|
|
Post by mhbruin on Aug 3, 2020 10:11:08 GMT -8
>Democrats are warning Republicans not to fill a possible Supreme Court vacancy this year after denying President Barack Obama the chance in 2016, saying it would embolden a push on the left to add seats to the court whenever they regain power. >"We knew basically they were lying in 2016, when they said, 'Oh, we can't do this because it's an election year.' We knew they didn't want to do it because it was President Obama," Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said in an interview. >Kaine, the party's last vice presidential nominee and a lawmaker with a reputation as an institutionalist, said confirming a nominee of President Donald Trump this year could compel Democrats to consider adding seats to the high court. >"If they show that they're unwilling to respect precedent, rules and history, then they can't feign surprise when others talk about using a statutory option that we have that's fully constitutional in our availability," he said. "I don't want to do that. But if they act in such a way, they may push it to an inevitability. So they need to be careful about that." >In a sweeping statement of intent, the Democratic National Committee is poised to add language to the party's 2020 platform endorsing "structural court reforms to increase transparency and accountability." >The draft language, reviewed by NBC News and expected to be approved later this month, denounces Republicans as having "packed our federal courts with unqualified, partisan judges who consistently rule for corporations, the wealthy, and Republican interests" and for "blocking a Democratic president from appointing a justice to the Supreme Court." Full Story. |
|
|
|
Post by Floppy Johnson on Aug 3, 2020 10:28:56 GMT -8
It would take two. One to neutralize Kavanaugh, and one to replace the lost SCJ.
|
|
|
|
Post by blindness on Aug 3, 2020 11:04:31 GMT -8
It would take two. One to neutralize Kavanaugh, and one to replace the lost SCJ. I would say that the one that needs to be neutralized is Gorsuch. He was the one given Obama's seat. But yeah ... we'd looking at 11 justices. |
|
|
|
Post by Born2BBruin on Aug 3, 2020 11:10:04 GMT -8
It would take two. One to neutralize Kavanaugh, and one to replace the lost SCJ. An expanded court would have to have 13 justices. If the Senate replaces a liberal judge with a conservative before trump is out of office, that would be a 6-3 advantage for Republicans. Dems would need to add 4 new justices to tip the scales to 7-6, so 13. |
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Aug 3, 2020 12:27:50 GMT -8
this is a longshot of course. the more practical effect, IMO, is that it gives any reasonable senate republican some cover to oppose a tRump nominee as the clock runs out. "i don't think we should fill (or "i won't vote to confirm") given that the inevitable response will be a Dem dominated Sup. Ct. in the future."
the problem is that there aren't many reasonable senate republicans out there anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by mhbruin on Aug 3, 2020 12:44:46 GMT -8
this is a longshot of course. the more practical effect, IMO, is that it gives any reasonable senate republican some cover to oppose a tRump nominee as the clock runs out. "i don't think we should fill (or "i won't vote to confirm") given that the inevitable response will be a Dem dominated Sup. Ct. in the future." the problem is that there aren't many reasonable senate republicans out there anymore. A lot of the are running for re-election. After the election, all bets are off. |
|
|
|
Post by Born2BBruin on Aug 3, 2020 13:59:13 GMT -8
this is a longshot of course. the more practical effect, IMO, is that it gives any reasonable senate republican some cover to oppose a tRump nominee as the clock runs out. "i don't think we should fill (or "i won't vote to confirm") given that the inevitable response will be a Dem dominated Sup. Ct. in the future." the problem is that there aren't many reasonable senate republicans out there anymore. I agree. But I think keeping it in the conversation gives GOP Senators something to think about. Not everyone appears to be behind Mitch on this. Link: Senate GOP divided over whether they'd fill Supreme Court vacancy |
|
|
|
Post by Floppy Johnson on Aug 3, 2020 15:03:21 GMT -8
It would take two. One to neutralize Kavanaugh, and one to replace the lost SCJ. An expanded court would have to have 13 justices. If the Senate replaces a liberal judge with a conservative before trump is out of office, that would be a 6-3 advantage for Republicans. Dems would need to add 4 new justices to tip the scales to 7-6, so 13. Good luck with that. To me, the justification for expanding the court is the stolen seat that went to Kav. Can't remove Kav. It takes 2 additional justices to put things where they would have been if the seat hadn't been stolen. |
|
|
|
Post by Born2BBruin on Aug 3, 2020 16:05:53 GMT -8
Good luck with that. To me, the justification for expanding the court is the stolen seat that went to Kav. Can't remove Kav. It takes 2 additional justices to put things where they would have been if the seat hadn't been stolen. I think you're either mistaken, or misunderstanding my point. Scalia died in February of 2016. After McConnell stonewalled Garland's nomination, trump nominated Gorsuch, ten days after he took office. The ideological majority that would have swung to 5-4 for "liberal" justices, instead remained "conservative". That's the "stolen seat". Frat judge Kavanaugh was nominated in July 2018 to replace erstwhile swing vote Anthony Kennedy, nominally a "like for like" replacement that maintained the status quo. The current discussion about expanding in the court is in the context of responding to the threat of sitting "liberal" justice being replaced by a "conservative" one in the waning months of trump's presidency. That would effectively "steal" another seat and presumably create a 6-3 conservative majority. If that happens, and a President Biden and a Democratic Congress want to correct it by expanding, or "packing" the court, it will take four new justices, bringing the total to 13, and giving "liberals" a 7-6 majority. Quite frankly, anything less isn't worth the time or effort. |
|
|
|
Post by blublood on Aug 3, 2020 16:11:25 GMT -8
It would take two. One to neutralize Kavanaugh, and one to replace the lost SCJ. An expanded court would have to have 13 justices. If the Senate replaces a liberal judge with a conservative before trump is out of office, that would be a 6-3 advantage for Republicans. Dems would need to add 4 new justices to tip the scales to 7-6, so 13. Traditionally, each Supreme Court justice oversees one of the Circuit Courts of Appeal. As it happens, there are 13 Circuits. There are 11 numbered circuits, plus a DC Circuit and a Federal Circuit. A case can be made that when you grow the circuits you should grow the court. My gut feeling, though, is that this would be a bad precedent to set. |
|
|
|
Post by mhbruin on Aug 3, 2020 16:17:19 GMT -8
I think we have needed to expand Federal judiciary for a long time. Most Federal courts are swamped. This doesn't need to be done for political reasons. It is just a matter of efficiency.
|
|
|
|
Post by Floppy Johnson on Aug 3, 2020 20:07:00 GMT -8
Good luck with that. To me, the justification for expanding the court is the stolen seat that went to Kav. Can't remove Kav. It takes 2 additional justices to put things where they would have been if the seat hadn't been stolen. I think you're either mistaken, or misunderstanding my point. Scalia died in February of 2016. After McConnell stonewalled Garland's nomination, trump nominated Gorsuch, ten days after he took office. The ideological majority that would have swung to 5-4 for "liberal" justices, instead remained "conservative". That's the "stolen seat". Frat judge Kavanaugh was nominated in July 2018 to replace erstwhile swing vote Anthony Kennedy, nominally a "like for like" replacement that maintained the status quo. The current discussion about expanding in the court is in the context of responding to the threat of sitting "liberal" justice being replaced by a "conservative" one in the waning months of trump's presidency. That would effectively "steal" another seat and presumably create a 6-3 conservative majority. If that happens, and a President Biden and a Democratic Congress want to correct it by expanding, or "packing" the court, it will take four new justices, bringing the total to 13, and giving "liberals" a 7-6 majority. Quite frankly, anything less isn't worth the time or effort. My mistake, I said Kav, thinking of Gorsuch replacing Garland. What would have been a +1 for the Dems became a +1 for the Pubs. To remedy that, you'd have to turn the Pub +1, to a Dem +1. That's takes two additional Dem President nominated Justices. That restores what would have been the Garland +1. I would be in favor of that. |
|
|
|
Post by andyh64000 on Aug 3, 2020 20:52:52 GMT -8
I think we need supreme court nomination reforms including any confirmation requires 60 votes, no new nominee from within 120 days of a Presidential election and until the inauguration, and increasing the number of justices beyond 9 requires 67 votes. I would offer this now to slimy Mitch and get his commitment to not nominate regardless until Jan 2021 since he must know he will likely lose the senate
|
|
|
|
Post by mhbruin on Aug 4, 2020 6:39:53 GMT -8
It is also desirable to have an odd number of justices to avoid ties. It is nice to have a decision, rather and lower court ruling standing because they do not make a decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by less1brain on Aug 4, 2020 10:47:11 GMT -8
The number of Supreme Court justices should always equal the number of circuits, as each justice has onerous administrative burdens for their assigned circuits. There are now 13 circuits and it could easily be 15 or more by 2025.
In addition, why not have the Supreme Court operate like a circuit court? On less important cases, 3 judge panels can make a decision. Sore losers can seek an en banc hearing if they feel the issue is important enough.
One can add two judges every 5 years and so take some of the politics out of it and leave the rest in with both sides feeling victory is within grasp. The 3-judge panel would do more of the same: Imagine a panel of Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh hearing a case on Roe v Wade. My guess is, that gets heard en banc.
So the SCOTUS should have 13 judges by 2021, not for political reasons, and be increased to 15 by 2026 and perhaps 17 by 2031. That leaves plenty of room for both parties to make a political issue of what's clearly a very politically-biased court (and always has been).
A note on circuits and burdens: SCOTUS judges can take up district court decisions and bypass circuits (e.g., Kavanaugh upheld a district court's decision in Los Angeles ruling limit on church gatherings to 50 or fewer people doesn't violate First Amendment; SCOTUS denied cert by a 7-2 vote). Brett needs help now! He's tired fighting this pandemic single-handedly.
Biden really needs to give Brett a break by appointing Leondra Kruger and Cheri Beasley. Hopefully to replace Thomas and Alito...
|
|
