Breaking News Justice Breyer Retiring (US SCOTUS)

[Bigking321]

This seems like a staggeringly bad move by the Democrats.

They know they are going to lose the senate. Their internal polling must be absolutely horrific.

So, in their eyes, better to get whatever nominee now and try and force it through now than have to deal with a pissed republican controlled senate.

 

[King Arts]

SC justices have to have actual experience within the federal judiciary. Granted, that's not a requirement imposed by the constitution, it's a requirement imposed by the practices and expectations that have developed over time. But it's a requirement nonetheless.


Besides, why would they even want to put Kamala on the court?

IT’s only a practical requirement and it can be easily removed for example in trumps time there was nothing actually stopping him from trying to install his son Barron as a justice. He should have tried to just to weaken the judiciary they are far too powerful.

 

[Battlegrinder]

This seems like a staggeringly bad move by the Democrats. Few things energize the Republican base as much as the Supreme Court and they just announced an opening immediately before an election. Granted it's a midterm but there's still going to be a push to block any Biden nomination.

It's probably thier best chance, actually.

They're nearly certain to lose the Senate after midterms, so trying to replace him later will have to run the gauntlet of a GOP senate that can just keep rejecting nominees until Biden caves and nominates someone they approve of. The senate probably can't force him to put a scalia-esque constitutionalist up on the court, but they might be able to force him to put another Kennedy on the bench.

And if they try and wait until later, when they manage to gain the senate again, that's going to be a few years yet, particularly because they must know that the odds of them still having the WH in 2024 are poor and Breyer will have to hang on until 2028. They're not going to take that sort of risk again, not after Barrett got on to replace Ginsburg.

IT’s only a practical requirement and it can be easily removed for example in trumps time there was nothing actually stopping him from trying to install his son Barron as a justice. He should have tried to just to weaken the judiciary they are far too powerful.

Filling the SC with political hacks won't weaken it, the SC is at it's most dangerous when they stop being a court and start being an unaccountable super-legislature. The way to limit the SC is to have justices that will stay in their lane.

 

[Abhorsen]

The real question is will they be better than Breyer. Breyer was a good justice in that he wasn't a politician (looking at you Alito and Sotomayor), but bad in that he was the quintessential 'trust the experts' guy, who was shit on the fourth amendment.

I'm hoping for another person who will be against qualified immunity. we already have 2 guaranteed votes in Thomas and Sotomayor, maybe another in Gorsuch. A fourth here could grant cert, and then we'd just need to pull, idk, Barrett? To limit that bullshit.

 

[WolfBear]

I wonder it the black woman they will choose will be as wise as the wise latina that is currently on the court.

She'll be about 69% wiser, actually!

This seems like a staggeringly bad move by the Democrats. Few things energize the Republican base as much as the Supreme Court and they just announced an opening immediately before an election. Granted it's a midterm but there's still going to be a push to block any Biden nomination.

The GOP won't be able to do anything about this with the Democrats controlling the US Senate, though--right?

 

[King Arts]

It's probably thier best chance, actually.

They're nearly certain to lose the Senate after midterms, so trying to replace him later will have to run the gauntlet of a GOP senate that can just keep rejecting nominees until Biden caves and nominates someone they approve of. The senate probably can't force him to put a scalia-esque constitutionalist up on the court, but they might be able to force him to put another Kennedy on the bench.

And if they try and wait until later, when they manage to gain the senate again, that's going to be a few years yet, particularly because they must know that the odds of them still having the WH in 2024 are poor and Breyer will have to hang on until 2028. They're not going to take that sort of risk again, not after Barrett got on to replace Ginsburg.



Filling the SC with political hacks won't weaken it, the SC is at it's most dangerous when they stop being a court and start being an unaccountable super-legislature. The way to limit the SC is to have justices that will stay in their lane.

I disagree if the court is corrupt enough eventually the other organs of government won’t care what it says as a great man once said “John Marshal has made his judgment now let him enforce it.”

 

[Battlegrinder]

I disagree if the court is corrupt enough eventually the other organs of government won’t care what it says as a great man once said “John Marshal has made his judgment now let him enforce it.”

Can you justify the long term viability and wisdom of this "Let's just corrupt an entire branch of the government into uselessness, based on an apocryphal quote that refers to the state of affairs from 200 years ago" plan of yours?

 

[posh-goofiness]

The GOP won't be able to do anything about this with the Democrats controlling the US Senate, though--right?

Simple majority to confirm. But the margin is literally a single vote so a defector on either side could make or break this.

 

[WolfBear]

Simple majority to confirm. But the margin is literally a single vote so a defector on either side could make or break this.

But I doubt that Manchin and Sinema will actually defect over this--will they? At least not if Biden's SCOTUS pick will avoid looking like they're too Woke.

 

[posh-goofiness]

But I doubt that Manchin and Sinema will actually defect over this--will they? At least not if Biden's SCOTUS pick will avoid looking like they're too Woke.

Sinema, probably not. Manchin, also probably not. If I had to rank the likelihood: Manchin more likely to defect than Sinema.

Just a feeling.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

Predicting how people will behave once on SCOTUS has always been mostly a fools game.

Figuring out how a new justice will change the court is another fools game (mostly).

I mean put another Kagan on the bench and you may actually get a more "moderate" court simply because someone like Kagan is much better placed to sway away two of the Republicans than another Breyer or Sotomayor. On the other hand, put a second Sotomayor on and her opinions aren't going to get any Republican joiners.

 

[WolfBear]

Sinema, probably not. Manchin, also probably not. If I had to rank the likelihood: Manchin more likely to defect than Sinema.

Just a feeling.

Unsurprising considering that West Virginia voted for Trump by CRAZY margins whereas Arizona narrowly voted for Biden in 2020.

 

[Abhorsen]

Predicting how people will behave once on SCOTUS has always been mostly a fools game.

From the right? Yes. But the left has usually been fairly good at predicting how it's justices will vote.

 

[WolfBear]

From the right? Yes. But the left has usually been fairly good at predicting how it's justices will vote.

The last Democratic SCOTUS pick who voted in unpredictable ways was probably Byron White, who was appointed by JFK but has a swing, if not relatively conservative, voting record. He retired under Bill Clinton in 1993 in order to give a Democratic US President the chance to replace him, but conservatives got his seat back in late 2020 when Ginsburg died.

 

[King Arts]

Can you justify the long term viability and wisdom of this "Let's just corrupt an entire branch of the government into uselessness, based on an apocryphal quote that refers to the state of affairs from 200 years ago" plan of yours?

Yes the justification is that if you DO respect seperation of powers you should want to weaken the Judicial system. If you don't care about that but are on the right politically the left legislates from the bench all the time, so to prevent them from winning forever because people feel the need to cuck to laws and courts the right should start copying the left's playbook and use it against them when it works.

 

[Battlegrinder]

Yes the justification is that if you DO respect seperation of powers you should want to weaken the Judicial system. If you don't care about that but are on the right politically the left legislates from the bench all the time, so to prevent them from winning forever because people feel the need to cuck to laws and courts the right should start copying the left's playbook and use it against them when it works.

Ok, so separation of powers, and related ideas like checks and balances, are supposed to be about each branch having its own sphere of authority that it can use to check the power of the others. It is not about how the two branches can gang up on the third in order to sabotage and cripple it.

On the second point about legislating from the bench, why is your method better than just appointing judges that won't do that? Yes, there might be some short term advantage in it, but at the end of the day we actually need a functioning, independent court system, and it's not even clear why an activist GOP SC is actually a good thing. The GOP was all onboard with the patriot act and used to place a great deal of trust in CIA and FBI, which we now know to be mistakes.

I don't share you apparent confidence that now we've wised up to that, we have no more blind spots and can totally trust an activist SC to work in our best interests.

 

[Sobek]

Already desperately begging the GOP not to interfere at all



A game like say, bringing up a random ass rape acusation with no merit or proof like you did with Kavacuck or your very own POTUS did with Boss Noir back in the early 1990s?

 

[Cherico]

Already desperately begging the GOP not to interfere at all



A game like say, bringing up a random ass rape acusation with no merit or proof like you did with Kavacuck or your very own POTUS did with Boss Noir back in the early 1990s?

after the shit they pulled with Kav, after the shit they pulled with Barret? Yeah the republicans have every right to rake their choice over the coals. IF they didn't want drama they should not have started it.

 

[WolfBear]

Already desperately begging the GOP not to interfere at all



A game like say, bringing up a random ass rape acusation with no merit or proof like you did with Kavacuck or your very own POTUS did with Boss Noir back in the early 1990s?

Who is Boss Noir?

 

[Battlegrinder]

Ever since at least the Bork confirmation hearings and with increasing frequency as time goes on, democrats have demonstrated a serious failure to consider the long term ramifications of thier actions.

The current state of affairs on SC nominations is entirely because they started playing hardball to defend a completely indefensible and meritless case (Roe), and seemingly never once realized that Republicans could turn those tactics back on them.

I don't entirely agree about the Republicans doing so, but the feigned outrage from democrats whenever they do so is galling.