Ruth Bader Ginsburg

[Tyler]

According to NPR, there are at least 5 republicans that will not vote until after Jan 20.

We're just a few hours in. I'm not buying that NPR has a hard count either way before the bargaining and arm twisting even starts. We'll see.

[glennds]

There seems to be a presumption that any vote for a SCOTUS appointee will fall strictly along party lines.
Maybe it will, but if so, it is an example of the normalized deviancy of polarized partisanship, which has not historically been the case with appointees, contrary to what McConnell's nostalgic "going back to the 1800's" statement suggests.

As examples here are the confirmation votes for some recent justices (not all):

Roberts 78-22
Breyer 87-9
Ginsburg 96-3
Souter 90-9
Kennedy 97-0
Scalia 98-0

I selected these examples to demonstrate that bi-partisan Senate voting is not only possible but common. And contrary to McConnell's statement this shows plenty of Senate support for the appointee of an opposing party President whether the President's party was majority in the Senate at the time or not. Also, the voting history implies that the criteria for approval was not limited to the party of the appointing President, which itself is a refreshing idea.

So this brings us back to the question of how McConnell will answer the conundrum of why his logic was sound in blocking Garland's hearings in February of an election year, but not applicable here.

[Xan]

I don't know that I have a better system, but I'd just like to point out that lifetime appointment for these judges makes for some horrible mixing of politics with humanity. Some huge portion of the country is effectively always hoping that the right person will die. We ghoulishly plot out how long so-and-so has left.

I suppose it was the same on steroids in the days of true monarchs, where the government would completely change when one person died.

[Mark Leavy]

Damn. I just saw the news. I didn't think 2020 could get any more chaotic. Maybe I will throw another steak on the grill tonight...

[vnatale]

Capture.JPG (56.92 KiB) Viewed 4720 times

[Libertarian666]

According to NPR, there are at least 5 republicans that will not vote until after Jan 20.

We're just a few hours in. I'm not buying that NPR has a hard count either way before the bargaining and arm twisting even starts. We'll see.

Agreed.

[Dieter]

There goes the republic.

[flyingpylon]

There seems to be a presumption that any vote for a SCOTUS appointee will fall strictly along party lines.
Maybe it will, but if so, it is an example of the normalized deviancy of polarized partisanship, which has not historically been the case with appointees, contrary to what McConnell's nostalgic "going back to the 1800's" statement suggests.

As examples here are the confirmation votes for some recent justices (not all):

Roberts 78-22
Breyer 87-9
Ginsburg 96-3
Souter 90-9
Kennedy 97-0
Scalia 98-0

I selected these examples to demonstrate that bi-partisan Senate voting is not only possible but common. And contrary to McConnell's statement this shows plenty of Senate support for the appointee of an opposing party President whether the President's party was majority in the Senate at the time or not. Also, the voting history implies that the criteria for approval was not limited to the party of the appointing President, which itself is a refreshing idea.

So this brings us back to the question of how McConnell will answer the conundrum of why his logic was sound in blocking Garland's hearings in February of an election year, but not applicable here.

But votes on the last five justices in the last 14+ years have been more contentious:

Alito 58-42
Sotomayor 68-31
Kagan 63-37
Gorsuch 54-45
Kavanaugh 50-48

Can you really envision a nominee that would get overwhelming support from both parties given the state of politics in the US?

Do you notice anything about the recent vote counts vs the party of the President who nominated them?

[glennds]

But votes on the last five justices in the last 14+ years have been more contentious:

Alito 58-42
Sotomayor 68-31
Kagan 63-37
Gorsuch 54-45
Kavanaugh 50-48

Can you really envision a nominee that would get overwhelming support from both parties given the state of politics in the US?

No I do not, and my point is that it is not normal nor healthy. If the nomination is completely politicized without regard to the specific qualifications of the candidate, it is a perversion of the process. Voting against a proposed appointee because of something specific to that candidate is one thing. Voting against the appointment purely because of party affiliation is not good.

Do you notice anything about the recent vote counts vs the party of the President who nominated them?

Sotomayor (of the 68 yeas, 23 were Republicans in a Senate that was composed of 53% R and 47%D)
Alito (of the 58 yeas, 4 were Democrats in a Senate that was 55%R and 45%D. Note one Republican voted nay, the rest of the 42 nays were all Dem)
Kagan (of the 63 yeas, 5 were Republican in a Senate that was 58%D and 42%R)
Gorsuch (of the 54 yeas, 2 were Democrat in a Senate that was 49.5%D and 50.5%R)
Kavanaugh (of the 50 yeas, 1 was Democrat in a Senate that was 47%D and 53%R)

Interesting pattern. In recent appointees Democrats have been considerably more partisan about SCOTUS appointees than Republicans, at least using Sotomayor as a comparison case. In the earlier appointments that I cited, it was not as egregious.

[pp4me]

According to NPR, there are at least 5 republicans that will not vote until after Jan 20.

We're just a few hours in. I'm not buying that NPR has a hard count either way before the bargaining and arm twisting even starts. We'll see.

Agreed.

According to Tucker, NPR was also reporting that her dying words were that she wanted her replacement picked by a new president.

Hard to believe that's true. If so, how strange to be thinking of Donald Trump as you are dying.

As one of the commentators said however, Supreme Court justices don't get pick their replacements. The president does.

[Tyler]

According to Tucker, NPR was also reporting that her dying words were that she wanted her replacement picked by a new president.

I dunno. Delaying a Supreme Court nomination another 4 years is a pretty big ask.

(But all jokes aside, the callous spin here is pretty insane. I wish people who claim to respect her so deeply would let the woman get the attention and credit she deserves without immediately propping her up as a sockpuppet for their own political agendas.)

[Xan]

Voting against a proposed appointee because of something specific to that candidate is one thing. Voting against the appointment purely because of party affiliation is not good.

I would agree with this, but I would also note that party affiliation doesn't exist in a vacuum. It correlates with important things like what the place of the law is, how law should be interpreted, what the role of judges is. Basically all the things that are important when confirming a judge.

So the recent polarization isn't necessarily a matter of being more partisan, as it is that the two parties have started to have more and more real differences on what makes a good judge.

[vnatale]

Capture.JPG (43.08 KiB) Viewed 5030 times

[Libertarian666]

Capture.JPG

Yes, we know she's a RINO.

Let's see what she does when the vote comes up.

[Cortopassi]

I am sure a lot of you know specific reasons why you'd like a liberal vs conservative court and vice versa. Seems reasonably immaterial to me.

The one that is always brought up is Roe v Wade.

I really don't know much about that. If I understand correctly that legalized abortion, would overturning that then make it a crime to have an abortion, or leave to states? Where do other western countries stand on this?

[Libertarian666]

I am sure a lot of you know specific reasons why you'd like a liberal vs conservative court and vice versa. Seems reasonably immaterial to me.

The one that is always brought up is Roe v Wade.

I really don't know much about that. If I understand correctly that legalized abortion, would overturning that then make it a crime to have an abortion, or leave to states? Where do other western countries stand on this?

If it were overturned, as it should be because it is not a federal issue, then the states would make their own rules.
Just as they do in virtually every other criminal prosecution or lack thereof.
I don't know the answer about abortion in other western countries, but I do know that most countries don't have a federal structure like the US, where most issues are handled at the state and local levels.

[Xan]

I am sure a lot of you know specific reasons why you'd like a liberal vs conservative court and vice versa. Seems reasonably immaterial to me.

The one that is always brought up is Roe v Wade.

I really don't know much about that. If I understand correctly that legalized abortion, would overturning that then make it a crime to have an abortion, or leave to states? Where do other western countries stand on this?

My understanding is that Roe struck down 50 separate state laws on the subject, on the grounds that the Constitution (in some kind of "penumbra" of privacy) prohibits states from regulating the matter.

It's a hallmark of judges legislating from the bench, making the law they think should be made rather than applying what exists. And unlike other such rulings which can be overridden by changing the law, this one can't, because there isn't a law to be changed.

[Mark Leavy]

I enjoyed reading this reminiscense by The Volokh Conspiracy at Reason Magazine.

[glennds]

I am sure a lot of you know specific reasons why you'd like a liberal vs conservative court and vice versa. Seems reasonably immaterial to me.

The one that is always brought up is Roe v Wade.

I really don't know much about that. If I understand correctly that legalized abortion, would overturning that then make it a crime to have an abortion, or leave to states? Where do other western countries stand on this?

In answer to your question, here is a link to a table that summarizes abortion legality in 193 countries (as of 2017). https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/defaul ... able_1.pdf

[doodle]

Capture.JPG

Yes, we know she's a RINO.

Let's see what she does when the vote comes up.

Well, this certainly will be a monumental moment. Techno's cure is like huffing Lysol to kill covid...it might kill the 'virus', but it will also terminate the patient. I'm becoming pretty convinced that we are headed towards massive civil breakdown in this country. Ram your justice through. Let's remove any modicum of civility from congress....what goes around comes around. This will get so nasty that we will soon resemble Yugoslavia in the 90s. Republicans set a precedent with Merrick Garland that they are now chosing not to follow. Fine. You are right, this will end the republic. This is a green light for the Democrats to do whatever they want when the majority swings back their way, and it will sooner or later.

[flyingpylon]

Republicans set a precedent with Merrick Garland that they are now chosing not to follow.

False.

[Libertarian666]

Republicans set a precedent with Merrick Garland that they are now chosing not to follow.

False.

Scott Adams explains the "McConnell Rule" to his imaginary liberal friend "Dale": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kgyny2ktF7Q

[Libertarian666]

Capture.JPG

Yes, we know she's a RINO.

Let's see what she does when the vote comes up.

Well, this certainly will be a monumental moment. Techno's cure is like huffing Lysol to kill covid...it might kill the 'virus', but it will also terminate the patient. I'm becoming pretty convinced that we are headed towards massive civil breakdown in this country. Ram your justice through. Let's remove any modicum of civility from congress....what goes around comes around. This will get so nasty that we will soon resemble Yugoslavia in the 90s. Republicans set a precedent with Merrick Garland that they are now chosing not to follow. Fine. You are right, this will end the republic. This is a green light for the Democrats to do whatever they want when the majority swings back their way, and it will sooner or later.

The Democrats have already announced that they plan to pack the Court if they get in.

In other words, they have declared war on the Republic. I certainly hope that the Republicans fight back with every legal tool at their disposal.

[doodle]

If the Democrats did the same to Republican president and then turned on word if be supporting the republican side. If one fighter hits below the belt then I support the other fighting dirty as well. Keep pushing the envelope techno, as a computer person you'd think you'd have a basic understanding of game theory. Your approach ends in civil war.

[I Shrugged]

If the Democrats did the same to Republican president and then turned on word if be supporting their side. If one fighter hits below the belt then I support the other fighting dirty as well. Keep pushing the envelope techno, as a computer person you'd think you'd have a basic understanding of game theory. Your approach ends in civil war.

The Democrats in Congress have reversed their arguments many times when faced with a situation with the parties reversed from the original situations. They never seem to pay a price for doing so.