4 ms·

How is an elected official choosing not fill one of N vacancies while they're in power (mind you, they won the following election) remotely comparable to just c

by bhupy 6y ago

How is an elected official choosing not fill one of N vacancies while they're in power (mind you, they won the following election) remotely comparable to just changing the value of N because you were unhappy with how elected officials played the game up until that point? Even RBG found this line of thinking to be nonsense and dangerous: https://www.npr.org/2019/07/24/744633713/justice-ginsburg-i-am-very-much-alive https://www.npr.org/2019/07/24/744633713/justice-ginsburg-i-...

cozuya 6y ago
So Republicans can change the agreed upon rules (norms), lie about it, and then change the rules again, to get what they want while they're in power, but when the Democrats are in power, they have to play by the Republican's rules? In 1988, AN ELECTION YEAR, the Dems controlled the senate and still confirmed Kennedy who was put forward by Reagan of course, 97-0. But when Mitch McConnell spits in the face of Obama and Merrick Garland, Dems are supposed to just sit and take it? Once again, elections have consequences, and we'll see what they are very soon. By the way this is academic as Manchin has said he won't do it.
- bhupy 6y ago
  > So Republicans can change the agreed upon rules (norms), lie about it, and then change the rules again, to get what they want while they're in power, but when the Democrats are in power, they have to play by the Republican's rules? The only agreed upon "rules" are what the legislature passes. "Norms" don't really mean much; those are just glorified pinky promises. You're basically comparing "norms" to laws, but those two are not the same. The fact that there are 9 justices on the Supreme Court isn't a norm that we all just shake hands and agree on, it's what's currently set by legislation. Mitch McConnell never violated any law, nor did he change the rules via legislation. He (and the GOP) exercised the power to advise and consent (or not) to a nomination. If the people had wanted the kind of nomination he refused to consent to, they would have voted for a different Chief Executive, and a different Senate. But alas, that did not happen; those are the rules of the game. What you (and the so called "academics") are advocating for is changing the rules of the game. Notwithstanding the merits of that, it is in no way comparable to just playing hardball by the existing rules, and to argue otherwise is pretty disingenuous.
  - cozuya 6y ago
    Ah, got it, as the people voted for a different Chief Executive, and a different Senate, the Democrats should pass a law changing the amount of SCOTUS justices, and when that is filibustered, they should vote to remove the filibuster, because, again, the people voted for a different Chief Executive, and a different Senate, and those are the rules of the game. That sounds good to me, I hope they take your advice.
    - bhupy 6y ago
      Yes, we’re well aware what the rules are. The point is that this is in no way comparable to what the Republicans did, which it sounds like you finally understand, so good job. There’s a reason that Democrats like Manchin and Sinema openly oppose it: because it’s so transparently absurd and bad for the Republic.
      - cozuya 6y ago
        Yeahhhh no. You don't get to blow up norms and then blame the other side for blowing up norms, and 9 SCOTUS judges is just a norm, no matter how hard you try to claim that it is not. The Dems adding SCOTUS judges 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, & 16 would be just changing norms, as there's nothing in the constitution that prevents it. Sorry! Maybe the GQP should win elections next time.
        bhupy 6y ago
        Just to be charitable to your argument, even if the number of seats on the court was “just a norm” (a huge stretch, but let’s just say)...you have to know that it would do irreversible damage to change such a norm, and is in no way comparable to stonewalling a single nomination. The moment one party does this, any time power changes, the other power will just pack it right back, ad infinitum, turning the Supreme Court into a wholly political body. GP described this as “destroying the rule of law”, which is effectively what happens when you no longer have an independent judiciary that just changes with the political winds. > Maybe the GQP should win elections next time. It’s not just the “GQP” (seriously, maybe try talking like a normal person), it’s also key Democrats that oppose this. Until you can replace them too, this is a non-starter. And also...the “GQP” happens to enjoy a fairly robust geographical advantage in the Senate map, so it’s really either now or never. All that said, there’s nothing wrong with supporting something that’s even more extreme than what the other side did if that’s what you’re really into, but at least have the guts to be honest with yourself about what it is you’re advocating for and own it! That’s the only consistent position. Regardless of what we agree to call these things, “norms”, “laws”, “cupcakes” (I really don’t care), if you’re unable to grasp just how different the two things are, then you might have more in common with the “GQP” than you think, at least is far as critical thinking goes.
- rayiner 6y ago
  > In 1988, AN ELECTION YEAR, the Dems controlled the senate and still confirmed Kennedy who was put forward by Reagan of course, 97-0 That’s because Kennedy was Reagan’s third try to fill that seat after Democrats blocked the first two. In late 1987, a year before the election, Patrick Leahy gave Kennedy an ultimatum that if Senate Democrats didn’t like the next appointment, they’d hold the seat open until after the 1988 election. That was against a vastly more popular President than Obama—Reagan had won his election in 1984 by 18 points.
  - cozuya 6y ago
    A completely disingenuous bad faith response. Merrick Garland, a VERY close to center moderate, was not EVEN GIVEN A HEARING. Justice Kennedy was, and was confirmed. Tell us all (no one is watching any more) why its "fair" that Garland was not given a hearing. PLEASE.

by bhupy 6y ago

cozuya 6y ago

So Republicans can change the agreed upon rules (norms), lie about it, and then change the rules again, to get what they want while they're in power, but when the Democrats are in power, they have to play by the Republican's rules? In 1988, AN ELECTION YEAR, the Dems controlled the senate and still confirmed Kennedy who was put forward by Reagan of course, 97-0. But when Mitch McConnell spits in the face of Obama and Merrick Garland, Dems are supposed to just sit and take it? Once again, elections have consequences, and we'll see what they are very soon. By the way this is academic as Manchin has said he won't do it.

bhupy 6y ago
> So Republicans can change the agreed upon rules (norms), lie about it, and then change the rules again, to get what they want while they're in power, but when the Democrats are in power, they have to play by the Republican's rules? The only agreed upon "rules" are what the legislature passes. "Norms" don't really mean much; those are just glorified pinky promises. You're basically comparing "norms" to laws, but those two are not the same. The fact that there are 9 justices on the Supreme Court isn't a norm that we all just shake hands and agree on, it's what's currently set by legislation. Mitch McConnell never violated any law, nor did he change the rules via legislation. He (and the GOP) exercised the power to advise and consent (or not) to a nomination. If the people had wanted the kind of nomination he refused to consent to, they would have voted for a different Chief Executive, and a different Senate. But alas, that did not happen; those are the rules of the game. What you (and the so called "academics") are advocating for is changing the rules of the game. Notwithstanding the merits of that, it is in no way comparable to just playing hardball by the existing rules, and to argue otherwise is pretty disingenuous.
- cozuya 6y ago
  Ah, got it, as the people voted for a different Chief Executive, and a different Senate, the Democrats should pass a law changing the amount of SCOTUS justices, and when that is filibustered, they should vote to remove the filibuster, because, again, the people voted for a different Chief Executive, and a different Senate, and those are the rules of the game. That sounds good to me, I hope they take your advice.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    Yes, we’re well aware what the rules are. The point is that this is in no way comparable to what the Republicans did, which it sounds like you finally understand, so good job. There’s a reason that Democrats like Manchin and Sinema openly oppose it: because it’s so transparently absurd and bad for the Republic.
    - cozuya 6y ago
      Yeahhhh no. You don't get to blow up norms and then blame the other side for blowing up norms, and 9 SCOTUS judges is just a norm, no matter how hard you try to claim that it is not. The Dems adding SCOTUS judges 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, & 16 would be just changing norms, as there's nothing in the constitution that prevents it. Sorry! Maybe the GQP should win elections next time.
      - bhupy 6y ago
        Just to be charitable to your argument, even if the number of seats on the court was “just a norm” (a huge stretch, but let’s just say)...you have to know that it would do irreversible damage to change such a norm, and is in no way comparable to stonewalling a single nomination. The moment one party does this, any time power changes, the other power will just pack it right back, ad infinitum, turning the Supreme Court into a wholly political body. GP described this as “destroying the rule of law”, which is effectively what happens when you no longer have an independent judiciary that just changes with the political winds. > Maybe the GQP should win elections next time. It’s not just the “GQP” (seriously, maybe try talking like a normal person), it’s also key Democrats that oppose this. Until you can replace them too, this is a non-starter. And also...the “GQP” happens to enjoy a fairly robust geographical advantage in the Senate map, so it’s really either now or never. All that said, there’s nothing wrong with supporting something that’s even more extreme than what the other side did if that’s what you’re really into, but at least have the guts to be honest with yourself about what it is you’re advocating for and own it! That’s the only consistent position. Regardless of what we agree to call these things, “norms”, “laws”, “cupcakes” (I really don’t care), if you’re unable to grasp just how different the two things are, then you might have more in common with the “GQP” than you think, at least is far as critical thinking goes.
rayiner 6y ago
> In 1988, AN ELECTION YEAR, the Dems controlled the senate and still confirmed Kennedy who was put forward by Reagan of course, 97-0 That’s because Kennedy was Reagan’s third try to fill that seat after Democrats blocked the first two. In late 1987, a year before the election, Patrick Leahy gave Kennedy an ultimatum that if Senate Democrats didn’t like the next appointment, they’d hold the seat open until after the 1988 election. That was against a vastly more popular President than Obama—Reagan had won his election in 1984 by 18 points.
- cozuya 6y ago
  A completely disingenuous bad faith response. Merrick Garland, a VERY close to center moderate, was not EVEN GIVEN A HEARING. Justice Kennedy was, and was confirmed. Tell us all (no one is watching any more) why its "fair" that Garland was not given a hearing. PLEASE.