The Supreme Court must be destroyed

[superrific]

I just don't see what prevents the GOP from using the same mechanisms to re-balance in their favor once Dems start to do it. Which trickles down to the lower courts once SCOTUS is invalidated

Like if Biden somehow convinced Sinema and Manchin (and the rumored 20 Senators against court packing) to kill the filibuster and stack SC, we know Trump and GOP are going to do the same

How many of today's bad outcomes would have been avoided? Serious question. Maybe some, but it doesn't seem we'd be much better off in that scenario

I have a serious answer to this question and I will reply later.

As for other posters . . . I can't imagine being so desperate for intellectual affirmation as to trumpet my understanding of the principle "if you hit me, I'll hit you back." This is literally a guy crowing from the rooftops because he understands the moral universe of a small child.

 

[lawtig02]

If it has, it's been happening since the president and the Senate started choosin Justices. They are always going to choose a person that agrees with them. That's only logical.

But if the Justices were truly pawns of the president and the Senate, they would be telling them what their votes are going to be and that doesn't happen.

And that misconception is what distinguishes Americans from those who live in a fantasy world

 

[superrific]

Sometimes I wonder if Garland would have been a true liberal on the bench.

He was on the bench for 20 years. That could tell you a lot about what he would do on the Supreme Court.

I know him a little, as I've mentioned, and I certainly know his legal opinions. I was also friendly with some of his clerks back in the day, so I'm reasonably confident asserting the following: he would be as non-ideological as possible. Which means, in today's world, he would be a liberal.

Garland on the Supreme Court would be a close ally of Kagan and Breyer. I think like Breyer, which is why I loved Breyer. Kagan thinks like Breyer, which is why I love her. And Garland is cut from the same cloth.

Dems tend not to nominate the liberal equivalents of Alito or Thomas. But Garland would have been fine. You might not agree with him on all issues, but he would have delivered in all the important cases.

 

[superrific]

If it has, it's been happening since the president and the Senate started choosing Justices. They are always going to choose a person that agrees with them. That's only logical.

But if the Justices were truly pawns of the president and the Senate, they would be telling them what their votes are going to be and that doesn't happen.

Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren, you idiot. And he did so because he had promised Earl a seat in exchange for an endorsement in 1952. Then he appointed Brennan because he thought the Catholics deserved a voice.

Nixon appointed Blackmun. Reagan appointed Scalia because he thought the Italians could use someone.

It wasn't until relatively recently that the SCOTUS became all powerful. That's a Rehnquist court creation.

 

[farce©]

If it has, it's been happening since the president and the Senate started choosing Justices. They are always going to choose a person that agrees with them. That's only logical.

But if the Justices were truly pawns of the president and the Senate, they would be telling them what their votes are going to be and that doesn't happen.

It mostly started with the Robert Bork nomination, since prior to that consensus was achieved before a nomination was made. The Clarence Thomas nomination increased the acrimony, but Mitch McConnell’s shenanigans to not allow a vote on Merrick Garland after Scalia died was the straw that broke the camel’s back. That is until he doubled down and broke his own stated rule by pushing through the ACB vote after Trump had lost the election.

So no, it hasn’t been happening since the Senate began confirming justices. It started when Republicans decided to overtly politicize the process by doing away with the accepted collegial standards that had been used to keep Supreme Court justices above the fray.

 

[lawtig02]

It mostly started with the Robert Bork nomination, since prior to that consensus was achieved before a nomination was made. The Clarence Thomas nomination increased the acrimony, but Mitch McConnell’s shenanigans to not allow a vote on Merrick Garland after Scalia died was the straw that broke the camel’s back. That is until he doubled down and broke his own stated rule by pushing through the ACB vote after Trump had lost the election.

So no, it hasn’t been happening since the Senate began confirming justices. It started when Republicans decided overtly politicize the process by doing away with the accepted collegial standards that had been used to keep Supreme Court justices above the fray.

One tweak to this. It wasn't Thomas's nomination that broke the camel's back. It was Thomas's fealty to a series of legal theories that undermined our constitutional order.

 

[superrific]

One tweak to this. It wasn't Thomas's nomination that broke the camel's back. It was Thomas's fealty to a series of legal theories that undermined our constitutional order.

Well, not just Thomas. Scalia penned Morrison v. Olson dissent, after all. Thomas hasn't really been an influential Justice for most of his career. Mostly he was just a guaranteed vote for weird conservative reaction.

 

[farce©]

One tweak to this. It wasn't Thomas's nomination that broke the camel's back. It was Thomas's fealty to a series of legal theories that undermined our constitutional order.

I said Thomas’s nomination increased the acrimony, it was McConnell’s unscrupulous behavior after Scalia died that was “the straw.” But your point is taken.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

It mostly started with the Robert Bork nomination, since prior to that consensus was achieved before a nomination was made. The Clarence Thomas nomination increased the acrimony, but Mitch McConnell’s shenanigans to not allow a vote on Merrick Garland after Scalia died was the straw that broke the camel’s back. That is until he doubled down and broke his own stated rule by pushing through the ACB vote after Trump had lost the election.

So no, it hasn’t been happening since the Senate began confirming justices. It started when Republicans decided to overtly politicize the process by doing away with the accepted collegial standards that had been used to keep Supreme Court justices above the fray.

I think it was before that. Nixon nominated Haynesworth. He got Borked before Bork. Hoover nominated Parker, but was rejected. Thurgood Marshall with a pretty contentious fight. He ultimately made it through but there was certainly no consensus before the nomination was made. Plenty of justices and nominated to be justices got some tough hearings and some were rejected. George Washington had a guy rejected by the Senate.

 

[Duke Mu]

Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren, you idiot. And he did so because he had promised Earl a seat in exchange for an endorsement in 1952. Then he appointed Brennan because he thought the Catholics deserved a voice.

Nixon appointed Blackmun. Reagan appointed Scalia because he thought the Italians could use someone.

It wasn't until relatively recently that the SCOTUS became all powerful. That's a Rehnquist court creation.

...all those DEI hires.

 

[superrific]

So another day, another unreasoned stay. At least Kav gave the game away this time, in a concurrence.

This is not a court. It must be stripped of all jurisdiction. The only source of power for a court is its reasoning.