Breaking News Justice Breyer Retiring (US SCOTUS)

[The Whispering Monk]

I'm of the opinion that the Conservatives/R's should take the Left to the woodshed over this nomination, and they should try and bring Manchin and Sinema over to their sphere. I think it would help galvanize the base for the upcoming election. Ignore the screaming that will naturally occur in the media and the Left.

 

[Battlegrinder]

Who is Boss Noir?

He's referring to Clarence Thomas.

 

[WolfBear]

He's referring to Clarence Thomas.

Merci beaucoup!

FWIW, Democrats view all six current conservative-leaning SCOTUS Justices as being tainted in some way:

-Clarence Thomas: Sexual harrassment
-John Roberts and Samuel Alito: The man who appointed them became US President in 2000 thanks to Bush v. Gore
-Neil Gorsuch: Republicans "stole Obama's last SCOTUS pick" from him
-Brett Kavanaugh: Alleged attempted rape during his teenage years
-Amy Coney Barrett: Republicans refused to follow their own 2016 precedent in regards to confirming SCOTUS nominees in election years

 

[Cherico]

Merci beaucoup!

FWIW, Democrats view all six current conservative-leaning SCOTUS Justices as being tainted in some way:

-Clarence Thomas: Sexual harrassment
-John Roberts and Samuel Alito: The man who appointed them became US President in 2000 thanks to Bush v. Gore
-Neil Gorsuch: Republicans "stole Obama's last SCOTUS pick" from him
-Brett Kavanaugh: Alleged attempted rape during his teenage years
-Amy Coney Barrett: Republicans refused to follow their own 2016 precedent in regards to confirming SCOTUS nominees in election years

Thomas got fucked over standards were different back then.
Roberts was a mistake but the dem's lost Bush V Gore fair and square and in my opinion dispite likely democrat cheating.
Gorsuch was a gamble one that easily could have blown up in the GOPs face and they knew it.
Kav was a case where the democrats openly lied and got caught in said lie the fact that they didn't press charges for false alligations under oath is a miscarrage of justice.
BArrett was justifyable pay back for the shit they pulled with Kav.

 

[WolfBear]

Thomas got fucked over standards were different back then.
Roberts was a mistake but the dem's lost Bush V Gore fair and square and in my opinion dispite likely democrat cheating.
Gorsuch was a gamble one that easily could have blown up in the GOPs face and they knew it.
Kav was a case where the democrats openly lied and got caught in said lie the fact that they didn't press charges for false alligations under oath is a miscarrage of justice.
BArrett was justifyable pay back for the shit they pulled with Kav.

Why was Gorsuch a gamble?

 

[Cherico]

Why was Gorsuch a gamble?

If hilary won they would have gotten some one far left as punishment. That easily could have backfired hard.

 

[Bacle]

Just delay the vote till after midterms with the same bearucratic BS the Dems try to use all the time.

Or simply have all GOP Congresscritters leave DC till after the election, to deny the Dems a quorum to vote with.

Also, dig up any and every piece of dirt on any nominee and give them the Kavanaugh/ACB treatment x10.

 

[King Arts]

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.

First with separation of powers it means if one of the branches is being bad then the other two if they gang up on it should be able to castrate the judges and remove their power. Seperation of power giving each branch unlimited power in it's own sphere is a retarded idea.

On the second point it's because conservatives have been hit or miss with putting principled strict constitutionalists on the bench. Sure sometimes we get a Scalia and things work out great, other times we have retards like John Roberts playing politics and looking at his legacy on the court. If our leaders are too stupid to select those who are willing to put aside their bias and rule based on the constitution, we might as well put in people who have biases we like.

 

[Battlegrinder]

First with separation of powers it means if one of the branches is being bad then the other two if they gang up on it should be able to castrate the judges and remove their power. Seperation of power giving each branch unlimited power in it's own sphere is a retarded idea.

That is not how seperation of powers works, the idea behind seperation of powers was to prevent the same branch from both writing and executing laws, or executing laws and judging the cases, and so on.

What you're talking about is checks and balances, which are not supposed to be carried out via sabotage. It's supposed to be carried out by stuff like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was congress and the white house telling the SC "Hey Supreme Dummies, Smith was wrong and you idiots don't understand how the Free Exercise Clause works, so we'll write down for you so you don't screw it up again".

On the second point it's because conservatives have been hit or miss with putting principled strict constitutionalists on the bench. Sure sometimes we get a Scalia and things work out great, other times we have retards like John Roberts playing politics and looking at his legacy on the court. If our leaders are too stupid to select those who are willing to put aside their bias and rule based on the constitution, we might as well put in people who have biases we like.

If Republicans are consistently hit or miss when it comes to picking people that are biased toward being constitutionalists, why would they be more accurate when selecting for another criteria?

And in fairness to Roberts, "we need a judge of sufficient courage and integrity to stand up to democrat threats to destroy the SC itself" wasn't something that was really a factor at the time, since no one thought the dens would be crazy/dumb enough to try that.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

For the GOP, it's really not a fight worth picking (absent Biden nominating someone plainly nuts/unqualified).

Honestly? For pure politics? The Senate Republicans and the GOP as a wholes best choice is to give Biden's nominee sixty plus votes. When questioned on it shrug and say "Biden's choice isn't who a Republican President would have chosen, but Biden is President and XXX isn't a manifestly flawed nominee. We can't keep the seat open for another two years in the hopes that a Republican wins, and our leverage to get a choice more in line with our desires is limited at the moment."

At the moment, it's always been Democrats making SCOTUS confirmations a shit show. So if the Republicans give Biden's pick a smooth confirmation (lacking the ability to prevent it anyways) then they get to look magnanimous and statesmen like.

Or they can pull a Democrat and throw a shit fit like the Dem's did over Gorsuch (and later Kavanaugh) and maybe please the diehard part of the base but in the process hurt themselves with everyone else.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

At the moment, it's always been Democrats making SCOTUS confirmations a shit show. So if the Republicans give Biden's pick a smooth confirmation (lacking the ability to prevent it anyways) then they get to look magnanimous and statesmen like.

Or they can pull a Democrat and throw a shit fit like the Dem's did over Gorsuch (and later Kavanaugh) and maybe please the diehard part of the base but in the process hurt themselves with everyone else.

Who are you trying to appease by this? What's there to gain from just giving up?

B/c you KNOW that the R's will absolutely get no credit, and the nothing will be given in return by the Left/Ds.

 

[Sobek]

Who is Boss Noir?

I affectionately refer to Clarence Thomas by the name of a famous Blaxploitation movie given his track record of being on the side of the law and the many points where it has been shown he is one of the only people in the court with Balls, especially after 2020 where if the stories are to be believed his was fully on board with hearing the state's suit about election law changes but Roberts gathered the Neocons and Neolibs to not do it.



Sadly the mods are literally 1984 and love to oppress us Gamers, the most oppressed class in society.

 

[Battlegrinder]

Who are you trying to appease by this? What's there to gain from just giving up?

Moderate support, by drawing a clear line between the GOP, that's willing to work across the aisle as needed rather than reflexively opposing everything like the democrats.

Additionally, the GOP actually has stuff to lose in this fight. A number of conservative commentators have noted Biden has eliminated several very good, more qualified candidates by randomly deciding to pick only a black woman. If the Republicans stall that nomination, he might actually go pick one of those better candidates.


Also, you can't just consider potential gains from only one course of action. What's the upside of deciding, before the nominee is even announced, to fight it tooth and nail? What do the Republicans actually gain?

 

[Sobek]

For the GOP, it's really not a fight worth picking (absent Biden nominating someone plainly nuts/unqualified).

Honestly? For pure politics? The Senate Republicans and the GOP as a wholes best choice is to give Biden's nominee sixty plus votes. When questioned on it shrug and say "Biden's choice isn't who a Republican President would have chosen, but Biden is President and XXX isn't a manifestly flawed nominee. We can't keep the seat open for another two years in the hopes that a Republican wins, and our leverage to get a choice more in line with our desires is limited at the moment."

At the moment, it's always been Democrats making SCOTUS confirmations a shit show. So if the Republicans give Biden's pick a smooth confirmation (lacking the ability to prevent it anyways) then they get to look magnanimous and statesmen like.

Or they can pull a Democrat and throw a shit fit like the Dem's did over Gorsuch (and later Kavanaugh) and maybe please the diehard part of the base but in the process hurt themselves with everyone else.

"Not worth picking" lmao check out this spineless moron. You sounds like those RINOs who keep going "so much for the tolerant left" when the Dems attack but never has the balls to stand your ground or do anything when it counts. Wake up, these people don't give a shit about the system or manners or decency. Stop capitulating, they don't see this as a negotiation, only as a ultimatum. You giving them what they want will NEVER result in anything other than them asking for more and more.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

Who are you trying to appease by this? What's there to gain from just giving up?

B/c you KNOW that the R's will absolutely get no credit, and the nothing will be given in return by the Left/Ds.

You are trying to appease the vast majority of voters. I.e. the people who don't give a fuck about Twitter and barely pay any attention to the news in the first place. I.e. the people who got royally fed up with Trump (and aren't any happier with Biden) and want politics to stop being a complete shit show.

This is a midterm year. Going into the midterms with Roe (well Casey) overturned (very likely), Affirmative Action likely tossed, gun rights probably strengthened, and a massive (failed) bitchfest to prevent the "first black women" from getting confirmed is simply bad politics. On the other hand, support that nomination without said massive (failed) bitchfest and you get to undercut arguments of racism, undercut attempts to pack/alter the court, undercut arguments that you're just like the Democrats and uninterested in governing, etc. while still getting all the wins your base wanted in the first place.

If abortion is overturned and gun rights strengthened then none of the base is going to give a solitary damn that Breyer was replaced by another Dem.

---
Don't pick fights that you can't win unless you have something to gain by losing. In this case, the gains from a losing fight are marginal and basically irrelevant while the potential downside is huge (distracting from COVID/Inflation/Russia/Southern Border/Dem incompetence and instead making the races about race and court decisions).

So take the marginal gains from being magnanimous.

 

[WolfBear]

I affectionately refer to Clarence Thomas by the name of a famous Blaxploitation movie given his track record of being on the side of the law and the many points where it has been shown he is one of the only people in the court with Balls, especially after 2020 where if the stories are to be believed his was fully on board with hearing the state's suit about election law changes but Roberts gathered the Neocons and Neolibs to not do it.



Sadly the mods are literally 1984 and love to oppress us Gamers, the most oppressed class in society.

Which lawsuit specifically are you thinking of here?

You are trying to appease the vast majority of voters. I.e. the people who don't give a fuck about Twitter and barely pay any attention to the news in the first place. I.e. the people who got royally fed up with Trump (and aren't any happier with Biden) and want politics to stop being a complete shit show.

This is a midterm year. Going into the midterms with Roe (well Casey) overturned (very likely), Affirmative Action likely tossed, gun rights probably strengthened, and a massive (failed) bitchfest to prevent the "first black women" from getting confirmed is simply bad politics. On the other hand, support that nomination without said massive (failed) bitchfest and you get to undercut arguments of racism, undercut attempts to pack/alter the court, undercut arguments that you're just like the Democrats and uninterested in governing, etc. while still getting all the wins your base wanted in the first place.

If abortion is overturned and gun rights strengthened then none of the base is going to give a solitary damn that Breyer was replaced by another Dem.

---
Don't pick fights that you can't win unless you have something to gain by losing. In this case, the gains from a losing fight are marginal and basically irrelevant while the potential downside is huge (distracting from COVID/Inflation/Russia/Southern Border/Dem incompetence and instead making the races about race and court decisions).

So take the marginal gains from being magnanimous.

Epic power play on the part of the GOP not to resist Biden's black woman SCOTUS nominee. Seriously. Assuming that they'll actually decide to do this, of course. The GOP can show that they're pro-grrrl power whether it's Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, or whoever this black woman on the court will be. It would also be good to have a liberal black person on SCOTUS as well as 4 women since this would allow liberal blacks to be represented and also give women control over almost half of SCOTUS.

Interesting that Jews have had to give up some of their SCOTUS influence for the sake of equity. In 2016, had Merrick Garland been confirmed to SCOTUS, we would have had a SCOTUS with 4 out of 9 members (44%) being Jewish, quite impressive for a group that only makes up 2% of the total US population! But now we will be down to 1 Jewish SCOTUS member out of 9, or 11%. Still overrepresented, but nowhere near as much!

 

[Sobek]

You are assuming the pick will be anything other than a raging partisan. That is a bold fucking prediction given Biden already came out and said it plainly he is taking race and sex into account first ahead of any sort of qualification.

You are also assuming way too much credit on the "narrative", it doesn't matter if there was plenty of good arguments against the pick the media and Dems will still cry racism unless they get the votes without a single R talking back. You could bring up recorded video of the nominee saying she wants to eliminate the 2nd ammendment and they would make it about race and gender.

This is sounding the same as when corporations sacrifice their own hardcore fans and throw them under a bus to "appeal to a wider demographic". Don't. That shit doesn't work. They are not interested in across the aisle talk, so you shouldn't be either. Trust and good will are a 2 way street, there comes a point you need to stop being naive like this.

Which lawsuit specifically are you thinking of here?

This one, which started in Texas and got a bunch of states along with it before the SCOTUS pussied out and refused to hear it on a complete non-argument. Which Clarence wanted to hear.

 

[Captain X]

If you're worried about refusing to let some crazy person on the bench because she happens to be a woman and happens to be black, then all you are doing is agreeing to play by the unfair rules that the communists have set for you to play by but which they themselves refuse to follow. You will never win if you play by their rules, and worrying about what the media is going to say is stupid, particularly in light of how people have woken up to how much the media lies.

 

[WolfBear]

You are assuming the pick will be anything other than a raging partisan. That is a bold fucking prediction given Biden already came out and said it plainly he is taking race and sex into account first ahead of any sort of qualification.

You are also assuming way too much credit on the "narrative", it doesn't matter if there was plenty of good arguments against the pick the media and Dems will still cry racism unless they get the votes without a single R talking back. You could bring up recorded video of the nominee saying she wants to eliminate the 2nd ammendment and they would make it about race and gender.

This is sounding the same as when corporations sacrifice their own hardcore fans and throw them under a bus to "appeal to a wider demographic". Don't. That shit doesn't work. They are not interested in across the aisle talk, so you shouldn't be either. Trust and good will are a 2 way street, there comes a point you need to stop being naive like this.

Are you talking to me here?

 

[Emperor Tippy]

"Not worth picking" lmao check out this spineless moron. You sounds like those RINOs who keep going "so much for the tolerant left" when the Dems attack but never has the balls to stand your ground or do anything when it counts. Wake up, these people don't give a shit about the system or manners or decency. Stop capitulating, they don't see this as a negotiation, only as a ultimatum. You giving them what they want will NEVER result in anything other than them asking for more and more.

I have plenty of issues with the GOP and their caving on fights that they should pick. The thing is, this isn't one of them.

Fighting this nomination is basically pure downside and has political costs that can't be justified by a losing fight for a position that is basically irrelevant.

SCOTUS is 6-3 conservative now and will be after this nomination. Any changes in SCOTUS behavior will be purely marginal. This isn't like when Scalia died, or when RGB passed. Those two had huge potential to materially alter SCOTUS decisions and in both cases the GOP was absolutely right to fill the spots regardless of what they had to do and how dirty they had to play. Breyer's seat? None of that applies.

So since you can't stop it and have little to gain politically from opposing it, you support it and use it to bank political capital for later fights.

In comparison to the Democrats, if they had let Gorsuch get approved without the need to go nuclear then they would have kept Kavanaugh off the bench (he did not have the votes to remove the filibuster). Barret would likely have replaced Kennedy, and then come RGB's death the Republicans would have had to go nuclear to get her seat filled - which would have been a hell of a lot more difficult politically speaking.

So yes, the GOP should let the pick sail through with more than sixty votes (strengthen the filibuster, not weaken it) and not pick a pointless fight with zero real upside.