If they don't fill the seat before the election, every evangelical that might have sat out the election because they didn't like Trump will show up to have the chance to knock out RoevWade.

If Trump cares more about winning than filling the SCOTUS seat, it might make sense for him to wait to fill the seat. He could still do in in late November.

Wolfgang622 wrote:I mean I *think* I know this is me just being an overly paranoid drama queen, but honestly at this moment I feel that this has us actually at the brink of civil war. If there were a call for enlistments right now, I am kind of thinking I would have to die for what this country ought to be.

if this country does break out in civil war (i give it several more cycles. we'll try reform first) it would be a mistake to envision it as a 2 sided fight for territory like the Union VS Confederates. it would probably mirror the civil wars in the middle east and stuff where civilians join various militias and do guerilla fighting on eachother. i guess the wildcard in this is the US military and i'm too much of a dumbass to know how they'd split up during a civil war. just be sure to think of what fractured ideology you would like the militia you join in the future to represent! i will not be joining any communist militias if there are socialist or democratic socialist alternatives.

rip Ruth Bader Ginsburg. i thought hellworld would spare you at least a few more months.

mcare89 wrote:

Gimpy wrote:Options for Mitch:

-Ram someone through now
-Wait until after election day so that people are motivated to vote (and you don't hurt R-Senators in battleground states) and then try to ram someone through if you lose the Presidency or Senate
-Actually wait until after the new Senate is in place in January

I'm expecting Option 1, but 2 wouldn't shock me. That last one would be a big surprise to me.

I assume someone will be nominated before the election in order to dangle a shiny new Supreme Court justice for GOP voters on the fence about Trump, but they won't hold the vote in order to draw in those voters while also not hanging the vote around the necks of the Senators in contested seats.

Then, if they lose, they'll hold the vote in the lame duck because fuck us, that's why.

I’m not sure this is really going to help Rs. The concept of a new SC judge is probably the lone thing such voters were already clinging to knowing that RBG wasn’t making another 4 years.

Suburban women will not like Barrett and the concept of pushing this through will probably push more typically leaning Rs to vote Biden.

And, Ds are going to get a ton of money their way.

i really hope democrats win in november because the idea of a supreme court full of virile young white supremacists makes me start to cry.

is it libertarian to think the supreme court has too much power? if so i am now a libertarian.

Not sure if it’s wise to campaign on this, but the Dems should do nothing short but pack the federal courts with more judges and the SC. Make them pay. May the courts reflect the majority.

The Savior wrote:Not sure if it’s wise to campaign on this, but the Dems should do nothing short but pack the federal courts with more judges and the SC. Make them pay. May the courts reflect the majority.

i generally support packing the courts in theory but its a double edged sword. whenever a conservative gets in power they'd just do the same shit. slippery slope, even tho i hate the term.

Putin would love for us to fight each other and break apart. Payback for breaking up the USSR.

Monkeyboy wrote:Putin would love for us to fight each other and break apart. Payback for breaking up the USSR.

a lot of countries would love for the US to dissolve powerful and weak both.

da_bad_ass wrote:

The Savior wrote:Not sure if it’s wise to campaign on this, but the Dems should do nothing short but pack the federal courts with more judges and the SC. Make them pay. May the courts reflect the majority.

i generally support packing the courts in theory but its a double edged sword. whenever a conservative gets in power they'd just do the same shit. slippery slope, even tho i hate the term.

Better to be the one who fires the nuke first

The Savior wrote:

da_bad_ass wrote:

The Savior wrote:Not sure if it’s wise to campaign on this, but the Dems should do nothing short but pack the federal courts with more judges and the SC. Make them pay. May the courts reflect the majority.

i generally support packing the courts in theory but its a double edged sword. whenever a conservative gets in power they'd just do the same shit. slippery slope, even tho i hate the term.

Better to be the one who fires the nuke first

Yup, we are "over the hill" as a democratic nation and already flying down that slippery slope. It's just a matter of time before the GOP expands the courts. Dems best do it first. Eventually the court-packing will grow intolerable for both sides and some sort ot bi-partisan legislation or Constitutional amendment will pass to limit the size of each level of the federal court system.

It also crossed my mind that, even though it seems a ridiculous thought at the moment, we may live to see the drafting of a new Constitution because the current one was only effective when people of good will represented us in the Senate. Even 25 years ago the Senate was largely a centrist body. Now it is just a smaller House of Reps.

Let's also look at things as dispassionately as possible. Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito could easily kick the bucket in the next eight years, getting us back to 5-4.

Thomas, Alito, and Roberts are 72, 70, and 65 so if they all pass away this decade the libs could have a 6-3 majority by 2030.

Yes, Trump's three shitbag justices will likely be trolling us for at least another 20+ years, but that hardly matters if they are in the minority.

It is going to be 6-3. Mitch's email to his caucus makes that clear, if it wasn't already.

Incredible that only one of those 6 republican appointments will have come from a President who won the majority of votes in an election. 30 years and it is clear that the majority of Americans did not vote for this. Yet, in arguably the most powerful branch of our government will be entrenched with the minority. It is broken.

CalvinBall wrote:It is going to be 6-3. Mitch's email to his caucus makes that clear, if it wasn't already.

Incredible that only one of those 6 republican appointments will have come from a President who won the majority of votes in an election. 30 years and it is clear that the majority of Americans did not vote for this. Yet, in arguably the most powerful branch of our government will be entrenched with the minority. It is broken.

I don't think Turtle cares whether Trump loses, or the GOP loses the Senate for that matter. This was always the prize he sought. Trump is too stupid to realize this, so he will do his masters' bidding.

Turtle won a masterful little game of chess that all started with Alito's death. Who would have conceived of this outcome a mere four years ago? At that point we figured Hillary would win and we would have a 5-3-1 lib majority in the SC.

Of course, one could argue that holding up the Garland nomination was merely a hail mary on Turtle's part that happened to connect and what has transpired can largely be attributed to luck.

I think term limits on Supreme Court justices are long overdue and would help stop a lot of the politics with nominating a justice.

I think Obama and Trump agreed on term limits.

Each President gets two nominations per 4 years. You serve 12 years as a justice.

heyeaglefn wrote:I think term limits on Supreme Court justices are long overdue and would help stop a lot of the politics with nominating a justice.

I think Obama and Trump agreed on term limits.

Each President gets two nominations per 4 years. You serve 12 years as a justice.

Does the Supreme Court have the ability to rule on the constitutionality of legislation that would impact the Supreme Court itself? That would be quite the Catch-22 for reformers.

Also, I dunno if the term limits would help Dems in presidential elections. The prospect of adding two justices of their liking every four years might motivate the Republican base more than the Democratic base.

I forgot they talked about making it 18 years which should be a good number.

I think you'd need a new constitutional provision.

It's actually supposed to make the entire process less political.

With 18 year term limits, what happens when a SC judge dies? The president just nominates someone else to finish out their term?

Gimpy wrote:With 18 year term limits, what happens when a SC judge dies? The president just nominates someone else to finish out their term?

I think there are rules and it depends on the situation. Did they die 2 years into their term or 17 years? Did the current president nominate them?

I think they'd have to flush out all the details though.
From a quick Google search the last time a justice died on the court serving less than 18 years was almost 70 years ago. You could have people resign or retire too but they may be less likely to knowing they are doing after 18.