OK! It's About Time. The Court Thread!

[batmagadanleadoff]

I disagree with both of youse. There's all kinds of voters out there. I know women who vote Republican because pro-life is their singular most important issue. I know people who always vote yet are generally misinformed or uninformed politically and have no idea how the judiciary even works other than that judges decide cases. I had a friend that would always vote for Giuliani for NYC mayor because my friend was against abortion rights, as if the Mayor of New York City could or even would if he could, restrict abortion rights.

[Ceetar]

that jibes with what I said. Being a women does not, apparently, mean you think women should have rights.

[batmagadanleadoff]

History is full of US Supreme Court justices who lingered on the bench well after they were incapacitated or too sick to do the work. The only way to remove a Supreme Court justice from the bench against his or her will is through the impeachment process. So if the Democrats decided to behave like the GOP surely would, the only way this administration could replace RBG is if she died while this administration remained in power, because the Dem controlled House would block or delay a proceeding to impeach RBG should she become incapacitated yet refuse to retire. Unless the Dems haven't learned anything from the way the GOP 86'ed the FBI investigation into Kavanaugh or blocked witnesses from testifying during Trump's impeachment, or blockaded Merrick Garland, or rammed through a multi trillion dollar tax cut without consulting with Dems, or .... I could go on. And on.

What the Dems would probably do, though, should RBG no longer be able to do the work, is to make a deal with the GOP, promising RBG's voluntary retirement in return for a truly moderate down the middle centrist replacement. Whereupon the GOP would Charlie Brown the Dems as soon as RBG's retirement became official.

[Edgy MD]

Nobody's going to bring up an impeachment proceeding against Justice Ginsberg.

The Court is out of session until October, anyhow, isn't it?

[MFS62]

The Court is out of session until October, anyhow, isn't it?

McConnell would probably call a special session just to got another conservative on the Court.
Later

[Edgy MD]

Impeachment occurs in the House, and I don't recall any Supreme Court justice ever being impeached for being sick.

She's not going to be impeached.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Impeachment occurs in the House, and I don't recall any Supreme Court justice ever being impeached for being sick.

She's not going to be impeached.

Not now. But I was what iffing riffing. Let's say that come October, RBG's health has deteriorated to the point that she can no longer do the work. She's incapacitated. The GOP would --rightly so-- call for her to step down, to retire, (so that the GOP could then flip her seat). Because RBG is ethical and principled and the Dems tend to do the right thing rather than to do what's right for them, no matter how high the stakes, she'd likely retire, (though it's not guaranteed --- see history) thus paving the way for a 6-3 extremist conservative majority on the SC. This development would also likely dissuade the Dems from packing the court, assuming they even have the desire, on the logic that even with Merrick Garland confirmed instead of Neil Gorsuch, the conservatives would still have 5-4 majority with RBG's seat being flipped.

But if the Dems got cutthroat and played hardball, RBG woudn't step down come October, even though she should, and the Dems, who control the House, wouldn't impeach her -- blockading the impeachment proceeding just like the GOP blockaded Garland's confirmation. -- hoping for the Dems to take back the WH and the Senate this November.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I don't think that RBG would "likely retire" in what might be the final months of a Trump administration.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I don't think that RBG would "likely retire" in what might be the final months of a Trump administration.

Even if she was incapacitated? (I don't think so. either). You know, RGB loathes Trump.

[Edgy MD]

I think the Court has a history of functioning with eight sitting justices during an illness or a prolonged appointment process, and it will function for a few months with this one hurt.

I'm all for looking for what perils lie down the road, but impeachment isn't going to happen.

More likely is that she won't be on the bench when the session opens, she'll refuse to retire, and the president will appoint a replacement anyway.

[batmagadanleadoff]

More likely is that she won't be on the bench when the session opens, she'll refuse to retire, and the president will appoint a replacement anyway.

That'd be interesting. Because, under this scenario, RBG didn't retire, Trump would be essentially packing the court. Or trying to, anyways. Without congressional approval.

The other interesting scenario is the one Grimm laid out, where RBG dies in very late December, and the lame duck Senate tries to ram RBG's replacement through in just a few days, while the GOP still controls both the WH and the Senate. Obviously, the GOP wouldn't try this rush job unless it had lost either the WH or the Senate (or both) in the November elections. Ordinarily, the confirmation of a SC justice takes at the very least, two months, if everything goes smoothly -- as the Dems have the right to vet the new nominee. There's research to be done and interviews to be conducted. I suppose that these are all rules that the Senate could revise. Or maybe they're not even written rules, but norms. You know, like "the rule" that a visiting baseball team up by more than three runs in the top of the ninth inning shouldn't attempt to steal a base.

[Lefty Specialist]

Rehnquist stayed on the court when he was deathly ill. Odds are pretty good that when SCOTUS re-convenes in October, it'll be remotely. She just has to remain breathing until January 20th.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Or until January 3, if the Democrats win the Senate.

[nymr83]

Barring her unexpected death, she isnt being replaced before January 21st 2021.

If she were to pass before the election McConell will certainly try to ram through a replacement.

Aftet the election, if Republicans have lost the presidency AND the Senate, I think Trump makes a nomination but McConell realizes it is not in their best interest heading into the minority to force it through.

If Trump loses but Republicans still control the Senate, I would imagine McConell makes a backroom deal with Biden - we wont push through a Trump nominee if you will appoint someone who supports abortion but is a moderate in all other senses.

I dont think there is really a scenario where Trump wins but Republicans lose the Senate.

[Ceetar]

Aftet the election, if Republicans have lost the presidency AND the Senate, I think Trump makes a nomination but McConell realizes it is not in their best interest heading into the minority to force it through.

If Trump loses but Republicans still control the Senate, I would imagine McConell makes a backroom deal with Biden - we wont push through a Trump nominee if you will appoint someone who supports abortion but is a moderate in all other senses.

lol,

[batmagadanleadoff]

Aftet the election, if Republicans have lost the presidency AND the Senate, I think Trump makes a nomination but McConell realizes it is not in their best interest heading into the minority to force it through.

If Trump loses but Republicans still control the Senate, I would imagine McConell makes a backroom deal with Biden - we wont push through a Trump nominee if you will appoint someone who supports abortion but is a moderate in all other senses.

lol,

Republican leaders vow to fill a potential Supreme Court vacancy this year, despite some apprehension

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/20/politics ... index.html

Senate Republican leaders, undeterred by the scathing criticism leveled against them for blocking President Barack Obama's election-year Supreme Court nominee in 2016, are signaling that they are prepared to confirm a nominee by President Donald Trump even if that vacancy occurred after this year's election.

Naturally. And a part of me hopes this happens. Because if that doesn't motivate the Dems to pack the courts, nothing will.

[Ceetar]

bottom line is McConnell is a scumbag and a traitor and derelict of his duty to this country.

I was going to make the joke that if there was a present danger in the Congress he'd only tell republicans about it in hopes democrats die, but Republican leadership literally did that already this year.

[batmagadanleadoff]

bottom line is McConnell is a scumbag and a traitor and derelict of his duty to this country.

I was going to make the joke that if there was a present danger in the Congress he'd only tell republicans about it in hopes democrats die, but Republican leadership literally did that already this year.

If the GOP tries to replace a SCOTUS judge during the lame duck session after Biden had won the election, I'd like to hear how the GOP's going to rationalize that maneuver in a way that's consistent with their blockade of Garland. That'd be unpossible.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I doubt they'd even try to explain it.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I doubt they'd even try to explain it.

We probably won't have an official winner of the November election declared during the traditional lame-duck session if it appeared that Biden won, with all of the turmoil and confusion you can bet your life that Trump is going to create.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Stay Safe, Justice Ginsburg

This summer has been hard enough.

Excerpt:

In real life, she is an 87-year-old woman with a deadly disease and a host of other ailments. A mother and grandmother, a widow with a long and happy marriage behind her.... — anyone who feels mortality knocking on the door — would respond with a shiver to her latest medical report.

[***]

Without complaint, [Ginsburg] raised her children, and nursed a sick husband while getting through law school — Harvard, no less, where she became the first female member of the law review. No wonder so many women law students — and so many others — buy those coffee cups as talismans.

This in contrast to a president who is living proof of failing upward, with so many hefty lifts from his wealthy father, with a value system that is invested in only one thing: perpetuating his own myth of success. Her frailty is on the outside; Mr. Trump’s is all internal.

[***]

Stay safe, Justice Ginsburg. Help me get through the summer.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/20/opin ... ealth.html

[batmagadanleadoff]

Countering G.O.P. on Courts, Democrats Will Call for ‘Structural’ Change

Progressives pushed for the platform language after President Trump’s drive put 200 conservative judges on the federal bench and Senate Republicans blocked President Obama’s nominees.

Excerpt:

Alarmed at Republicans’ success at reshaping the federal courts, Democrats plan to use their forthcoming party platform to push for “structural court reforms” to counter what they describe as a concerted Republican campaign to pack the judiciary with “unqualified, partisan judges.”

The platform language stops well short of saying what those changes should be. But backers of the plank, which was added during deliberations earlier this week, said the broad statement represents a significant advance toward beginning a conversation among Democrats about how to respond to the substantial imprint that President Trump and his conservative allies have made on the federal bench.

“I think it is a major turning point and a very important step,” said Pete Buttigieg, the former Democratic presidential contender who was a strong proponent of reconfiguring the Supreme Court during the primary campaign. “This shows the Democratic Party believes we need to undertake these kinds of reforms.”

The inclusion of the language in the statement of party goals was seen as particularly significant because former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., the presumed nominee who is also a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has been cool to the idea of instituting changes to the judicial branch. He has opposed adding seats to the Supreme Court — one idea pushed by the left.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/31/us/d ... eform.html

I'm not sure what the hell they could do besides pack the courts in response to the blockades of Merrick Garland and one hundred lower court judges. Other than that, what? Fill vacancies with liberal Democratic judges? You need a plank position for that? That part's a given.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Maybe they're considering packing the lower courts, but not the Supreme?

[batmagadanleadoff]

Maybe they're considering packing the lower courts, but not the Supreme?

That would be a half (assed) -measure. Like granting DC its statehood (which I think is a lock if the Dems sweep into power this November), but not Puerto Rico.

[nymr83]

pretty big difference - Puerto Ricans may not actually WANT to be a state (polls have been mixed)

The public in general only reads/cares about the supreme court - they could double the number of circuit and district courts and fill the new ones all with their appointees and not generate too big a stink.