Supreme Court Expansion

[TSherbs]

My worry is that the next time a GOP president makes a nomination with a Dem senate, the delay will be for years. Kind of like filibuster use now, and impeachments. It's a shame that partisanship has been escalating this way. Cynical and toxic.

[dneal]

PBS (Frontline) made a documentary a couple of years ago about McConnell’s “revenge”, stemming from the Bork confirmation hearings. There’s enough blame to go around for both sides to have a generous helping, but I found it interesting from a historical perspective.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/f...preme-revenge/

[TSherbs]

Yes, I remember the Bork hearings well. The resentment and anger was deep over that. But even before that the Warren court was anathema to conservatives. And Thomas came next and Anita Hill and the "assassin's bullet" thing. And then, and then, and then....

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chip]

What about a stop on supreme court appointments six months before a presidential election?

[kazoolaw]

Yes, I remember the Bork hearings well. The resentment and anger was deep over that. But even before that the Warren court was anathema to conservatives. And Thomas came next and Anita Hill and the "assassin's bullet" thing. And then, and then, and then....

With you right up to the "assassin's bullet." What are you referring to?

[TSherbs]

Yes, I remember the Bork hearings well. The resentment and anger was deep over that. But even before that the Warren court was anathema to conservatives. And Thomas came next and Anita Hill and the "assassin's bullet" thing. And then, and then, and then....

With you right up to the "assassin's bullet." What are you referring to?

What Clarence Thomas said he would prefer to having to go through that hearing process.

[TSherbs]

What about a stop on supreme court appointments six months before a presidential election?

And no ability to stop or delay a nomination prior to the 6-month deadline? I might be more comfortable with 3-month rule. Presidents should be able to exercise their Const power except in the narrowest of windows, it seems to me. If the Senate doesn't prefer a nominee, they should have to vote him|her out, not sleep walk it to an expiration date. IMO.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[kazoolaw]

Yes, I remember the Bork hearings well. The resentment and anger was deep over that. But even before that the Warren court was anathema to conservatives. And Thomas came next and Anita Hill and the "assassin's bullet" thing. And then, and then, and then....

With you right up to the "assassin's bullet." What are you referring to?

What Clarence Thomas said he would prefer to having to go through that hearing process.

"High-tech lynching" was the term that stuck with me.

[TSherbs]

Right, that too

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

Was Anita Hill lying?

[kazoolaw]

Good topic TS.

[TSherbs]

Was Anita Hill lying?

Likely not, but that isn't really the issue here. Both parties and multiple nominees have felt entitled either to an easy confirmation process and/or obstructionist behavior simply because it suits them at the time. Actually, Coney-Barrett was not as obnoxious in tone as the others. Anita Hill herself was incredibly dignified in an otherwise ugly and shameless display by both parties during that process. Thomas had behaved like a creep extraordinaire toward Hill, but the grandstanding in the hearings was obnoxious, too. Did Thomas deserve the job: no. Pigs don't deserve that kind of promotion. But that hearing process doesn't actually yield "fair" or appropriate results for responsible adults. It's really tough to watch our national leaders grandstand in such ways. GROSS

[pajaro]

Expand the Court to 2,021 justices and add one every year. I wonder if they could make a quorum.

[Chip]

Expand the Court to 2,021 justices and add one every year. I wonder if they could make a quorum.

And they could meet on the head of a pin.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I don't know enough about the American legal system to comment in an intelligent fashion, but the fact that there is an odd number of SC appointments, coupled with the fact the SC appointments are nominated by the sitting President, seems to be a perfect recipe for bias. Basing that on my belief that SC judges, in general, are not apolitical (which may be wrong).

[Chuck Naill]

I don't know enough about the American legal system to comment in an intelligent fashion, but the fact that there is an odd number of SC appointments, coupled with the fact the SC appointments are nominated by the sitting President, seems to be a perfect recipe for bias. Basing that on my belief that SC judges, in general, are not apolitical (which may be wrong).

A sitting President can be denied his or her ability to nominate if the majority party speak says no.

[dneal]

I don't know enough about the American legal system to comment in an intelligent fashion, but the fact that there is an odd number of SC appointments, coupled with the fact the SC appointments are nominated by the sitting President, seems to be a perfect recipe for bias. Basing that on my belief that SC judges, in general, are not apolitical (which may be wrong).

A sitting President can be denied his or her ability to nominate if the majority party speak says no.

Nope. A sitting President can nominate, but the Senate doesn't have to give its consent. Rules of the Senate are determined by the Senate.

I thought McConnell's stalling of Garland was BS; and they should have just "no" voted since they held power (we of course don't know if McConnell had the votes or not, but I assume he did). That said, I'm glad Garland isn't sitting on the court - particularly based on his running of the DOJ.

[Chuck Naill]

I don't know enough about the American legal system to comment in an intelligent fashion, but the fact that there is an odd number of SC appointments, coupled with the fact the SC appointments are nominated by the sitting President, seems to be a perfect recipe for bias. Basing that on my belief that SC judges, in general, are not apolitical (which may be wrong).

A sitting President can be denied his or her ability to nominate if the majority party speak says no.

Nope. A sitting President can nominate, but the Senate doesn't have to give its consent. Rules of the Senate are determined by the Senate.

I thought McConnell's stalling of Garland was BS; and they should have just "no" voted since they held power (we of course don't know if McConnell had the votes or not, but I assume he did). That said, I'm glad Garland isn't sitting on the court - particularly based on his running of the DOJ.

But McConnell didn't. What his actions did was to further the divide, and now we have an unbalanced court. It reminds me of being in a state tournament for 11-12 year olds and the state tournament director brings in a 15 year old pitcher and wins. They got the win, but didn't compete according to the rules which are in place to provide balance. Balance makes no one happy, but it is better than a stacked court. Now we have Thomas as the most powerful jurist.

[dneal]

Chuck - I assume the disagreement arises from the term "nominate". Obama did indeed nominate Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. He was not "denied his ability" to nominate. The authority to nominate does not include the authority to appoint. With the exception of recess appointments (another method of political gamesmanship), Presidential nominations to certain positions require Senate confirmation and approval.

[Chuck Naill]

Chuck - I assume the disagreement arises from the term "nominate". Obama did indeed nominate Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. He was not "denied his ability" to nominate. The authority to nominate does not include the authority to appoint. With the exception of recess appointments (another method of political gamesmanship), Presidential nominations to certain positions require Senate confirmation and approval.

Okay, your arguing semantics. My bad. The point remains that he was not allowed to compete as Trump's picks and the only difference is McConnell. Since I didn't vote for McConnell or am not from Kentucky, I find his actions both hyprocrital and obstructionary.