The only thing that's spelled out is that the President will nominate and the Senate will give their "advice and consent". That seems awfully vague to me. Over the course of time, the Senate has interpreted that "advice and consent" clause from a 2/3 majority to 60 votes to a simple majority, chose not to offer their advice and consent or did so in an expedited fashion in order to beat a self imposed deadline, and now there's talk of expanding the number of justices.

Yeah, I probably am giving the founding fathers a little too much credit in saying they are pretty well spelled out. I was thinking mainly of the president's role as being straight forward, but you're right the role of the senate is up to interpretation. That could certainly be cleaned up.

Aseahawkfan wrote:If Amy Coney-Barrett is put on the court, I predict she will do well. Roe vs. Wade will not be over-turned. She will vote the law with an emphasis on the Constitution. If this is not what you want as an American, then I'm not sure what you think the law should be.

I have a lot of confidence in Chief Justice John Roberts. That stat I posted earlier in the thread where he's agreed with the majority opinion over 95% of the time (or is it the court that is agreeing with him?), given the relatively balanced court, seems to me to be remarkable. I think he's a fair man that will keep the court from going off the rails in either direction.

I have a lot more faith in the Supreme Court to do the right thing than I do in our current crop of politicians.

Let's be real. Even though the SCOTUS is supposed to be apolotical, the makeup of the court obviously matters a LOT, or else we wouldn't be discussing it. Just like I said I'm in favor a split legislative branch in general, I would also think a 5-4 court is preferable to 6-3, 7-2 or what have you. It's dangerous when one party has too much control, and SCOTUS is no different. If the democrats do expand the court from 9 to say 11, there would still be a majority of conservative judges.

The only argument I don't think is worth hearing against expanding the court now from republicans is any kind of appeal to 'what's right' or pointing to precedent, since that is out the window with the lightning speed process of the current nominee, and the non-attention they paid to garland. That ship has sailed, and I think the democrats should just say they will do everything within law, just like republicans do.

I have a lot of confidence in Chief Justice John Roberts.

Even though ASF is convinced any democrat is a communist, Justice Roberts is my favorite on the Supreme Court. His temperament and judgement is exactly what we need, even if he doesn't go with what I want always. If Amy Coney Barrett is approved (and she will be), I don't expect her to overturn Roe vs Wade, but I do expect her to chip away at it, based on her previous writings and lectures. Why wouldn't she?

Also, though ASF thinks I blame Trump for everything, I don't think Trump has much feeling either way about confirming Barrett. This has everything to do with McConnell and the Federalist Society's initiatives. Trump is only hoping he has an ally if the election goes to the courts. He's not even remotely religous, and he could care less about Roe vs Wade. He does care about repealing Obamacare, so if he thinks she can help him do that, then I think he would have more energy for it.

I-5 wrote:If Amy Coney Barrett is approved (and she will be), I don't expect her to overturn Roe vs Wade, but I do expect her to chip away at it, based on her previous writings and lectures. Why wouldn't she?

When she takes her seat on the bench, Barrett will be 1 of 9 other justices. She can't "chip away" at anything. Besides, you've already expressed your agreement on restricting late term abortions, so if you agree that Roe v. Wade won't be overturned, what are you afraid of?

I-5 wrote:I don't think Trump has much feeling either way about confirming Barrett. This has everything to do with McConnell and the Federalist Society's initiatives. Trump is only hoping he has an ally if the election goes to the courts. He's not even remotely religous, and he could care less about Roe vs Wade. He does care about repealing Obamacare, so if he thinks she can help him do that, then I think he would have more energy for it.

That's a distinct possibility. I also think that it's possible that Trump doesn't care much about the 2nd Amendment, either. It's all about telling his base what they want to hear.