What the Supreme Court might have looked like.

[NWRatCon]

Below are the succession of Justices over the last 32 years, including non-confirmations. Consider for a moment how the Court would have looked if the process had not been so egregiously manipulated by McConnell. Merrick Garland would have made the Court more moderate than Scalia. Gorsuch would replace Kennedy/Kavanagh. Ketanji Brown Jackson would replace Barrett/Ginsburg, and Biden would be appointing his second Justice to replace Breyer.
.

 

[aociswundumho]

Below are the succession of Justices over the last 32 years, including non-confirmations. Consider for a moment how the Court would have looked if the process had not been so egregiously manipulated by McConnell. Merrick Garland would have made the Court more moderate than Scalia. Gorsuch would replace Kennedy/Kavanagh. Ketanji Brown Jackson would replace Barrett/Ginsburg, and Biden would be appointing his second Justice to replace Breyer.

A court that is more likely to rule in favor of bigger government instead of the constitution is radical, not moderate.

 

[cpwill]

Fair Enough. God Bless Mich McConnell.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Below are the succession of Justices over the last 32 years, including non-confirmations. Consider for a moment how the Court would have looked if the process had not been so egregiously manipulated by McConnell. Merrick Garland would have made the Court more moderate than Scalia. Gorsuch would replace Kennedy/Kavanagh. Ketanji Brown Jackson would replace Barrett/Ginsburg, and Biden would be appointing his second Justice to replace Breyer.
.View attachment 67399351

Well too darn bad. The system is what it is and the Senate was in control of the republicans and they just used the rules to get their nominees. Garland isn't a moderate, he's a extreme liberal as is seen by the terrible job he is doing of enforcing the law.

 

[NWRatCon]

Fair Enough. God Bless Mich McConnell.

You must be joking, or else I'll lose all respect.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Fair Enough. God Bless Mich McConnell.

This is uncharacteristic of you. Usually you are quite reasonable and honorable.

 

[cpwill]

You must be joking, or else I'll lose all respect.

This is uncharacteristic of you. Usually you are quite reasonable and honorable.

Two items:

1. Firstly, thank you, @tacomancer . I am also, however, somewhat consistent (though I reserve my right to become a better person over time, and to change my mind when the supporting data changes, or I am given better arguments). I supported McConnel's use of the Biden rule at the time, and still do so today. I would not say it is dishonorable - dishonor involves acting dishonorably (such as hyperbolically attempting to destroy the character of nominated judges in an attempt to get them to quit, an attempt to "put an asterisk next to their name in case they ever rule in a way you don't like", or an attempt to intimidate others from going through the process); the Biden rule is not that. What happened to Kavanaugh was dishonorable. What happened to Garland was checks and balances between the branches of government.

2. Abortion is a slavery-level evil; it is one that permeates our society, and which involves horrific abuse of the innocent en masse. That means it would be worth burning several states to the ground in a civil war that kills off 2% of our population if necessary to end it. If we can avoid that by using Constitutional legal processes instead, that's a good thing.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Two items:

1. Firstly, thank you, @tacomancer . I am also, however, somewhat consistent (though I reserve my right to become a better person over time, and to change my mind when the supporting data changes, or I am given better arguments). I supported McConnel's use of the Biden rule at the time, and still do so today. I would not say it is dishonorable - dishonor involves acting dishonorably (such as hyperbolically attempting to destroy the character of nominated judges in an attempt to get them to quit, an attempt to "put an asterisk next to their name in case they ever rule in a way you don't like", or an attempt to intimidate others from going through the process); the Biden rule is not that. What happened to Kavanaugh was dishonorable. What happened to Garland was checks and balances between the branches of government.

2. Abortion is a slavery-level evil; it is one that permeates our society, and which involves horrific abuse of the innocent en masse. That means it would be worth burning several states to the ground in a civil war that kills off 2% of our population if necessary to end it. If we can avoid that by using Constitutional legal processes instead, that's a good thing.

I won't dispute you on point 2. I don't agree, but I don't think we would convince each other of much on that topic.

On point 1. The problem with McConnell's trick, while within the letter of the constitution (but also a wild violation of its spirit) has done more to diminish the institution of the SCOTUS from an erudite band of scholars to a political group and now, with the increasing perception within the general American population that the SCOTUS is nothing but political, has harmed the mythology that any country needs to sustain itself badly. Unfortunately, there is no going back in the short term (I am guessing at least the next two generations, the youth are PISSED) and opens up the SCOTUS to further manipulation as other constitutional tricks that are also in the letter but not the spirit of the constitution have now become valid tools to use in the future. Law, at the highest levels, tends to need a bit of a gentleman's agreement to actually function and McConnell's trick was a blow to that and while the result of the trick may be the end of Roe, the cure (so to speak) may be far worse than the disease if we lose that bit of our culture in the process.

Right now the majority of moderates view SCOTUS as a political body more than a legal one. This opens up the door, over time to, changing the number of justices, restructuring SCOTUS in other ways, and anything else, because now its mundane. It lowers that threshold to a future arms race which not only has harmed our society, but is very likely to do further damage.

If the SCOTUS, after this trick, continues to be out of step with American culture, then popular support for changing its structure to reign it back in will be less and less shocking to voters. SCOTUS may not be vulnerable to popular perception in the short term but it certainly is over time if actions are taken little by little. The door is now open for that.

Polling is already beginning to point in this direction (even though I don't think term limits are constitutional, people are looking for solutions) and no amount of legalese about whether these or that legal reasoning (hate to say it, but that is just for lawyers and political nerds, we can argue endlessly here but it won't affect joe sixpack one bit) is going to have much of an affect on that polling, especially as stories of arthritis patients not being able to get things like methotrexate come out and people see the concrete harm to people they know.

If the court goes further into curtailing things like the EPA (which could happen in just a couple of hours as the next batch of decisions are released) ... Hopefully they will moderate as the court cannot function long term without popular support.

You may say "God bless McConnell" but he hurt our country badly. I suspect by point #2, you may see that as worth it.

 

[Perotista]

Below are the succession of Justices over the last 32 years, including non-confirmations. Consider for a moment how the Court would have looked if the process had not been so egregiously manipulated by McConnell. Merrick Garland would have made the Court more moderate than Scalia. Gorsuch would replace Kennedy/Kavanagh. Ketanji Brown Jackson would replace Barrett/Ginsburg, and Biden would be appointing his second Justice to replace Breyer.
.View attachment 67399351

You’re forgetting one thing. McConnell and the Republicans had 54 senators, more than enough to deny Garland’s conformation if McConnell had allowed a floor vote. The reason McConnell didn’t, or one of the reasons was Schumer statement back in 2007 a full year and a half prior to Bush’s presidency coming to an end. Schumer stated the Democrats who controlled the senate back then that the democrats wouldn’t allow Bush to appoint any more judges to the SCOTUS if an opening occurred. No opening occurred and Schumer statement was forgotten by just about everyone. But not McConnell, for old Mitch not allowing a vote on Garland was political payback for Schumer. McConnell has a long memory when it comes to politics and he is the revengeful type. Not allowing a vote on Garland was political payback for Schumer threatening not to allow a vote on any Bush nominee to the SCOTUS back in 2007.

I think if Schumer hadn’t made his statement back in 2007, McConnell probably would have allowed the floor vote on Garland. That doesn’t mean Garland would have been confirmed, McConnell had the votes to deny him. We don’t know what would have happened since it didn’t. We can only take a SWAG.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I won't dispute you on point 2. I don't agree, but I don't think we would convince each other of much on that topic.

On point 1. The problem with McConnell's trick, while within the letter of the constitution (but also a wild violation of its spirit) has done more to diminish the institution of the SCOTUS from an erudite band of scholars to a political group and now, with the increasing perception within the general American population that the SCOTUS is nothing but political, has harmed the mythology that any country needs to sustain itself badly. Unfortunately, there is no going back in the short term (I am guessing at least the next two generations, the youth are PISSED) and opens up the SCOTUS to further manipulation as other constitutional tricks that are also in the letter but not the spirit of the constitution have now become valid tools to use in the future. Law, at the highest levels, tends to need a bit of a gentleman's agreement to actually function and McConnell's trick was a blow to that and while the result of the trick may be the end of Roe, the cure (so to speak) may be far worse than the disease if we lose that bit of our culture in the process.

Right now the majority of moderates view SCOTUS as a political body more than a legal one. This opens up the door, over time to, changing the number of justices, restructuring SCOTUS in other ways, and anything else, because now its mundane. It lowers that threshold to a future arms race which not only has harmed our society, but is very likely to do further damage.

If the SCOTUS, after this trick, continues to be out of step with American culture, then popular support for changing its structure to reign it back in will be less and less shocking to voters. SCOTUS may not be vulnerable to popular perception in the short term but it certainly is over time if actions are taken little by little. The door is now open for that.

Polling is already beginning to point in this direction (even though I don't think term limits are constitutional, people are looking for solutions) and no amount of legalese about whether these or that legal reasoning (hate to say it, but that is just for lawyers and political nerds, we can argue endlessly here but it won't affect joe sixpack one bit) is going to have much of an affect on that polling, especially as stories of arthritis patients not being able to get things like methotrexate come out and people see the concrete harm to people they know.

If the court goes further into curtailing things like the EPA (which could happen in just a couple of hours as the next batch of decisions are released) ... Hopefully they will moderate as the court cannot function long term without popular support.

You may say "God bless McConnell" but he hurt our country badly. I suspect by point #2, you may see that as worth it.

The idea that our Constitution (and thus federal government power) changes based on current “culture” (political polling opinion?) is ridiculous.

I understand the desire of SCOTUS justices to invent (via convoluted Constitutional ‘interpretation’) ways of updating (aka amending) the rights of the people and powers of the federal government, but that is not their job. There is a reason that the Constitutional amendment process was designed to require a supermajority and to (generally) take years to accomplish.

 

[Slartibartfast]

The idea that our Constitution (and thus federal government power) changes based on current “culture” (political polling opinion?) is ridiculous.

Yet has always been the case since the early days of the republic. To believe otherwise would be to believe that the founders were all of one vision. There were always disagreements and mediation between groups.

I understand the desire of SCOTUS justices to invent (via convoluted Constitutional ‘interpretation’) ways of updating (aka amending) the rights of the people and powers of the federal government, but that is not their job. There is a reason that the Constitutional amendment process was designed to require a supermajority and to (generally) take years to accomplish.

That is the result of one interpretation method. I am still in the living constitution persuasion and from my perspective, you are speaking nonsense. It doesn't matter anyway. What matters if what can be done by action at this point. You should be certain to vote for the results you want.

 

[NWRatCon]

The idea that our Constitution (and thus federal government power) changes based on current “culture” (political polling opinion?) is ridiculous.

I understand the desire of SCOTUS justices to invent (via convoluted Constitutional ‘interpretation’) ways of updating (aka amending) the rights of the people and powers of the federal government, but that is not their job. There is a reason that the Constitutional amendment process was designed to require a supermajority and to (generally) take years to accomplish.

I had forgotten, my friend, your single-issue zealotry on this issue. I'll forgive your ignorance.

As has been demonstrated in a number of decisions, neither Alito nor Thomas are particularly... um, sophisticated, thinkers. For those susceptible to black-and-white decision making, this is an advantage. For jurists, however, it is an abomination.

I don't think it is particularly well understood just how radical the current conservative cabal on the Court actually is, and how far out of the mainstream their thinking is. It's like the mainstream of the legal community, particularly constitutional scholars, are the Pacific Ocean, but the Supreme Court has been drawn from Lake Huron. It's a big body of water, but there is not rational comparison between them.

The results don't represent the history of the United States, the intentions of the framers, the desires of the population, the normal legal analytical process, or the developmental flow of precedent/common law tradition, which is why this cabal is so eager to overturn the apple cart and ignore any traditional deference or precedent. In this term alone they have undone decades, and in some cases centuries, of legal thinking in a single-minded pursuit of a dead-thought process. They have, as Justice Scalia warned, entered into a suicide pact over constitutional "interpretation". They are not only a danger to democracy, but to the future existence of the nation.

Thomas Jefferson once opined: A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.

 

[aociswundumho]

2. Abortion is a slavery-level evil; it is one that permeates our society, and which involves horrific abuse of the innocent en masse.

I find it very strange that you would use the word abuse to describe the fetus being killed. If you had written murder instead of abuse, the sentence would have worked:

and which involves horrific murder of the innocent en masse.

The word abuse doesn't even connote death. If you don't mind me asking, why did you choose the word abuse to describe what happens to the fetus during an abortion?

 

[mrjurrs]

Fair Enough. God Bless Mich McConnell.

Mitch McTurtle is the antithesis of what the founders imagined a Senator to act like.

 

[NWRatCon]

Mitch McTurtle is the antithesis of what the founders imagined a Senator to act like.

Except in their nightmares.

 

[cpwill]

I won't dispute you on point 2. I don't agree, but I don't think we would convince each other of much on that topic.

It's a logical outflow of the position that an unborn human child is an unborn human child, but, yeah, that will probably be something we just disagree on

Right now the majority of moderates view SCOTUS as a political body more than a legal one. This opens up the door, over time to, changing the number of justices, restructuring SCOTUS in other ways, and anything else, because now its mundane. It lowers that threshold to a future arms race which not only has harmed our society, but is very likely to do further damage.

Respectfully, the Left spent decades using the court to do an end run around our democratic means of governance to achieve political victory on issues that weren't as popular as they wished they were - Roe is a classic example, as is Obergefell. Pushing a political question into the Court, meaning that any opposition has no choice but to go through the Court, and then complaining that your opponent has politicized the court is....

... Do you understand the level of chutzpah that comes off as? That sounds to others like how you would hear Trump fans accusing Democrats of lowering the level of our public discourse by leaning into personal attacks.

From your link:



Democrats were used to thinking that they got to win at SCOTUS. Then they discovered they could lose. Republicans already knew - from decades of experience - that they could lose. The movement you are identifying is being driven by folks on the left.

As for the "Majorities opposed to overturning Roe", Meh. Issue polling on that is a problem, mostly because people generally don't know what Roe did or was; but identified it loosely with You Know, Like, There Can Be Like, Some Abortion, I Guess, You Know, and thought an overturn meant a ban.

When you ask Americans to sit down and chart out their actual preferences, you end up with a result that is frustrating to the activists and politically oriented folks of both sides - Americans tend to come down with a sort of European Approach, that allows abortion generally in the first trimester, and starts to sharply restrict it as the child ages. That, however, requires overturning ROE.

If the SCOTUS, after this trick, continues to be out of step with American culture, then popular support for changing its structure to reign it back in will be less and less shocking to voters. SCOTUS may not be vulnerable to popular perception in the short term but it certainly is over time if actions are taken little by little. The door is now open for that.

The Door has been opening for that since Roe, which - along with other attempts to use the Court to help "Progress" society - helped turn Presidential contests (and, to a lesser extent, Senatorial contests) into an all-or-nothing contest over who would get to appoint the Judges that determined the major questions for our society.

People who went to church on a weekly basis voted against Trump in the 2015/2016 primaries.... and came out en masse to vote for him in November 2016 - because of Roe. I was the first person on this forum to identify the fascistic tendencies of the Trump movement, and to declare myself NeverTrump, and Roe is the only thing could have pulled me back - and, had I known for a fact that my vote would put him in, and that he would appoint the justices that would end Roe, I would have. Because, at the end of the day, we had put so many major decisions in the hand of the court - the mass murder of children! - that nothing else mattered, compared to it.

You may say "God bless McConnell" but he hurt our country badly. I suspect by point #2, you may see that as worth it.

Congress has long since ceded far too much of its power to the Executive. No, I am not upset to see it take some of it back, or to challenge a President on a SCOTUS nomination. You are correct that I would be willing to take the damage you describe in order to overturn Roe, but, I think where we are seeing this differently is that I am pointing out that this damage was already done.

 

[cpwill]

Mitch McTurtle is the antithesis of what the founders imagined a Senator to act like.

Ironically, your poor image of Mitch is exactly how the Founders imagined politicians would act, which is exactly why they sought to limit the power and scope of government, and force what power remained to be held in check by balancing it against the ambitions of other politicians.

 

[cpwill]

I find it very strange that you would use the word abuse to describe the fetus being killed. If you had written murder instead of abuse, the sentence would have worked:

Murder is a form of abuse, however, since the comparison I was making was that of chattel slavery, the term abuse is more appropriate, as it covers both categories of interaction.

 

[Antiwar]

This is uncharacteristic of you. Usually you are quite reasonable and honorable.

With respect:

I've never seen @cpwill commentary like that.

 

[cpwill]

With respect:

I've never seen @cpwill commentary like that.

Respectfully, do you think of anyone's commentary who has real disagreements with you like that?

 

[Antiwar]

Respectfully, do you think of anyone's commentary who has real disagreements with you like that?

With respect:

You're one of those conservatives that tried to portray their commentary as being honest. I find your commentary to be intellectually dishonest.

 

[Integrityrespec]

You’re forgetting one thing. McConnell and the Republicans had 54 senators, more than enough to deny Garland’s conformation if McConnell had allowed a floor vote. The reason McConnell didn’t, or one of the reasons was Schumer statement back in 2007 a full year and a half prior to Bush’s presidency coming to an end. Schumer stated the Democrats who controlled the senate back then that the democrats wouldn’t allow Bush to appoint any more judges to the SCOTUS if an opening occurred. No opening occurred and Schumer statement was forgotten by just about everyone. But not McConnell, for old Mitch not allowing a vote on Garland was political payback for Schumer. McConnell has a long memory when it comes to politics and he is the revengeful type. Not allowing a vote on Garland was political payback for Schumer threatening not to allow a vote on any Bush nominee to the SCOTUS back in 2007.

I think if Schumer hadn’t made his statement back in 2007, McConnell probably would have allowed the floor vote on Garland. That doesn’t mean Garland would have been confirmed, McConnell had the votes to deny him. We don’t know what would have happened since it didn’t. We can only take a SWAG.

Schumer is a big mouth and a little brain. He has made numerous blunders in things he has said such as the releasing the world wind and paying the price comment. He's like Biden, loves power but not very good at wielding it. He currently plays second fiddle to Nancy.

 

[cpwill]

With respect:

You're one of those conservatives that tried to portray their commentary as being honest. I find your commentary to be intellectually dishonest.

Cool. Do you actually think of any poster who disagrees with you sharply on your chosen primary issues as reasonable or honorable?

 

[NWRatCon]

Respect for the Court is at an all time low, even among Republicans, according to Gallup and others who have charted this for decades. This is unsurprising, because other studies have shown that their views are unrepresentative of popular views on a variety of subjects.

I'm trying to relocate the specific study, but the gist was that the Supreme Court’s decisions rank as to the right of 75% of the population. Another study found that this is the most conservative court since the 1930s and the infamous 4 horsemen.

When any governmental body is that far removed from the popular zeitgeist, it bodes ill for its reputation. This is exacerbated by the high-handed behavior of the group itself, and the manipulative processes that got them there.

Indeed, the only population that "believes in" the current court is a vanishingly small contingent on the extreme far right. It's the same contingent occupied by neo-fascists, white supremicists, and other authoritarians. Frankly, that's not a group I'd want to be associated with, and it certainly doesn't represent accepted "mainstream" thinking, legally or socially.

 

[Antiwar]

Cool. Do you actually think of any poster who disagrees with you sharply on your chosen primary issues as reasonable or honorable?

With respect:

I find very few people on DP to be intellectually honest. I find that most of them don't answer when they can't answer questions. Or, I suppose that some don't have the intellectual capacity to go further than they do, which isn't very deep at all. I'm sure that everyone is smart in many ways, but I find that DP is over-represented by people on the left side of those kinds of bell curves, ethically and politically.