They’re lifetime appointees so, I think, they would have to reset the number of Justices. They would then have to wait for X-number of justices to die or leave, and not refill their positions.
He’s a liar. We all know that words are cheap and he’ll have no issue going back on his “promise”.
It’s possible. But I believe a thin thread of normalcy still exists, and the only chance to keep the equivalent of a shooting war out of the picture is to keep that thread intact and try to sew it up.
If they win, the can nominate at leisure. If they don’t, there is a significant chance that the Dems won’t push “the big red button”.
If the GoP pushes ahead now and cuts the last thread of normalcy it is 100% guaranteed that Dems will retaliate hard when they first have the chance and numbers.
1 Like
It doesn’t. Which is why expanding and packing the court is such a dangerous thing that I want the GoP to avoid nominating anyone. Realistically nobody is going to downsize the court.
The difference here is that he first nominated him in March, not October. That’s a whole different ballgame than 6 weeks before the election.
Oh we are in for a treat! This hysteria already on display is off the rails and nothing has even happened yet.
Civil war is coming folks. We’re already in a fight for the country’s identity, this ratchets it up to 11.
Socialist or constitutional republic, those have become out only two choices, no middle ground. Get your popcorn ready and keep your shot gun close…
2 Likes
If it happens the court will not be legitimate any longer. It has taken a beating, but is still credible IMO.
I am not exactly sure how we ensure legitimacy of the court. As dumb as it sounds, I am starting to think a random selection from the populace would be better than a partisan president selecting one. I think for this to work we would need to expand the number of justices on the court to give each one less power. We would for sure get some nut jobs, but perhaps if there were a 100-1000 justices, then the nut jobs wouldn’t really matter much. Kinda like the jury of your peers thing. There would likely need to be term limits too.
Then it would cease to function. You would have to change the Constitution to do what you suggest. The system works as designed, which is adversarial; its supposed to be. It has to function under stress or it’s not real.
I am much more afraid of the ‘burn it all down’ types, which is the pervasive narrative on the left. But afraid or not, the show must go on.
Everybody in politics are pulling out all the stops. The thing that must survive through out is the Constitution. If it does not, we are all screwed.
I am rooting for the Constitution above all else.
2 Likes
Well it is SCOTUS that decides what the Constitution means. If that is corrupted, so is the Constitution.
1 Like
And? We’re supposed to live in fear of what the democrats do? Hasn’t that been the problem this whole year? They’ve already killed, destroyed, rioted, looted and lied about it all, so we would be afraid. And at first, I was with you, let’s just wait, but then what is the point? Is that going to buy any good favor with anybody? Are they going to ‘let us live’ if we don’t elect another justice for a bit?
You know as well as I do, if the shoe was on the other foot, they would go full steam ahead as hard as possible. And they would run over anybody who would get in the way. Do you think if they had the White House and the Senate, that they would wait?
After all the crap the left has pulled this year, why in the hell would the republicans care about their threats and intimidation?
We know what they want, a different country, a socialist country ruled by the mob, by fear and intimidation. They have said it and I believe them, hence I do not care what they want.
2 Likes
There isn’t a SCOTUS decision here, it’s an Senate and Presidential decision.
I know that. I am saying that if the court becomes hyper-partisan, that it loses it’s ability to interpret the Constitution fairly (I don’t think we are there yet). If we get justices that make party line decisions that don’t line up with the constitution it is a problem. We have seen that the two latest judges seem to respect the constitution, and precedent. That is a good thing, but I do worry about the future.
1 Like
Exactly. This is so true and… who wouldn’t? Take the win you have now, there’s no point in delaying for speculation.
2 Likes
1 Like
There are reasons why you wouldn’t. The GOP set a precedent in 2016 by stating that it isn’t right to appoint a justice in a president’s last year in his term.
“I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination. And you can use my words against me and you’d be absolutely right.”
-Lindsey Graham
They would be breaking an agreement / precedent. If they break the precedent, what stops the DEMs from not playing fairly as soon as they have power? It is really only precedent that we have 9 justices on the court. The DEMs might decide once they have power that we need 13.
Basically, there is a gentlemen’s agreement to play by the unofficial rules. Once one side decides that they aren’t going to play by the unofficial rules, I doubt the other side will either. The only rules they would have to follow are the ones in the Constitution, but the party with power will get to somewhat decide how to interpret the Constitution, as they can place party line judges to rule in their favor.
That is my case as to why the precedent should be respected.
1 Like
No they used that as an excuse to do what they were going to do anyway because they could. And… politics change. President Trump didn’t make that agreement so I don’t see why he’s being dragged into it.
Its politics, there are no gentlemen’s agreements. At least not anymore as they should be. Its left versus right and the left is already showing they have no regard for the rules or law.
2 Likes
There is no precedent.
The ‘Rats repeatedly have attempted to pack the bourt multiple times, badicss a fly whenever they had the raw power and need.
If the Republicans don’t appoint, the Rats will simply pack the court anyway, simply as a means of ensuring power.
7 Likes
I was about to write this. Glad I read your post first.
If Democrats get enough control to ram through what they want, they’re going to do it anyway. They’re like a robber going into a store with the intent to rob it, but finding out that the clerk already has his gun drawn and aimed at the robber. “Hey, let’s make a deal. You put your gun away, and I won’t pull mine.”
2 Likes
I agree here.
Agree, but the POTUS is only one part of the process. Mitch McConnell was one of the people who said appointing a judge shouldn’t be done in the last year of a president’s term. He is required to appoint a justice.
Sure, don’t expect measures like court packing to not occur then.
I am not really sure what you mean here? I am unaware of many examples of the legislators on the left disregarding the law? Me being unaware doesn’t mean it isn’t happening, but I currently don’t know about it. I am open for examples.
But they shouldn’t. You and @blshaw agree that SCOTUS shouldn’t be able to be expanded based on who has power in Congress and the White House, right? Being able to pack the court would defeat one of the purposes (to determine if what the legislators create is Constitutional) of SCOTUS IMO.
1 Like
A lot of things shouldn’t happen.
I believe the Constitution should be amended if there’s a desire to prevent that.
I believe both the Supremes and Congress have been given far too much authority in this area.
1 Like
From Robin Hood?
Agree.
Agree.
Agree. However, I don’t see how to fix it unless they would have added it to the constitution from the beginning, or it gets amended.