4 ms·

So why wouldn’t the Republicans do the same thing next time they win an election? Or would the Democrats somehow guarantee that never happens again?

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
If the Supreme Court becomes a more partisan institution that shifts in viewpoints every 4 years, that's not ideal, but I think it's quite a bit better than the status quo where so many people see every appointment as an existential threat.
ncallaway 6y ago
They will. The SCOTUS as a nonpartisan institution that isn't a political football is 100% dead if McConnell confirms a nominee before the election. It's time Democrats recognize that, and play offense when they have the ball. It's sad to see the institution end as a non-political body, but it's been happening for the last couple of decades. This will be the absolute end of it.
- gorbachev15 6y ago
  SCOTUS is already clearly partisan if the newly departed justice's final wish is for a different president to appoint her replacement. Playing politics up until the end.
  - papeda 6y ago
    Ah yes, wishing for a successor that does not undo your life's work is definitely what I would call "playing politics up until the end".
    - refurb 6y ago
      Damn right it is. Once she passes the President and Senate get to nominate a replacement. RBG isn't somehow deserving of a candidate that maintains her legacy. In fact, she has zero say in who her replacement is.
    - malandrew 6y ago
      Genuine question for anyone following Supreme Court decisions since the inclusion of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. How have either of those two nominations contributed to decisions in a way that undes RBG's life work? If they haven't, on what basis are you coming to the conclusion that the third nominee to SCOTUS would somehow be radically different than the first two? I personally haven't read an opinion from either that most democrats would be disappointed with. Most people actually don't follow what the supreme court does and the extent of the attention they pay is just making sure that the president they support gets to pick SCOTUS justices.
      - papeda 6y ago
        We can compare the stated philosophies of RBG against those of the two most recent nominees and the shortlisted candidates put forth in the past week and see that they're very different. It seems very plausible to guess that, given a large majority, these people will enact these philosophies. No?
colinmhayes 6y ago
SCOTUS is dead
dmode 6y ago
There are ways to do it. Expand the court and then pass a legislation banning court expansions without supermajority
- redler 6y ago
  If Democrats gain power, nothing changes unless they frame their opportunity as "what would Mitch do?"
millstone 6y ago
The current status quo is that SCOTUS is staffed based on who happens to die and who happens to be President at that time. That's a terrible design: Roe v. Wade should not hang on whether there was an economic recession two years ago. So if there's a court-packing arms race, that may not be a bad thing. It would bring this anachronism to a head. Maybe we have LOTS MORE justices. Then each appointment would not be so politicized because their influence would be lessened. See https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/12/academic-highlight-epps-and-sitaraman-on-how-to-save-the-supreme-court/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/12/academic-highlight-epps-a...
hapless 6y ago
Nothing. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. One party coalition has demonstrated they will do ANYTHING for power, and now there are very few good choices available. Either respond in kind, or face permanent defeat

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

If the Supreme Court becomes a more partisan institution that shifts in viewpoints every 4 years, that's not ideal, but I think it's quite a bit better than the status quo where so many people see every appointment as an existential threat.

ncallaway 6y ago

They will. The SCOTUS as a nonpartisan institution that isn't a political football is 100% dead if McConnell confirms a nominee before the election. It's time Democrats recognize that, and play offense when they have the ball. It's sad to see the institution end as a non-political body, but it's been happening for the last couple of decades. This will be the absolute end of it.

gorbachev15 6y ago
SCOTUS is already clearly partisan if the newly departed justice's final wish is for a different president to appoint her replacement. Playing politics up until the end.
- papeda 6y ago
  Ah yes, wishing for a successor that does not undo your life's work is definitely what I would call "playing politics up until the end".
  - refurb 6y ago
    Damn right it is. Once she passes the President and Senate get to nominate a replacement. RBG isn't somehow deserving of a candidate that maintains her legacy. In fact, she has zero say in who her replacement is.
  - malandrew 6y ago
    Genuine question for anyone following Supreme Court decisions since the inclusion of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. How have either of those two nominations contributed to decisions in a way that undes RBG's life work? If they haven't, on what basis are you coming to the conclusion that the third nominee to SCOTUS would somehow be radically different than the first two? I personally haven't read an opinion from either that most democrats would be disappointed with. Most people actually don't follow what the supreme court does and the extent of the attention they pay is just making sure that the president they support gets to pick SCOTUS justices.
    - papeda 6y ago
      We can compare the stated philosophies of RBG against those of the two most recent nominees and the shortlisted candidates put forth in the past week and see that they're very different. It seems very plausible to guess that, given a large majority, these people will enact these philosophies. No?

colinmhayes 6y ago

SCOTUS is dead

dmode 6y ago

There are ways to do it. Expand the court and then pass a legislation banning court expansions without supermajority

redler 6y ago
If Democrats gain power, nothing changes unless they frame their opportunity as "what would Mitch do?"

millstone 6y ago

The current status quo is that SCOTUS is staffed based on who happens to die and who happens to be President at that time. That's a terrible design: Roe v. Wade should not hang on whether there was an economic recession two years ago. So if there's a court-packing arms race, that may not be a bad thing. It would bring this anachronism to a head. Maybe we have LOTS MORE justices. Then each appointment would not be so politicized because their influence would be lessened. See https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/12/academic-highlight-epps-and-sitaraman-on-how-to-save-the-supreme-court/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/12/academic-highlight-epps-a...

hapless 6y ago

Nothing. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. One party coalition has demonstrated they will do ANYTHING for power, and now there are very few good choices available. Either respond in kind, or face permanent defeat