Next Supreme Court Justice

Likely the absolute worst thing for Dems/Libs about the Trump Presidency is his appointing Supreme Court Justices. With 2.5 years left in his Presidency, and at least now a majority of Republicans in the Senate, do you think the Dems/Libs will be able to block DJT from getting a nominee confirmed? They won't have 60 for sure so the Dems could block any nominee if they vote (really filibuster) as a block. I would bet (but not a lot of money) that he gets one through.

While McConnell is going to try to get the confirmation done before the election, I dont think the election will matter. I suspect that the Republicans will lose the house and keep the Senate.

Quote: VCUSkyhawk

While McConnell is going to try to get the confirmation done before the election, I dont think the election will matter. I suspect that the Republicans will lose the house and keep the Senate.

It is not enough to 'keep the Senate'. The filibuster rules allow the Dems to block the nominee as long as there aren't 60 Repubs. I have seen no prediction that the Repubs will get that many.

Not even talking about Trump specifically, but the worst thing about the way the SC works is that it gives one President, even if he serves only four years, the power to stack the court so that it will have certain influences for decades to come. That is a huge mistake and a massive flaw in checks and balances if you ask me. Trump is going to have at least two appointments now, and if he wins another term that could potentially give him a good chance at two more. There should be no such thing as lifelong appointments, and there shouldn't be an uneven number of justices. There should always be an equal number from each party, and if there's a tie, oh, well, tough darts, kick it back down to the lower courts. The SC should not be politically biased towards either side, and it looks like that's going to happen. I mean, it would have happened with Hillary, too, and it would have been equally wrong.

Quote: TigerWu

There should always be an equal number from each party,

This hurts my brain.....

I think he will get one through, possibly before the midterms. Trump seems to have aligned his ducks.

I think the scarier thing for those on the left side of the aisle is that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 85. Do you think she is trying to hold out until 2021 before she retires? She'd be 88 then. And what if *gasp* Trump gets re-elected? I can't see her being a justice into her 90's. If Trump is re-elected, I think we'll see a 6-3 SCOTUS (possibly 7-2 -- Breyer is only 6 years behind her).

RBG seems to be in fair health, but time aint on her side. She could easily go in the next 2.5 years. Then its a 6-3 majority (again assuming the Repubs keep the senate)

Quote: SOOPOO

This hurts my brain.....

Why?

Quote: SOOPOO

It is not enough to 'keep the Senate'. The filibuster rules allow the Dems to block the nominee as long as there aren't 60 Repubs. I have seen no prediction that the Repubs will get that many.

This is no longer true. 50 votes is the current standard after the Senate changed the procedural rules to get Gorsuch nominated last year.

I doubt dems are going to be able to block an appointment. They were too weak to make sure Obama got his rightful nomination, and they are still just as weak.

I don’t think think is going to change much in the long run, John Roberts is likely to be a swing voter on many issues.

I really think we need term limits for SCOTUS judges. The fact that they can be appointed by a single person for life is crazy town.

Quote: Keeneone

This is no longer true. 50 votes is the current standard after the Senate changed the procedural rules to get Gorsuch nominated last year.

I've just read a different opinion. It said they still can filibuster, just they are unlikely to for 2 years. Can you link to a source that says they cannot filibuster?

I know if it comes to a vote they only need 50 + VP, but I think Dems can still filibuster preventing it from coming to a vote.

Quote: SOOPOO

I've just read a different opinion. It said they still can filibuster, just they are unlikely to for 2 years. Can you link to a source that says they cannot filibuster?

I know if it comes to a vote they only need 50 + VP, but I think Dems can still filibuster preventing it from coming to a vote.

The so-called "nuclear option" lets them break a filibuster. From Wikipedia:

Quote:

This procedure effectively allows the Senate to decide any issue by simple majority vote, regardless of existing procedural rules such as Rule XXII which requires the consent of 60 senators (out of 100) to end a filibuster for legislation, and 67 for amending a Senate rule.

That's what McConnell did with Gorsuch.

This precedent was first set in 2013 when Harry Reid invoked the nuclear option to stop the Republicans from blocking lower court nominees. Then last year McConnell changed the rules again in regards to SCOTUS picks. The Democrats shouldn't have done it in 2013 nor the republicans last year. It should take a high threshold to place a justice.

Quote: SOOPOO

I've just read a different opinion. It said they still can filibuster, just they are unlikely to for 2 years. Can you link to a source that says they cannot filibuster?

I know if it comes to a vote they only need 50 + VP, but I think Dems can still filibuster preventing it from coming to a vote.

Pages 8-10 explain (and mention recent changes) "Invoking Clouture".

https://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/3d51be23-64f8-448e-aa14-10ef0f94b77e.pdf

If Trump were to get two Justices appointed, there is really nothing to prevent the next Democratic President from nominating three more. Nothing in the Constitution limits the number of Justices to nine.

Quote: VCUSkyhawk

This precedent was first set in 2013 when Harry Reid invoked the nuclear option to stop the Republicans from blocking lower court nominees. Then last year McConnell changed the rules again in regards to SCOTUS picks. The Democrats shouldn't have done it in 2013 nor the republicans last year. It should take a high threshold to place a justice.

But with our toxic political system, you can't foresee the possibility of NO justice ever being confirmed?

Quote: SOOPOO

But with our toxic political system, you can't foresee the possibility of NO justice ever being confirmed?

In this case, having no Justice works to the rights advantage.

Quote: billryan

In this case, having no Justice works to the rights advantage.

How do you mean? You mean no replacement? That would leave the current court with a 4-4 ideological split.

Sen. Cory Booker has suggested Trump can't nominate a justice while he is under investigation. Interesting angle.

If nothing else, it might hold up the nomination by being challenged.

Quote: VCUSkyhawk

RBG seems to be in fair health, but time aint on her side. She could easily go in the next 2.5 years. Then its a 6-3 majority (again assuming the Repubs keep the senate)

You never know. Kirk Douglas is like 102 years old! And Gza Gza Gabor or however you spell her name was 99 when she died! And so was Billy Graham!

Quote: billryan

If Trump were to get two Justices appointed, there is really nothing to prevent the next Democratic President from nominating three more. Nothing in the Constitution limits the number of Justices to nine.

It's great ideas like this from BR that illustrate how disconnected the Left is from reality.

Kennedy should be applauded for his timing (Reagan did make a lot of smart decisions along the way)...his legacy will be keeping the SCOTUS from diverting from the Constitutional foundation this Country was built upon. Didn't someone somewhere say "Elections have consequences"?

Ginsburg's gonna croak before the end of Trump's second term and then it will be a 6-3 Conservative Court at a minimum. That assumes Breyer makes it to 86 and the Dems win the WH in 2024.

The Dems should lay the blame for the SCOTUS going this conservative at the feet of Ginsburg & Breyer...if they both retired at 77, Obama would have replaced them with two liberal 55 year old judges and have 4 liberal votes locked up for decades to come. You win a few Presidential Elections over those decades and presto, you get your liberal/progressive SCOTUS.

But they both decided to hang on for....well, I don't know what they were hanging on for...like they are the only smart liberal minds on the federal bench...get over yourselves already.

Just like putting Hillary up in 2016 (and railroading Bernie because the DNC knows what's best for all of us), Liberals continue to shoot themselves in the foot with their arrogance. Time to look at the Man in the Mirror...you guys torpedoed the Progressive Agenda all on your own. This time their SCOTUS appointments pulled the trigger (or rather failed to pull it) in the summer of 2015. History will paint Ginsburg & Breyer's legacy as one of holding on too long and ultimately giving decades of power to Conservativism...it's a fitting end to be sure.

For Christ's sake, Donald Trump got elected President...just having that 2016 election not end up with 300+ Blue Electoral Votes should have been a wake up call. You guys friggin lost the Money Line Bet to a non-politician businessman who's most recent success was firing celebrities on a reality TV show. You can't make up a better story of epic failure.

Here is the reality the Left needs to come to grips with: the majority of this country is not onboard with the train of "PC legislation/gender is a choice/anti 2A/if you don't agree with us you're a racist/xenophobe". You're next data point in seeing that comes in November. If that Blue Tidal Wave doesn't materialize, will that be enough to stop the Party's radical shift to Left? You'll still have a chance to take the Center before 2020 if you want it. Or you can continue to elect folks like AMS' new favorite Congresswoman from the Bronx and believe Warren & Harris have the pulse of the American. In case that's your choice, I left you a fresh box of 9mm on the counter...I am betting you won't need any practice at the range to hit that other foot.

Quote: Paradigm

IHere is the reality the Left needs to come to grips with: the majority of this country is not onboard with the train of "PC legislation/gender is a choice/anti 2A/if you don't agree with us you're a racist/xenophobe".

False. Look, Bernie was what made his platform as popular as it was, and he was a Democratic socialist. He knew how to sell it. Had nothing to do with moving to the center. Hillary was a bad candidate, a two time loser who became more of an anchor than a inspirer on the 2nd try.

Besides that you can't sell pablum you don't really believe in. There's no enthusiasm for it, and voters will know it rings false.

Edit, some people can sell pablum, but only if someone else isn't selling something more interesting.

Quote: billryan

If Trump were to get two Justices appointed, there is really nothing to prevent the next Democratic President from nominating three more. Nothing in the Constitution limits the number of Justices to nine.

You are only partially right. The next democratic president couldn't just nominate more justices. The amount of justice by law (The Judiciary Act of 1869) set the number to 9. In order for any president to put more on the court would take an act of Congress. So, while there is nothing in the constitution limiting the number, the law currently does.

Quote: rxwine

Sen. Cory Booker has suggested Trump can't nominate a justice while he is under investigation. Interesting angle.

If nothing else, it might hold up the nomination by being challenged.

That just seems like a technicality or wishful thinking at first glance.

Quote: VCUSkyhawk

You are only partially right. The next democratic president couldn't just nominate more justices. The amount of justice by law (The Judiciary Act of 1869) set the number to 9. In order for any president to put more on the court would take an act of Congress. So, while there is nothing in the constitution limiting the number, the law currently does.

I think it is safe to assume that if a Democrat wins the WH in 2020, that he will have both houses.

The Democrats are in disarray, still reeling from Trump's election.

They've no real leader, no viable candidate.

Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum.

2016 was a groundbreaking year for American politics as there were major schisms in both parties. On the republican side the Trump populists have basically won the war against the neo-cons as something like 90% of republicans support the president. However, the civil war is still raging on the democratic side as the party is roughly split 50/50 between the Bernie progressives and the Clinton neo-liberals. The Bernie people in particular are still really pissed that they were cheated in the primaries. In their mind there could have been a president Sanders instead of a president Trump.

The only thing the 2 sides of the democratic party agree on is that they both really hate Trump, thus the reflexive opposition and #resist to everything he says, it's the only move they have. Trump realizes this and is exploiting the hell out of it by simply proposing popular policies, making the democrats resist what the majority of Americans want. Lower taxes #resist, the national anthem #resist, tougher immigration enforcement #resist, peace with North Korea #resist.

My guess is that Trump will probably follow this pattern again and nominate a respected center right justice. The democrats will probably hysterically complain, making it look like anyone who's not an activist liberal is too far right for the democrats and shrinking their support even more. The democrats could counter this by suggesting to the media a respected center left justice of their own, but they probably won't.

Quote: billryan

I think it is safe to assume that if a Democrat wins the WH in 2020, that he will have both houses.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I looked at the map for the senate seats up for grabs in both 2018 and 2020. I think the Republicans are keeping the Senate this year and will perhaps lose the Senate in 2020 (depending on how Trumps popularity is doing. Right now he is at 47% which isnt awful).

That being said, it is NOT safe to assume that a Democratic president can get a bill like that passed. It would be controversial even among democrats. The last time it was attempted was when FDR tried to pack the court to save his new deal legislation. His own party didn't like it.

Yet another point, it would be yet another awful precedent to set. Next time the republican party got in office they court pack the court with their picks.

Quote: MrV

The Democrats are in disarray, still reeling from Trump's election.

They've no real leader, no viable candidate.

Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum.

Isn't that kind of the left's MO? The last two on the left to win the presidency was a 46 year old Bill Clinton who wasn't really a major player on the national stage. He was governor of Arkansas, but didn't have a lot of electoral baggage to run against. Obama was in his first term as US Senator and when he was in the Illinois State Senate he was more famous for voting "present" than either yes or no on major issues. When they run people with political and electoral baggage like Hillary, Kerry or Gore, they lose, The main reason for this is Democrats cannot win national election being who they truly are, which are dyed in the wool socialists. They have to send someone like Obama, who can talk the talk to earn the votes, but then governs in a completely different method.

Quote: billryan

I think it is safe to assume that if a Democrat wins the WH in 2020, that he will have both houses.

I am not quite sure. As bad as the map is for Dems this time around 24 seats to defend vs 9 repub seats to defend, the map flips in 2020 to 20 seats Repub to defend vs 11 Dems (2 states Mississippi and Minnesota face special elections, lets assume 1 and 1 to make it 21 and 12). If Republicans pick up 3 or more seats this year, I see no way the Senate flips in 2020, however if they remain neutral, I would assume a flip in the Senate will be all but certain in 2020

Quote: Paradigm

Kennedy should be applauded for his timing (Reagan did make a lot of smart decisions along the way)...his legacy will be keeping the SCOTUS from diverting from the Constitutional foundation this Country was built upon. Didn't someone somewhere say "Elections have consequences"?

The Supreme Court should not have any political biases, period.

The fact that you and other conservatives are celebrating a potentially right-heavy Court is disgusting.

The fact that the judges themselves are playing politics and retiring or not retiring at certain times is also disgusting.

Would not it be a dream come true if Donald J Trump were to nominate Donald J Trump for the Supreme Court ?

Quote: TigerWu

Not even talking about Trump specifically, but the worst thing about the way the SC works is that it gives one President, even if he serves only four years, the power to stack the court so that it will have certain influences for decades to come. That is a huge mistake and a massive flaw in checks and balances if you ask me. Trump is going to have at least two appointments now, and if he wins another term that could potentially give him a good chance at two more. There should be no such thing as lifelong appointments, and there shouldn't be an uneven number of justices. There should always be an equal number from each party, and if there's a tie, oh, well, tough darts, kick it back down to the lower courts. The SC should not be politically biased towards either side, and it looks like that's going to happen. I mean, it would have happened with Hillary, too, and it would have been equally wrong.

This is exactly what is wrong with things as they are today. SCOTUS is not supposed to be about "party" it is supposed to be about law. Like when Obama said he wanted judges to "fight for" this or that group. As if a judge is supposed to take sides.

And the idea of an even number of judges just shows a lack of understanding of law completely. Cases go to SCOTUS to be settled forever.

Pre-1980s, courts were not nearly so biased at all levels. Around then, the "activist judge" thing was born, and things have been bad ever since.

Quote: billryan

If Trump were to get two Justices appointed, there is really nothing to prevent the next Democratic President from nominating three more. Nothing in the Constitution limits the number of Justices to nine.

Democrats already tried this once and had to pull it back.

Quote: TigerWu

The Supreme Court should not have any political biases, period.

The fact that you and other conservatives are celebrating a potentially right-heavy Court is disgusting.

The fact that the judges themselves are playing politics and retiring or not retiring at certain times is also disgusting.

Don't blame conservatives, liberals made it political years ago. Ted Kennedy started it all with Bork. Dems look at SCOTUS political far more than the GOP, look what they got at SCOTUS that they could not get via a law. Save your rage.

Quote: TigerWu

The Supreme Court should not have any political biases, period.

And politicians aren't supposed to take bribes. Welcome to America.

That said, judges interpret the law, I.E. they make subjective decisions on issues where the law is not black or white. If it was a completely subjective process, there wouldn't be dissenting opinions, and they wouldn't be called opinions.

I don't believe it's possible to do ANYTHING involves critical thinking without one's world and political views influencing decisions, with the exception of Maths and Sciences.

I had a Political Science professor in college who said he takes a great deal of care not to let his political views creep into the course material, but that it's impossible for ANYONE to do that 100%.

Quote: TigerWu

The Supreme Court should not have any political biases, period.

The fact that you and other conservatives are celebrating a potentially right-heavy Court is disgusting.

The fact that the judges themselves are playing politics and retiring or not retiring at certain times is also disgusting.

These yahoos celebrate the gubermint literally holding little kids hostage and you think its strange they celebrate something like this?

So I guess the rumors are flying now that Kennedy resigned because his son was Trump's personal banker for 12 years at Deutsch Bank and is involved in some kind of criminal investigation.

Quote: TigerWu

So I guess the rumors are flying now that Kennedy resigned because his son was Trump's personal banker for 12 years at Deutsch Bank and is involved in some kind of criminal investigation.

Lock him up.

Oh, yeah, NOTHING suspicious about this at all..... haha......

"Even Trump can't screw this up...."

Trump: "Hold my beer...."

Quote: TigerWu

So I guess the rumors are flying now that Kennedy resigned because his son was Trump's personal banker for 12 years at Deutsch Bank and is involved in some kind of criminal investigation.

Liberals will believe anything. Maybe do the math as to how old the parties would have had to be at the time.

Quote: AZDuffman

Liberals will believe anything. Maybe do the math as to how old the parties would have had to be at the time.

Are you saying he didn't work for Deutsch Bank during this period?
It appears that not only did he work for the bank, but he was head of the division that lent Donny over a billion dollars when US banks had cut them off.

I'm not sure that has anything to do with anything , but denying it occurred seems rather sad.

Quote: AZDuffman

This is exactly what is wrong with things as they are today. SCOTUS is not supposed to be about "party" it is supposed to be about law. Like when Obama said he wanted judges to "fight for" this or that group. As if a judge is supposed to take sides.

And the idea of an even number of judges just shows a lack of understanding of law completely. Cases go to SCOTUS to be settled forever.

Pre-1980s, courts were not nearly so biased at all levels. Around then, the "activist judge" thing was born, and things have been bad ever since.

I actually agree with everything from this post

Now im scared :)

I heard Trumps nephews step sister was Gorsuch's great grandfather's dog sitter

Quote: billryan

Are you saying he didn't work for Deutsch Bank during this period?
It appears that not only did he work for the bank, but he was head of the division that lent Donny over a billion dollars when US banks had cut them off.

I'm not sure that has anything to do with anything , but denying it occurred seems rather sad.

Thinking it has anything to do with anything is sad. Why would it have anything to do with anything? The guy is at retirement age for a SCOTUS justice. It has been talked about for a few years now.

What's next? His son worked for a German bank and Trump owned a German car so the Germans had something to do with it all?

Get a life.

Quote: darkoz

I actually agree with everything from this post

Now im scared :)

Listen to us old guys, we know what we are talking about.....

Quote: AZDuffman

Listen to us old guys, we know what we are talking about.....

Does this conclude the comedy portion of the thread or will you be doing a second bit?

Quote: AZDuffman

Thinking it has anything to do with anything is sad. Why would it have anything to do with anything? The guy is at retirement age for a SCOTUS justice. It has been talked about for a few years now.

What's next? His son worked for a German bank and Trump owned a German car so the Germans had something to do with it all?

Get a life.

What happened to your whole age theory? Kind of fell apart, no?

Quote: billryan

What happened to your whole age theory? Kind of fell apart, no?

I half misread it, but whatever. The whole idea is so silly I don't know why I even bothered replying.

Have you libs come to terms with Trump buying Ivanka Russian Nesting Dolls when she was a little kid yet?

I agree with you whole-heartedly AZ! I think the fact the court has become politicized is a fairly recent phenomenon when looking at the 242 year history of the US. I think you nailed the timing on the head.

Every Supreme Court nomination a Republican has brought up in my adult life has sent Libs to the nearest microphone clamoring that (insert nominee's name here) will just overturn Roe v. Wade. At what point do we conservatives call out the Chicken Little's of the Democrat Party? Every other day it seems, they foresee a new problem which is unprecedented and will lead to the world as we know it crumbling from under our feet. How can these people keep up such high volumes of hysteria for such long periods of time? As some point, you gotta wear out don't you?

Quote: Gabes22

Every Supreme Court nomination a Republican has brought up in my adult life has sent Libs to the nearest microphone clamoring that (insert nominee's name here) will just overturn Roe v. Wade. At what point do we conservatives call out the Chicken Little's of the Democrat Party?

I agree. Roe v. Wade is not going anywhere. Neither is gay marriage.

Quote:

How can these people keep up such high volumes of hysteria for such long periods of time? As some point, you gotta wear out don't you?

You would think so, but then look at cable news.... they've been ramping up hysteria for decades and they're still going strong...!