RIP RBG

[Deleted User 289]

[twocoach]

There is no "rule" or "ethics" about this.

There is 1 single example, of the republicans making an excuse for why they weren't going to vote on a supreme court nomimee. It was pure pettiness/politics since Obama was in the last year of his 2nd term. They simply knew they could stall it out and they did it. They also could have just voted no.

Why would the democrats follow a rule that isn't even a rule just because the republicans said so that 1 time? They wouldn't. It would be stupid if they did imo.

Unfortunately they don't have the power to stop this. So there is a chance it is going to happen.

Like RBG said, a president is elected to 4 years. His power in year 4 is the same as his power in year 3. If people in the senate don't think his pick is deserving then they should vote no, just like RBG says.

Not to mention, if he wins again, then all this is pointless. So hopefully people get out and vote.

Agreed. Wishing and hoping that Republicans would stick to what they said is silly because we all knew they wouldn't, nor frankly should they. They were voted in to serve their constituents and that is what they are doing, just as it was back in 2016.

Win back the White House, win back the Senate and bury the motherfuckers forever.

[Deleted User 310]

There is no "rule" or "ethics" about this.

There is 1 single example, of the republicans making an excuse for why they weren't going to vote on a supreme court nomimee. It was pure pettiness/politics since Obama was in the last year of his 2nd term. They simply knew they could stall it out and they did it. They also could have just voted no.

Why would the democrats follow a rule that isn't even a rule just because the republicans said so that 1 time? They wouldn't. It would be stupid if they did imo.

Unfortunately they don't have the power to stop this. So there is a chance it is going to happen.

Like RBG said, a president is elected to 4 years. His power in year 4 is the same as his power in year 3. If people in the senate don't think his pick is deserving then they should vote no, just like RBG says.

Not to mention, if he wins again, then all this is pointless. So hopefully people get out and vote.

Agreed. Wishing and hoping that Republicans would stick to what they said is silly because we all knew they wouldn't, nor frankly should they. They were voted in to serve their constituents and that is what they are doing, just as it was back in 2016.

Win back the White House, win back the Senate and bury the motherfuckers forever.

I think over the next 20 years we could see a major shift in the political parties.

The Republicans are sort of dying off in a way, and have alienated a lot of middle of the road type people who just no longer can support them.....and there are a lot of middle of the road Dems (or plain and simple people who will be voting for dems for the foreseeable future) who do not truly identify with everything some of the more establishment type Dems are about.

I don't think we will see 3 parties...but something has to give. Many of us feel like neither party really is a voice for "us" at this point.

[Cascadia]

I've been saying it for a few years now. The Republicans fucked up so badly in 2016 that this country is going blue for the next 16-24 years. The only thing really up for debate is wether the Republicans can hold on to 51 Senate seats this election. If they do, the next 2 years will be a little slow for Democrats, but they'll take the Senate back in 2022 no matter what.

[Deleted User 310]

So let's say trump rushes his pick thru...then dems win presidential election, take back control of senate/house....then they expand the # of supreme court justices....at what point does the integrity of the court become compromised by it becoming far to influenced by partisan politics?

Where does it stop? It gets expanded. Then someday republicans gain back control and expand it again? Just seems like the executive branch will be bleeding over into the judicial branch too much. Maybe we are already there, or about to be. Maybe what should really change is how justices are chosen? Shouldn't it be more about picking great justices and not solely for potential future political purposes? Just thinking out loud here.

[Cascadia]

Well, if the democrats were smart (don't worry, they're not), they would move to add 6 seats to Supreme Court and fill them with 40 year old judges.

[Deleted User 310]

Well, if the democrats were smart (don't worry, they're not), they would move to add 6 seats to Supreme Court and fill them with 40 year old judges.

But then when they tables of power eventually turn again, like they always do, won't the same thing just happen where the other side (if Republicans as we know them even still exist then) just add 6 or 12 more seats, appointment 40 year olds, and start the cycle over again?

[sdoyel]

We will all be dead by then.

[jfish26]

So let's say trump rushes his pick thru...then dems win presidential election, take back control of senate/house....then they expand the # of supreme court justices....at what point does the integrity of the court become compromised by it becoming far to influenced by partisan politics?

Where does it stop? It gets expanded. Then someday republicans gain back control and expand it again? Just seems like the executive branch will be bleeding over into the judicial branch too much. Maybe we are already there, or about to be. Maybe what should really change is how justices are chosen? Shouldn't it be more about picking great justices and not solely for potential future political purposes? Just thinking out loud here.

Already well past this point.

[Deleted User 89]

trump admitted a political bent to this pick

[Leawood]

I think you leave things alone and write statutes with Gorsuch in mind.

[Deleted User 89]

that would be the reasonable thing, but it’s not what pubs would do if they were in the position

they’d buck norms and change the “rules”

[Deleted User 310]

Probably. But they aren't really changing any rules here. There is no rule against this, they simply pretended it was bad form with the Obama pick as a convenient excuse to avoid any action.

[Deleted User 89]

that’s why “rules” was in quotes

we all know they aren’t breaking any actual rules right now, but they are indeed going against long-standing norms...going all the way back to at least Lincoln

and don’t forget, they absolutely changed the rules previously with the need for super majority vs. simple majority for the pure fact that they knew their side couldn’t garner enough non-pub support

[Deleted User 89]

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... 54?cid=apn

[zsn]

“Their side” is even relevant only because the Framers f-ed up hugely with an entity called the Senate. Now 46 Senators represent 40 million people while 2 Senators represent a different 40 million. The former wield inordinate level of power in what is allegedly the World’s Greatest Democracy.

I’m sincerely hoping that same fate befalls national Republicans as what happened to California Republicans following their shenanigans in the 90s. Took a generation but they are barely relevant.

[Deleted User 310]

that’s why “rules” was in quotes

we all know they aren’t breaking any actual rules right now, but they are indeed going against long-standing norms...going all the way back to at least Lincoln

and don’t forget, they absolutely changed the rules previously with the need for super majority vs. simple majority for the pure fact that they knew their side couldn’t garner enough non-pub support

Are they actually going against norms?

I have heard the line that no President has done it for 80+ years....but isn't it also true that no President passed up the chance to do it either?

Obama didn't pass up his chance. He just didn't have the votes/power to rush his pick thru.

[Deleted User 89]

that’s why “rules” was in quotes

we all know they aren’t breaking any actual rules right now, but they are indeed going against long-standing norms...going all the way back to at least Lincoln

and don’t forget, they absolutely changed the rules previously with the need for super majority vs. simple majority for the pure fact that they knew their side couldn’t garner enough non-pub support

Are they actually going against norms?

I have heard the line that no President has done it for 80+ years....but isn't it also true that no President passed up the chance to do it either?

Obama didn't pass up his chance. He just didn't have the votes/power to rush his pick thru.

there may be others, but Lincoln chose not to

[Deleted User 310]

that’s why “rules” was in quotes

we all know they aren’t breaking any actual rules right now, but they are indeed going against long-standing norms...going all the way back to at least Lincoln

and don’t forget, they absolutely changed the rules previously with the need for super majority vs. simple majority for the pure fact that they knew their side couldn’t garner enough non-pub support

Are they actually going against norms?

I have heard the line that no President has done it for 80+ years....but isn't it also true that no President passed up the chance to do it either?

Obama didn't pass up his chance. He just didn't have the votes/power to rush his pick thru.

there may be others, but Lincoln chose not to

Did he also control the senate?

This article touches on some of the "norms"...

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/ ... y-in-2020/

[ousdahl]

Choosing not to fill a vacancy would be a historically unprecedented act of unilateral disarmament. It has never happened.

oh reeeeallly?