As we head toward this Supreme Court Nomination

[kidsmoke]

What are your thoughts? I'm sick at heart, but determined to resist however I can. 

I can't believe we've sunk so low. How are the rest of you; what are you doing and thinking?

[brownie]

I think this is a very low point for our country, and I unfortunately do not hold out much hope.  I will vote, but that’s really all I have the time to do right now, as I am teaching in a high school using hybrid learning and the stress and increased workload is killing me a little more every day. I would resign tomorrow if I could afford (and count on the continued availability of) health care.  I believe the new justice will be appointed, but I don’t think that will be the biggest problem.  I sadly believe that Trump will be reelected. And that is the biggest problem.

 

 

[uncool2pillow]

44 minutes ago, brownie said:

I think this is a very low point for our country, and I unfortunately do not hold out much hope.  I will vote, but that’s really all I have the time to do right now, as I am teaching in a high school using hybrid learning and the stress and increased workload is killing me a little more every day. I would resign tomorrow if I could afford (and count on the continued availability of) health care.  I believe the new justice will be appointed, but I don’t think that will be the biggest problem.  I sadly believe that Trump will be reelected. And that is the biggest problem.

 

 

I'm making some calls for a local candidate today, a friend, but I'm right there with you.

 

As a social studies teacher, I feel like my profession has failed our country.

[calvino]

I was hoping that Romney would come out against the Court nominee -- when that didn't happen, the outcome became inevitable. Pretty crazy a few month's ago, one voted to impeach and then 'oh no - he can pick the judge' - like nothing has happen.

 

To the teachers -- I remember it was an IL requirement to pass a Constitution test in 8th grade -- is that still a requirement in the rest of the country? I am not even sure if it is a requirement in IL, anymore. 

[Chez]

While I strongly disagree with Judge Comey Barrett's position on several issues that are important to me, she s unquestionably qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice and should be confirmed.  The Democrats will look like fools if they attack her on ideology.  I have no respect for the hypocrisy of the Republicans in the senate, but that doesn't change the fact that the Constitution gives Trump the right to nominate who he chooses and that his nominee is qualified.

[jff]

1 hour ago, Chez said:

 she s unquestionably qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice 

 

I'd say she's only barely qualified.

 

She has 2.5 years total experience as a judge.  While there is no requirement for a SCOTUS justice to have any experience as a judge whatsoever, or to even hold a law degree,  I would hope that all Americans would prefer for our Supreme Court Justices to have served more time on the bench than that.  Her experience as a judge only includes federal appellate court, and she has zero experience as trial judge.  Her on the bench experience is slim enough that anyone would be perfectly justified in questioning her qualifications.   

 

I would hold the same opinion if this were Barack Obama being nominated by Joe Biden.

 

I want to see the Supreme Court bench stocked with justices who have lengthy experience deciding cases.  She does not rise to that level.

 

For those reasons, I don't think she is "unquestionably qualified."   

[Chez]

2 hours ago, jff said:

 

I'd say she's only barely qualified.

 

She has 2.5 years total experience as a judge.  While there is no requirement for a SCOTUS justice to have any experience as a judge whatsoever, or to even hold a law degree,  I would hope that all Americans would prefer for our Supreme Court Justices to have served more time on the bench than that.  Her experience as a judge only includes federal appellate court, and she has zero experience as trial judge.  Her on the bench experience is slim enough that anyone would be perfectly justified in questioning her qualifications.   

 

I would hold the same opinion if this were Barack Obama being nominated by Joe Biden.

 

I want to see the Supreme Court bench stocked with justices who have lengthy experience deciding cases.  She does not rise to that level.

 

For those reasons, I don't think she is "unquestionably qualified."   

That's fair, though if not having experience as a trial judge is a deal-breaker for you, consider that only one of the current justices (Sotomayor) ever was as a trial judge before being elevated to the U.S. Court of Appeals.  The Hon. Ruth Bader Ginsburg never was a trial judge.   The Hon. Merrick Garland was never a trial judge.

[jff]

6 minutes ago, Chez said:

That's fair, though if not having experience as a trial judge is a deal-breaker for you, consider that only one of the current justices (Sotomayor) ever was as a trial judge before being elevated to the U.S. Court of Appeals.  The Hon. Ruth Bader Ginsburg never was a trial judge.  

Lack of trial judge experience is not a deal breaker.  I mention that because it would count for lot if it were in addition to her 2.5 years of experience as an appellate judge.  And frankly, the first half year (or more) as a judge is spent moving into and setting up your chambers, hiring law clerks, etc., so 2.5 years is a pretty flimsy amount of actual case work.  

 

I think the standards should be quite a bit higher for anyone holding the highest possible position in a profession.  

 

I'll bet the standards to be the president's limo driver are more stringent.  Certainly the pilot of Air Force One has more than 2.5 years experience piloting an actual aircraft.

 

 

[Chez]

10 minutes ago, jff said:

Lack of trial judge experience is not a deal breaker.  I mention that because it would count for lot if it were in addition to her 2.5 years of experience as an appellate judge.  And frankly, the first half year (or more) as a judge is spent moving into and setting up your chambers, hiring law clerks, etc., so 2.5 years is a pretty flimsy amount of actual case work.  

 

I think the standards should be quite a bit higher for anyone holding the highest possible position in a profession.  

 

I'll bet the standards to be the president's limo driver are more stringent.  Certainly the pilot of Air Force One has more than 2.5 years experience piloting an actual aircraft.

 

 

I looked up one current Supreme Court Justice.  Chief Justice Roberts was an appellate Judge for two years before being nominated as Chief Justice. Probably less time than the pilot of Air Force One . . .   

[ih8music]

If I’m not mistaken, Elena Kagan had zero experience as a judge at any level before she was nominated. 

[uncool2pillow]

4 hours ago, ih8music said:

If I’m not mistaken, Elena Kagan had zero experience as a judge at any level before she was nominated. 

And Scalia begged Obama to appoint her. She may be qualified, but Democrats should put every obstacle in her path. They need to play hardball.

 

If Biden wins and turns Congress blue, I'd love to see them add two more justices. Hell, add 20.

[jff]

1 hour ago, uncool2pillow said:

 

 

If Biden wins and turns Congress blue, I'd love to see them add two more justices. Hell, add 20.

 

Adding two still puts the liberal justices on the losing side of 6-5 (or 7-4 if Breyer drops dead in the next couple of weeks).  There's no point in increasing the number unless you end up with an even balance or the winning hand.  

[TCP]

3 hours ago, uncool2pillow said:

And Scalia begged Obama to appoint her. She may be qualified, but Democrats should put every obstacle in her path. They need to play hardball.

 

If Biden wins and turns Congress blue, I'd love to see them add two more justices. Hell, add 20.

 

What's to stop a future Republican president from adding more when they inevitably take office at some point in the future?? Adding more judges is a short term solution. You need term limits. For a country that limits your leader's term to eight years for some arbitrary reason, you guys sure hate adding term limits to anything else. A one term president, who loss the popular vote, should not be able to turn the supreme court hard right for a generation. That's just broken. It seems pretty obvious that Trump will challenge the election results and take it to the supreme court to vote. Holding the Democrats to a different level of accountability when they're playing against a bunch of cheats is just going to rob the Dems of any hope of winning. You cannot let Trump stack the court that's going to make any decisions on mail in ballots or anything with election night. The Dems need to do everything they can to slow this down. I just don't see how you guys are getting out of this unless Biden wins outright on election night. Hope I'm wrong though. 

[kidsmoke]

I'm hating this more by the minute. TCP, your view of our situation is a grim one, but I think you're right. trump & cronies are taking full-advantage of lifetime appointments, and what we are leaving our children and theirs is ugly. 

 

[jff]

On 9/29/2020 at 10:29 AM, TCP said:

 

What's to stop a future Republican president from adding more when they inevitably take office at some point in the future?? 

 

Maybe nothing, but a watertight argument is worth preparing, and the talking points on this subject seem pretty obvious to me and would be easy to convey to the public in an effective way.

 

A representative form of government, by definition, is supposed to be similar in its makeup to the viewpoints of the citizenry. 

 

There are not twice as many conservatives as liberals in this country.  Therefore, the court, with its (soon to be) 6/3 conservative majority is not even close to representative of the citizenry and should be adjusted in number to make it representative.    

 

That's the argument IN DEFENSE OF expanding the court.

 

The argument AGAINST a future republican president expanding it further is that, having now achieved a more accurate representation by expanding the court, the only point of expanding it further would be to create an unrepresentative advantage.   

 

Force republicans to argue in favor of a less representative court and you have the winning argument.

 

 

 

 

 

[Chez]

23 hours ago, jff said:

 

Maybe nothing, but a watertight argument is worth preparing, and the talking points on this subject seem pretty obvious to me and would be easy to convey to the public in an effective way.

 

A representative form of government, by definition, is supposed to be similar in its makeup to the viewpoints of the citizenry. 

 

There are not twice as many conservatives as liberals in this country.  Therefore, the court, with its (soon to be) 6/3 conservative majority is not even close to representative of the citizenry and should be adjusted in number to make it representative.    

 

That's the argument IN DEFENSE OF expanding the court.

 

The argument AGAINST a future republican president expanding it further is that, having now achieved a more accurate representation by expanding the court, the only point of expanding it further would be to create an unrepresentative advantage.   

 

Force republicans to argue in favor of a less representative court and you have the winning argument.

 

 

 

 

 

As a general rule, I'm strongly against adding seats to the Supreme Court.  You raise several excellent, thoughtful points in your post.  But in the end, to quote President Obama, "elections have consequences."  Many Dems fully and completely blew it by staying home and not voting for HRC.  This is the main reason Trump was elected and the Constitution vests full power in the President to appoint whomever he pleases (subject to Senate approval) regardless of how it leaves the political make-up of the Court.  This is one of the multitude of consequences of the 2016 election. Blame Trump and his SCOTUS appointees on the Dems who stayed home on election day 2016.  Hopefully history won't repeat itself on November 3.

[jff]

I don't really buy that.  Our form of government is designed and intended to be adjusted when necessary.  It's baked in by the founders for the express purpose of maintaining as fair a representation as possible.   We don't have that now (we haven't in a long time, but it has gone to an extreme under Trump and McConnell), therefore adjustments are necessary.

 

I don't like the idea of expanding the court, either.  I doubt anybody does.  But the only options are to do it, or to suffer tyranny by a court (y then entire federal judiciary, really) that does not resemble the values of the country for the next few decades, or perhaps forever depending on how strategically the GOP games the system.

 

I do agree that the refusal to vote for HRC was an inexcusable bit or ideological purist arrogance, and also sexism, but I'd take it back to Al Gore, or farther.  Similar ignorance was going on back then, too.   "He's SO boring."  "Lockbox, har-de-har."  "Replace my lightbulbs over my dead body."  Bending over backwards to find a reason to deny support to the better candidate.

 

 

[chisoxjtrain]

Personally, I'm not in favor of expanding the Supreme Court, but:

 

-Republicans blocked dozens of judges during President Obama's term.

-McConnell didn't event bring up Merrick Garland for a vote.

 

So, I think the Democrats need to start playing on the same field as Republicans. Get rid of the filibuster and pack the court, then for good measure, pass an amendment giving term limits to the Supreme Court justices, and abolish the ridiculous Electoral College.