SCOTUS on the ballot

[Crazyhole]

in the debate, Joe said that the voters should have a say in who should be appointed to replace RBG. If he believes that to be true, wouldn't it make sense for him to release a list of justices that he would nominate?

 

[DaShuckster]

Whether we’re talking current or future Republican or Democrats, I don’t see politicians rushing to follow Trump’s playbook

 

[OLearyLastCall]

in the debate, Joe said that the voters should have a say in who should be appointed to replace RBG. If he believes that to be true, wouldn't it make sense for him to release a list of justices that he would nominate?

It doesn't matter if Joe releases a list. I respect his team for not falling for the trap. ACB will be appointed against the will of the majority of voters per polling. I hope Joe expands the Court, but I won't hold my breath.

 

[firm_bizzle]

No. This isn't a reality tv show.

 

[DaShuckster]

It doesn't matter if Joe releases a list. I respect his team for not falling for the trap.

The genius of our Founding Fathers was to have a ‘neutral’ SCOTUS that would keep the extremes of either political party in check. The selection process also insured that any nominee had to have a moderate enough record that Senators of either party could feel comfortable enough voting for him or her.

But, alas, those were the days when the parties operated in good faith. Once that disappeared, the proverbial genie was out of the bottle and we went from a system built to ensure a level of independence to one that now embraces the extreme to the point where Trump even advertised lists of Uber-conservative judges to raise goosebumps from his base.

Given what the Republicans have done and are currently doing, you’d be naive to believe the Democrats won’t expand the court once they control the WH and Senate. The back-and-forth gaming is how we got in this mess in the first place.

 

[firm_bizzle]

The genius of our Founding Fathers was to have a ‘neutral’ SCOTUS that would keep the extremes of either political party in check. The selection process also insured that any nominee had to have a moderate enough record that Senators of either party could feel comfortable enough voting for him or her.

But, alas, those were the days when the parties operated in good faith. Once that disappeared, the proverbial genie was out of the bottle and we went from a system built to ensure a level of independence to one that now embraces the extreme to the point where Trump even advertised lists of Uber-conservative judges to raise goosebumps from his base.

Given what the Republicans have done and are currently doing, you’d be naive to believe the Democrats won’t expand the court once they control the WH and Senate. The back-and-forth gaming is how we got in this mess in the first place.

The founding fathers weren't geniuses.

 

[Crazyhole]

The genius of our Founding Fathers was to have a ‘neutral’ SCOTUS that would keep the extremes of either political party in check. The selection process also insured that any nominee had to have a moderate enough record that Senators of either party could feel comfortable enough voting for him or her.

But, alas, those were the days when the parties operated in good faith. Once that disappeared, the proverbial genie was out of the bottle and we went from a system built to ensure a level of independence to one that now embraces the extreme to the point where Trump even advertised lists of Uber-conservative judges to raise goosebumps from his base.

Given what the Republicans have done and are currently doing, you’d be naive to believe the Democrats won’t expand the court once they control the WH and Senate. The back-and-forth gaming is how we got in this mess in the first place.

This is misinformed. There was never a tradition of nominating judges that appeal to moderates, it was always about whether a nominee was qualified. Everybody knew that RBG was pretty radical but she was qualified for the position so she was confirmed in the typical landslide vote. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and now Barret are all qualified but will get a grand total of 6 votes total from democrats.

 

[DaShuckster]

This is misinformed. There was never a tradition of nominating judges that appeal to moderates, it was always about whether a nominee was qualified.

That certainly has been a consideration -- and given that we're talking about the highest court in the land, you'd think that being qualified would be an 'automatic,' but it hasn't been as recently as GWB nominating his private attorney. But it has been far from being the only consideration.

Reagan's pick of Ginsberg withdrew himself after news broke he...gasp!...smoked pot with his Harvard law students!!! (Clearly the devil weed is worse than sexual assault.) And - YES - there has been a theme -- at least in my lifetime -- to nominate judges (by Presidents of either party) who would be acceptable to members of the other party. That's why Nixon had a couple of unsuccessful nominees. For some strange reason, opposition to civil rights probably wasn't going to win you many Senate approval votes from Democrats in the 1970s. And, of course, there famously was Robert Bork, another Reagan pick.

 

[Boosted87]

The founding fathers weren't geniuses.

I disagree. We are fortunate that those particular humans existed at that particular moment. Even if the structure of government was perfect, flawed humans would corrupt it over time.

 

[Crazyhole]

That certainly has been a consideration -- and given that we're talking about the highest court in the land, you'd think that being qualified would be an 'automatic,' but it hasn't been as recently as GWB nominating his private attorney. But it has been far from being the only consideration.

Reagan's pick of Ginsberg withdrew himself after news broke he...gasp!...smoked pot with his Harvard law students!!! (Clearly the devil weed is worse than sexual assault.) And - YES - there has been a theme -- at least in my lifetime -- to nominate judges (by Presidents of either party) who would be acceptable to members of the other party. That's why Nixon had a couple of unsuccessful nominees. For some strange reason, opposition to civil rights probably wasn't going to win you many Senate approval votes from Democrats in the 1970s. And, of course, there famously was Robert Bork, another Reagan pick.

Giving examples of democrats blocking SCOTUS nominees for reasons as petty as smoking pot 20 years earlier doesn't strengthen your position. It shows how democrats have been politicizing the court for 35 years while Republicans have held true to the ideal that if a candidate is qualified, they should be confirmed. Now democrats have lost the battle that falls within the traditional rules so they want to change the rules once again. Its pretty shameful.

 

[Boosted87]

Everybody knew that RBG was pretty radical but she was qualified for the position so she was confirmed in the typical landslide vote.

Source? My understanding is that she was viewed as a "moderate" from her time on the lower court. Orrin Hatch recommended her. This is from a 1993 article on her selection:

While some conservative groups gave her at least partial endorsement, liberal and abortion rights groups expressed certain reservations about her views on privacy rights, labor law and even her ability to forge consensus. ​

Clinton Picks Moderate Judge Ruth Ginsburg for High Court : Judiciary: President calls the former women's rights activist a healer and consensus builder. Her nomination is expected to win easy Senate approval.

In a surprise ending to a tortuous three-month search, President Clinton on Monday nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an appeals court judge and former women's rights activist, as a Supreme Court justice, making her the first appointment to the high court by a Democratic administration in 26 years.

www.latimes.com

 

[Crazyhole]

Source? My understanding is that she was viewed as a "moderate" from her time on the lower court. Orrin Hatch recommended her. This is from a 1993 article on her selection:

While some conservative groups gave her at least partial endorsement, liberal and abortion rights groups expressed certain reservations about her views on privacy rights, labor law and even her ability to forge consensus. ​

Clinton Picks Moderate Judge Ruth Ginsburg for High Court : Judiciary: President calls the former women's rights activist a healer and consensus builder. Her nomination is expected to win easy Senate approval.

In a surprise ending to a tortuous three-month search, President Clinton on Monday nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an appeals court judge and former women's rights activist, as a Supreme Court justice, making her the first appointment to the high court by a Democratic administration in 26 years.

www.latimes.com

By today's standards she wasn't a radical. Her work in early practice was definitely radical for the time. I have a lot of respect for her so don't misinterpret my intent, but her positions on the equal protection clause was clearly radical for the time. She was probably the first justice that was nominated to the court that could really be considered an activist.

 

[DaShuckster]

By today's standards she wasn't a radical. Her work in early practice was definitely radical for the time.

Yeah, she championed women's rights!!!

 

[goodknightfl]

Biden said when W was in last year, he should not put up an Justice, and Senate should not approve, 8 years later said Obama should appoint a Justice, and Senate should have the vote. 4 years later says Trump should not nominate a Justice, and Senate shouldn't vote on the nomination. Bottom line is both parties want what is best for them at the moment. Just politicians doing what they do, being hypocrites.