Democrats want to dodge filibuster rules

[Arcangl86]

I think this is an idea worth exploring; but I am pessimistic that it will reduce the politics. Let's take two current examples. Ruth Bader Ginsburg had two bouts of cancer around 2013, 2014. At that time she was 80 years old. From a jurist's point of view, she was as sharp as ever; but the Democrats pressured her to resign so that Obama could choose her successor. She chose not to and died of metastatic pancreatic cancer in 2020, giving Trump his third nominee and swinging the court from 5-4 conservative to 6-3. Likewise Stephen Breyer was 5 years younger than Ginsburg and received the same pressure from Democrats even though his health was good and he seemed as competent as ever. He yielded to the political pressure (maybe using the example of Ginsburg) and retired. Health and competency are not necessarily linear with age. So some of the limits I have heard of 75 seem to set an arbitrary standard. Perhaps it should be like some driving license restrictions in certain states where after a certain age, the Justice has to show that his or her competency is undiminished.

There is one other aspect to this that seems obvious to me. If we set an age limit on Supreme Court Justices, the job of President is even more demanding and should have a similar limit on it. I doubt if the people pushing for term limits on justices would like this idea.

As you can see, the political heat that exists now exists because of politicians putting political power ahead of what is good for the country. This was the case in 2016 when McConnell delayed Merrick Garland's confirmation and it is the case today with Democrats pushing for changes to the Court because they don't like the current makeup. The Court has only been able to rise above partisanship when it operates outside the political miasma. Having more justices would mean more confirmations and the last few confirmations have been political sideshows. It would also mean more pressure placed on justices to retire early just to secure more partisan justices.

Some people have suggested a mandatory retirement age, but that's not what Hendrick suggested. He suggested a term limit, albeit it a long term. If it's set up that the terms are set to end every two years or so, then it should reduce the amount of political fighting because it's no longer about trying to pick somebody who will influence the court for 30-40 years.

 

[tz620q]

Some people have suggested a mandatory retirement age, but that's not what Hendrick suggested. He suggested a term limit, albeit it a long term. If it's set up that the terms are set to end every two years or so, then it should reduce the amount of political fighting because it's no longer about trying to pick somebody who will influence the court for 30-40 years.

That makes more sense. What do you think would be an effective term? If it is too short it would disturb the balance and create an unstable court that might ping pong around on issues.

 

[Fantine]

I really think.the Federalist Society, which has been grooming ideologues for years, has a lot to do with the politicization of the Court.
They have had a plan in place to turn America to the right for years, and used persistence and discipline to achieve it.
Right now the Court is so conservative that the balance of power between the three branches is upset.
We could pass whatever laws we want and the Court could just say uh-uh.
They began shaping politics when they invited their beloved corporations to flood elections with money.

 

[Arcangl86]

That makes more sense. What do you think would be an effective term? If it is too short it would disturb the balance and create an unstable court that might ping pong around on issues.

The number i hear bandied around the most when people talk about term limits is 18 years. It's a decently long time to provide some stability, guarantees each President two appointments and at the same time ensures the Court is constantly refreshened with judges who are shaped by the evolving legal environment. Of course it breaks down a little if a justice dies or resigns, but if you want to reduce the politics, simply have the most senior circuit judge take the role for the rest of the unfilled term.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I really think.the Federalist Society, which has been grooming ideologues for years, has a lot to do with the politicization of the Court.
They have had a plan in place to turn America to the right for years, and used persistence and discipline to achieve it.
Right now the Court is so conservative that the balance of power between the three branches is upset.
We could pass whatever laws we want and the Court could just say uh-uh.
They began shaping politics when they invited their beloved corporations to flood elections with money.

Well, we've had a liberal court for the past 50 years, so now having a conservative court upsets the left.

It's just part of politics. To me, the current court follows the US Constitution better
than before.

 

[Fantine]

When Roberts replaced Rehnquist in 2005 it became "the most conservative court in 40.years."
And Rehnquist was conservative.
So you can subtract at least 17 years from the 50 you allege the Court was liberal.
If the Court becomes 7-2 due to McConnell machinations in the future I guess we could call it the Kangaroo Court.
It's pretty much a Kangaroo Court already.
But Roberts us right. They have lost legitimacy. Their approval rating is 23% and their appalling voting rights and Citizens United decisions show they don't believe in our form of government.
I guess that's what happens when a demagogue who tried to overturn a valid election appoints three justices.

 

[tz620q]

I really think.the Federalist Society, which has been grooming ideologues for years, has a lot to do with the politicization of the Court.
They have had a plan in place to turn America to the right for years, and used persistence and discipline to achieve it.

Do you see this as an effective strategy for the liberal leaning groups to regain control or do you see this as somehow pernicious because it worked and yielded a conservative court?

Right now the Court is so conservative that the balance of power between the three branches is upset.

After winning the Senate, the House, and the Presidency to say that the balance of power is upset based on the court being conservative sounds like the view of someone who does not wants our system to function the way it is supposed to. This is why moderate Democrats, including the current President have spoken against court packing to create a liberal majority. It will be interesting to see if that holds when Republicans take back the House in November. If Democrats still control the Senate, an increasingly lame duck President Biden might yield to the progressive pressures and decide his final stroke of political power should go into packing the court.

We could pass whatever laws we want and the Court could just say uh-uh.
They began shaping politics when they invited their beloved corporations to flood elections with money.

That is a stretch to think that the Court would ignore or reinterpret unambiguous laws to mean the opposite of their intent. Perhaps you could give some examples of current cases that you feel justify this opinion.

As far as flooding an election with corporate dollars, the past 2020 election is a good example of one where the DNC and other DNC-related PAC's received 100's of millions of dollars of corporate money. Here is an article about the 2018 and 2020 election showing the amount.

"2018 election cycle
In September 2018, the Supreme Court ruled against a 40-year FEC dark money loophole, requiring "independent expenditure" groups disclose donations over a certain amount. Reports revealed that during the 2018 midterm elections, dark money spending by liberal groups accounted for about 54 percent during the election cycle, outpacing conservative and nonpartisan groups spending, which claimed 31 percent and 15 percent, respectively.

2020 election cycle
In the 2020 election cycle, there was more than $1 billion in undisclosed spending; of that money, $514 million was spent to help Democrats and $200 million was spent to help Republicans. Joe Biden received $174 million in anonymous contributions, over six times as much as Donald Trump's $25 million. According to The American Prospect, Democrats "claim to agree that money in politics can be detrimental to democracy, but they cannot afford to let all the benefits of super PAC spending flow to Republicans...more quietly, leaders in the progressive fundraising world will admit that transparency is just not a serious priority anymore."

 

[Fantine]

A lot has been made of Alito's going back to the 13th century to overturn Roe...while ignoring slaves raped by their owners/oppressors using their knowledge of herbs to take wormwood and other abortifacients.
Toobin described the devious way Roberts stretched the Citizens United decision in the Nine, but my memory is fuzzy on details.
And let's face it. The idea that racism subsided (!) By 2013 and voting rights was no longer necessary is ridiculous. Racism has made a hateful, resurgence, white supremacists are growing in number. Dozens of states enacted Jim Crow style laws after the 2013 decision...with many more laws in the wake of 2020.
And where is this well-regulated militia? I keep looking for uniforms and parades but all I see are pickups with gun racks.

 

[JacksBratt]

The simple fact that people worry about the political view or bent of any judge... is an oxymoron.

If any judge is swayed by their personal political view.. they should be kicked hard and long from any panel that is trying to decipher the ethics and constitutionality of a bill or law.

By nature, justice is supposed to be blind. Any decision that is swayed by political feelings.. is wrong.

Even by the time that a lawyer is elected to serve on the bench as a judge.. they are supposed to have seen enough and have enough experience to RULE with just decisions and penalties.

If two judges look at a certain aspect of the constitution and cannot agree, based on any political or personal basis, feeling or views...

Then:

1/ The wording of the law, bill or amendment is vague.

or

2/ Personal bias is clouding the decision. Feelings are involved and the decision is void.

The way I see it... Whoever chooses the judges picks the ones who will decide for their agenda..
If that's the case.. After every Federal election... Each party should choose 5 judges....

How on earth, with well written bills and laws, are you going to have 10 of the nations finest minds who are professionals at judging ethics, events, morals and issues... going to disagree to the extent where there is a tie?

If they do... then they are biased... or paid off.

In both cases...... kick em hard and far away from any job where they decide on anything important.

 

[Ray Glenn]

Based on Garland's performance in the DOJ .....It doesn't look like the decision to overlook him was a bad idea at all.

 

[Arcangl86]

Based on Garland's performance in the DOJ .....It doesn't look like the decision to overlook him was a bad idea at all.

You do realize that the role of AG and of a judge are completely different right?

 

[Aldebaran]

No, but Mitch McConnell is the one who declared before Scalia's body was cold that he wasn't going to approve anybody nominated by President Obama.

That's not changing the number of justices, or "packing the court" as some people claim.

 

[Aldebaran]

The current President just seated a Supreme Court Justice. Apparently "SHE" doesn't know what a woman is. Oh, that's right ......because "SHE" is not a biologist.

Hard to imagine what her opinions will look like. Hope she writes legalese better than her stated lack of science education skills.

Maybe you are right and "SHE" doesn't count as a "Female" Justice. Joe wanted one of those ... LOL!

Now they want joe to appoint 4 more. Imagine what they'd be like! They'd no doubt have the same lofty qualifications of fitting into the LGTB spectrum. We see how well that's working with the VP pick, and the current WH spokesperson. At least "history" was made. That is what counts.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

When Roberts replaced Rehnquist in 2005 it became "the most conservative court in 40.years."
And Rehnquist was conservative.
So you can subtract at least 17 years from the 50 you allege the Court was liberal.
If the Court becomes 7-2 due to McConnell machinations in the future I guess we could call it the Kangaroo Court.
It's pretty much a Kangaroo Court already.
But Roberts us right. They have lost legitimacy. Their approval rating is 23% and their appalling voting rights and Citizens United decisions show they don't believe in our form of government.
I guess that's what happens when a demagogue who tried to overturn a valid election appoints three justices.

The court was liberal right through when Ginsberg, who was the key to giving the
state the right to take homes through eminent domain in order to hand over the property to a private developer.

Sandra Day O'Conner was liberal despite Reagan and the Conservatives saw her
as a conservative appointment.

At best, the court was moderate center to the left.

Today, it's Constitutional, despite thinking the Constitution is a conservative
document.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

A lot has been made of Alito's going back to the 13th century to overturn Roe...while ignoring slaves raped by their owners/oppressors using their knowledge of herbs to take wormwood and other abortifacients.
Toobin described the devious way Roberts stretched the Citizens United decision in the Nine, but my memory is fuzzy on details.
And let's face it. The idea that racism subsided (!) By 2013 and voting rights was no longer necessary is ridiculous. Racism has made a hateful, resurgence, white supremacists are growing in number. Dozens of states enacted Jim Crow style laws after the 2013 decision...with many more laws in the wake of 2020.
And where is this well-regulated militia? I keep looking for uniforms and parades but all I see are pickups with gun racks.

The 13th Century the United States didn't exist.

Slaves being raped? Sure, it happened, but far less than the left likes to believe.

Slaves cost money and abusing slaves got the worse performance from them.

Even Jefferson and Washington saw slavery as an immoral evil. Washington's last will and testament, freed his slaves and gave them land off his own property for them to farm for themselves. Jefferson emancipated his slaves before his death. Note, none of Jefferson's slaves sought freedom when he took them to Europe, where they could leave him and be free. John Adams and Abigail, were abolitionists. Slavery was evil, but the story is more
complex than what today's leftist describe it as. Thomas Sowell, a professor of history, rejects the position of leftist when they talk about slavery. Facts about slavery never mentioned in school | Thomas Sowell - Bing video

 

[JimR-OCDS]

And for the record, McConnell was an ass to reject Obama's nomination, whom I supported.

He was hypocritical when he gave Trump his nomination just weeks before the election.

 

[Ray Glenn]

You do realize that the role of AG and of a judge are completely different right?

Do you realize that both positions are filled by Law degreed individuals? Apparently not. Garland would be the same no matter where he is. His disregard for the law at AG would be greater at SCOTUS.

 

[tz620q]

A lot has been made of Alito's going back to the 13th century to overturn Roe...while ignoring slaves raped by their owners/oppressors using their knowledge of herbs to take wormwood and other abortifacients.

You didn't reply to my post so I am not sure if this was meant to be a list of cases that you feel were usedto justify your opinion. If that is the case then you need to drop more bread crumbs to allow us to follow your logic. The only 13th century reference that I know used in abortion arguments is Thomas Aquinas' soul at quickening argument; but that is nowhere in Samual Alito's opinion in Hobbs v Jackson Health.
How all of this applies to raped slaved and abortifacients goes beyond my ability to stretch my mind around two ideas at the same time.

Toobin described the devious way Roberts stretched the Citizens United decision in the Nine, but my memory is fuzzy on details.

Citizens United v FEC was a first amendment case on whether non-profit corporations could spend money for things that might be construed as campaign related spending or were FEC rules prohibiting this within a certain time of the election prohibitive of the first amendment rights of the corporation. The outcome upheld the first amendment rights of Citizens United over the FEC and opened up campaign finance to a lot of the dark money flowing from corporations through PAC's. President Obama was critical of the decision, while McConnell thought it a triumph for 1st amendment rights. The conservative members of the court sided with the rights of the individual or corporations over the FEC rules.

And let's face it. The idea that racism subsided (!) By 2013 and voting rights was no longer necessary is ridiculous. Racism has made a hateful, resurgence, white supremacists are growing in number. Dozens of states enacted Jim Crow style laws after the 2013 decision...with many more laws in the wake of 2020.
And where is this well-regulated militia? I keep looking for uniforms and parades but all I see are pickups with gun racks.

I assume by your referral to 2013 that you mean Shelby County v Holder. The decision of the court did not strike down federal preclearance as outlined in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It merely stated that the preclearance requirements outlined in Section 4b were based on 40 year old data and could not be applied to the current conditions in the U.S. The Congress could have easily fixed this by redoing the federal preclearance requirements based on current data.

 

[Fantine]

Would you prefer I find the dissents on these cases? I am sure they are referenced online, and I am sure that they are compelling.
I can say with certainty to Second Amendment advocates that yes, the government has overstepped its bounds and by the time they get to your cherry-picked priorities your guns won't do you any good.
Voting rights;
The Best Lines From Ginsburg’s Dissent on the Voting Rights Act Decision

 

[Arcangl86]

Do you realize that both positions are filled by Law degreed individuals? Apparently not. Garland would be the same no matter where he is. His disregard for the law at AG would be greater at SCOTUS.

It's not holding a law degree is some sort of super secret thing only very few people do. Most of the senior members of the government have law degrees. And what disregard for the law are you speaking of in particular?