The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgiving

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Then let them hold hearing and do the same. Whiny Goopers aren't even threatening a filibuster. They're saying they won't consider anybody. I'm amazed at how tone deaf they are. Best bet would have been to get a nominee, hold hearings, hope something derailed the nominee, and then say "oh well, we tried". Senators Kirk, Toomey, Johnson, Ayotte, and Portman need to win Dem votes to get re-elected, in the case of Kirk, Ayotte, and Toomey at least and most likely Johnson, they need A LOT of Dem votes. This ain't helpin'.

That's the other thing the parties do. They not only "me too" the **** the other side does but they push the envelope further. Whatever the Dems did with Alito was monumentally stupid. If you're going to do that you better make sure the other side doesn't win. Otherwise what's the point? Now it bites you in the ***.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

That's the other thing the parties do. They not only "me too" the **** the other side does but they push the envelope further. Whatever the Dems did with Alito was monumentally stupid. If you're going to do that you better make sure the other side doesn't win. Otherwise what's the point? Now it bites you in the ***.

Scoobs this makes no sense. Like 20 Dems voted to end the filibuster and go to a confirmation on Alito, where only 4 of them voted in favor. Clearly they were okay with letting the nomination go through as they could have blocked it if they wanted to. If 20 Goopers vote in favor of holding a vote on the Dem nominee, and then 4 support that eventual nominee, guess what - we have a new SCOTUS justice.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Are you saying The Donald is smarter than establishment Senate GOPers? Wait, that's like having the best hair at a bald man convention ...

A pure "Nope, can't consent to that one; try again" (repeat, repeat, repeat) tactic (instead of this overt tantrum) was the correct play.

I disagree that it's the correct play, although I agree with you that it is far better than the decision to just announce they're going to delay for purely political reasons.

There are four outcomes in November:

Republicans win POTUS and keep Senate
Republicans win POTUS and lose Senate
Republicans lose POTUS and keep Senate
Republicans lose POTUS and lose Senate

You also have to consider that #2 is far and away the most unlikely. I don't see any possibility the Republicans win the White House but somehow lose their majority in the Senate.

Only outcome #1 is a better situation for them than they have right now. Outcome #4 is clearly worse, and in my opinion #3 would be worse as well, even though it looks identical to the current situation.

With the current situation, they're going to get as moderate a candidate as they could possibly hope for in a D President, R Senate set up. Obama would love to add another justice to his resume, and he knows he could never get an extreme candidate in. Negotiate someone who is palatable, and that becomes one of those moderate swing votes for the next 30 years. Who knows, they may even shift politically over time.

For those Republicans worried about "giving up" a possible appointment in the event of a scenario #1 outcome, who cares. If #1 comes true, the Republicans are going to get multiple opportunities for appointment. These judges are going to start dropping like flies in the next 5 years.

I've never seen a group with worse political instincts.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Scoobs this makes no sense. Like 20 Dems voted to end the filibuster and go to a confirmation on Alito, where only 4 of them voted in favor. Clearly they were okay with letting the nomination go through as they could have blocked it if they wanted to. If 20 Goopers vote in favor of holding a vote on the Dem nominee, and then 4 support that eventual nominee, guess what - we have a new SCOTUS justice.

The Gooper in the Alito case is President of the United States.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

I disagree that it's the correct play, although I agree with you that it is far better than the decision to just announce they're going to delay for purely political reasons.

There are four outcomes in November:

Republicans win POTUS and keep Senate
Republicans win POTUS and lose Senate
Republicans lose POTUS and keep Senate
Republicans lose POTUS and lose Senate

You also have to consider that #2 is far and away the most unlikely. I don't see any possibility the Republicans win the White House but somehow lose their majority in the Senate.

Only outcome #1 is a better situation for them than they have right now. Outcome #4 is clearly worse, and in my opinion #3 would be worse as well, even though it looks identical to the current situation.

With the current situation, they're going to get as moderate a candidate as they could possibly hope for in a D President, R Senate set up. Obama would love to add another justice to his resume, and he knows he could never get an extreme candidate in. Negotiate someone who is palatable, and that becomes one of those moderate swing votes for the next 30 years. Who knows, they may even shift politically over time.

For those Republicans worried about "giving up" a possible appointment in the event of a scenario #1 outcome, who cares. If #1 comes true, the Republicans are going to get multiple opportunities for appointment. These judges are going to start dropping like flies in the next 5 years.

I've never seen a group with worse political instincts.

I agree with all of this except for the penultimate paragraph. If you take the Scalia appointment out of the equation you're left with RBG at 82, who will have to be carried from the chamber, Kennedy at 79 and Breyer at 77. After that there is a 10-year gap to Thomas.

There will likely be just 3 appointments after this through 2030. This is huge for the GOP, particularly since the measures they have put in place to stay competitive electorally depend on a friendly Court.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Taiwan animators do their thing.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Taiwan animators do their thing.

Are these actual Taiwanese animators or just some Americans making fun of Taiwan? The translations are great, but what's even better is the Super Bowl 50 piece that follows. They showed #35 (Tolbert?) for the Panthers as a big fat man breaking a tricycle.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

You reap what you sow. Obama filibustered Alito when he was in the Senate. I hate how the parties don't think stuff like that is going to roll back onto them. And what good did it do? Alito is on the Bench.

Irony is a harsh mistress.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

I agree with all of this except for the penultimate paragraph. If you take the Scalia appointment out of the equation you're left with RBG at 82, who will have to be carried from the chamber, Kennedy at 79 and Breyer at 77. After that there is a 10-year gap to Thomas.

There will likely be just 3 appointments after this through 2030. This is huge for the GOP, particularly since the measures they have put in place to stay competitive electorally depend on a friendly Court.

If the next President serves two terms, I believe he or she will get three appointments, not including the Scalia replacement. Given the fact that it takes time for these "political" cases to get started and work their way through the court system, the Scalia replacement is nowhere near a make or break scenario for the Republicans. The next election is.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

If the next President serves two terms, I believe he or she will get three appointments, not including the Scalia replacement. Given the fact that it takes time for these "political" cases to get started and work their way through the court system, the Scalia replacement is nowhere near a make or break scenario for the Republicans. The next election is.

Disagree a bit. Scalia appointment is devastating for the GOP. No reason Libs don't run things for the next decade depending on RBG's health. What another Dem President will do is give the Dems some breathing room. Replace RBG and Breyer and you'd have 5 libs under the age of 65 plus the possibility that Kennedy steps down.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Disagree a bit. Scalia appointment is devastating for the GOP. No reason Libs don't run things for the next decade depending on RBG's health. What another Dem President will do is give the Dems some breathing room. Replace RBG and Breyer and you'd have 5 libs under the age of 65 plus the possibility that Kennedy steps down.

I'm actually not sure it is devastating. Scalia was a lock for the right. But RBG and Breyer have been similar for the left, and Kennedy has been the swing vote that has let the left win a number of close victories. When we look back on this 15 years from now, we'll realize the Scalia replacement was insignificant as compared to the results of the 2016 election and the appointment by that POTUS of 3 justices, especially if it's a Republican President. Most of the time a President maybe gets to replace one of his own political persuasion with another of the same, and maybe replace one of the other side's. A Republican President will in all likelihood get to replace 3 liberals with conservatives, and if that happens, who cares what happens with Scalia's replacement.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

I'm actually not sure it is devastating. Scalia was a lock for the right. But RBG and Breyer have been similar for the left, and Kennedy has been the swing vote that has let the left win a number of close victories. When we look back on this 15 years from now, we'll realize the Scalia replacement was insignificant as compared to the results of the 2016 election and the appointment by that POTUS of 3 justices, especially if it's a Republican President. Most of the time a President maybe gets to replace one of his own political persuasion with another of the same, and maybe replace one of the other side's. A Republican President will in all likelihood get to replace 3 liberals with conservatives, and if that happens, who cares what happens with Scalia's replacement.

A few things:

1) I don't think its a definite that RBG or Breyer retire if a Republican (or even a Dem) wins the Presidency. Most likely they hang around at least another 4 years and then Kennedy continues to be the swing vote.

2) I do think whoever wins in Nov determines whether this nominee gets approved this year in the lame duck session. If the Dems win, GOP throws in the towel because delay is useless. If GOP wins, delaying tactics would have been approved by voters.

3) Lastly, this is kind of a moot point as what's being missed here is that Donald Trump or Ted Cruz is 90% likely to be the GOP nominee with little chance of prevailing in November because they'd each be the nuttiest person ever elected by a longshot. Yes, yes, never underestimate the stupidity of the average voter and all that, but c'mon - I've never seen non-activist Republicans so repulsed by their choices in my entire life.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Disagree a bit. Scalia appointment is devastating for the GOP. No reason Libs don't run things for the next decade depending on RBG's health. What another Dem President will do is give the Dems some breathing room. Replace RBG and Breyer and you'd have 5 libs under the age of 65 plus the possibility that Kennedy steps down.

Rover is right. This is an important moment for the Republicans to control the Judiciary because it has important consequences for the Legislature as well. The Republicans can read actuarial tables and they know they may have screwed themselves by creating a Nativist monster in their base. They need a decade of breathing room while they reprogram their supporters to be nice the Latinos ("They're religious! They're hard working! They hate blacks too!") . That breathing room comes from voter suppression, corporate bribery, and gerrymandering. A reasonable Court rolls back all that work.

It's all cool if they win in November, but... the problem of their candidates comes up. This was the worst possible time for them to need a win.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

It's all cool if they win in November, but... the problem of their candidates comes up. This was the worst possible time for them to need a win.

But it's the best possible time for the Republicans to have a weak candidate.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

There are several cases pending before the Court in which Administration policies are to be decided (e.g., EPA "Clean Coal" plan, Little Sisters of the Poor vs. HHS Secretary, NLRB vs just about everyone, etc etc).

While it is not the same as a criminal trial, imagine if a defendant could appoint the judge who would then preside over his trial. Yet we have the Executive branch as a named party in several cases pending before the Court also in line to appoint a judge who would then be in position to rule on those cases.

Had the Repugnicans any sense, they might point that out with a bit of simplicity of clarity, and so of course we know that will not happen.

While it is now a "rule" for nominees not to answer any hypothetical questions about how they might rule in general, that is not the situation here, these cases are not at all hypothetical, they are pending and may well be decided by the vote of the new appointee. Were there to be a nomination and hearings, you know the nominee will face questions about the pending open cases against the Executive.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

There are several cases pending before the Court in which Administration policies are to be decided (e.g., EPA "Clean Coal" plan, Little Sisters of the Poor vs. HHS Secretary, NLRB vs just about everyone, etc etc).

While it is not the same as a criminal trial, imagine if a defendant could appoint the judge who would then preside over his trial. Yet we have the Executive branch as a named party in several cases pending before the Court also in line to appoint a judge who would then be in position to rule on those cases.

Had the Repugnicans any sense, they might point that out with a bit of simplicity of clarity, and so of course we know that will not happen.

While it is now a "rule" for nominees not to answer any hypothetical questions about how they might rule in general, that is not the situation here, these cases are not at all hypothetical, they are pending and may well be decided by the vote of the new appointee. Were there to be a nomination and hearings, you know the nominee will face questions about the pending open cases against the Executive.

So following your logic you'd never have any sitting President make a SCOTUS appointment because the person they chose would most likely rule their way in a pending case?

 

[mookie1995]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

It is hypothetical now until senate really bags the process and BHO fails to appoint during recess.

Therefore it would only be a question to ponder in October

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

But it's the best possible time for the Republicans to have a weak candidate.

Not on board with this logic. You cannot, I repeat, cannot lose 3 times in a row. Realistically regardless of which Dem wins the WH or what kind of control the GOP hands onto (the House presumably), a Dem prez with a mere 50 votes in the Senate for 2 years completely retakes the federal judiciary. Dems already have taken over the appeals courts for the most part (9 out of 13 IIRC). Furthermore the judicial filibuster is gone. In 2 years time they will fill every single appointment and take over the SCOTUS. EPA lawsuits will be dead. Anti-abortion lawsuits will be laughed out of court. ACA lawsuits will refuse to be heard. You get the picture.

Democrats got extremely lucky after being on the outs from 1981-1993. Souter reamed the people who appointed him. Kennedy while a 3rd choice pick after Reagan first chose a Nixon hack and then a pothead, still hasn't done his benefactors many favors. Sandra Day O'Connor was a swing vote as well. I wouldn't count on either party getting surprised like that again.

Also, I'd point out a generational issue as well. If the GOP loses in 2016, by 2020 the only GOP President most Americans have any memory of is going to be....George W Bush. Anybody old enough to have voted for Reagan will be in their mid 50's. For Bush Sr you'd be 50.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Not on board with this logic. You cannot, I repeat, cannot lose 3 times in a row. Realistically regardless of which Dem wins the WH or what kind of control the GOP hands onto (the House presumably), a Dem prez with a mere 50 votes in the Senate for 2 years completely retakes the federal judiciary. Dems already have taken over the appeals courts for the most part (9 out of 13 IIRC). Furthermore the judicial filibuster is gone. In 2 years time they will fill every single appointment and take over the SCOTUS. EPA lawsuits will be dead. Anti-abortion lawsuits will be laughed out of court. ACA lawsuits will refuse to be heard. You get the picture.

Democrats got extremely lucky after being on the outs from 1981-1993. Souter reamed the people who appointed him. Kennedy while a 3rd choice pick after Reagan first chose a Nixon hack and then a pothead, still hasn't done his benefactors many favors. Sandra Day O'Connor was a swing vote as well. I wouldn't count on either party getting surprised like that again.

Also, I'd point out a generational issue as well. If the GOP loses in 2016, by 2020 the only GOP President most Americans have any memory of is going to be....George W Bush. Anybody old enough to have voted for Reagan will be in their mid 50's. For Bush Sr you'd be 50.

Between 1968 and 1988, the GOP won four of five presidential elections. The only Dem to win in that time was Carter, as a direct backlash to the shenanigans Nixon pulled. Meanwhile, the Democrats won five straight elections between FDR and Truman. The nation survives these tides and the parties do too. Everyone adapts and pendulum swings back the other way. Doom and gloom prognostications never really prove true in the end.

 

[burd]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Not on board with this logic. You cannot, I repeat, cannot lose 3 times in a row. Realistically regardless of which Dem wins the WH or what kind of control the GOP hands onto (the House presumably), a Dem prez with a mere 50 votes in the Senate for 2 years completely retakes the federal judiciary. Dems already have taken over the appeals courts for the most part (9 out of 13 IIRC). Furthermore the judicial filibuster is gone. In 2 years time they will fill every single appointment and take over the SCOTUS. EPA lawsuits will be dead. Anti-abortion lawsuits will be laughed out of court. ACA lawsuits will refuse to be heard. You get the picture.

Democrats got extremely lucky after being on the outs from 1981-1993. Souter reamed the people who appointed him. Kennedy while a 3rd choice pick after Reagan first chose a Nixon hack and then a pothead, still hasn't done his benefactors many favors. Sandra Day O'Connor was a swing vote as well. I wouldn't count on either party getting surprised like that again.

Also, I'd point out a generational issue as well. If the GOP loses in 2016, by 2020 the only GOP President most Americans have any memory of is going to be....George W Bush. Anybody old enough to have voted for Reagan will be in their mid 50's. For Bush Sr you'd be 50.

Predicting how Justices will vote over time has always been risky. Ike brought Warren, Brennan, and Stewart on board, I believe.