4 ms·

You are taking crazy pills if you think you can find a majority in the House to impeach a conservative supreme court justice when there is a democrat in the Whi

You are taking crazy pills if you think you can find a majority in the House to impeach a conservative supreme court justice when there is a democrat in the White House. Holding onto power is all that matters, optics be dammed. These are the same people who refused to give Merrick Garland a vote because it was "too close to the election" 8 months away, then a mere 4 years later rammed through Amy Coney Barrett a week before the election.

spacephysics 4y ago
[flagged]
- jandrese 4y ago
  The Democrats did not do the same thing. The obstruction of Merrick Garland is novel and unique.
  - jerkstate 4y ago
    What would you say the key differences were between the nomination of Merrick Garland and the nomination of Robert Bork?
    - jandrese 4y ago
      Bork was rejected due to his role in the Saturday Night Massacre, not because it was "too close to an election". Also, he actually got a vote.
    - jcranmer 4y ago
      Robert Bork's nomination was rejected by the Senate in a vote after about 3 months (about typical time for a Supreme Court nomination hearing). Merrick Garland's nomination was never heard by the Senate, and lapsed at the end of the Senate session with no hearings nor votes taking place for almost 9 months. Seems like a critical difference to me, at least.
      - lliamander 4y ago
        A more critical difference to me seems to be the abhorrent character assassination tactics employed against Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh during their confirmation hearings. Merely refusing to consider Garland seems much milder than to attempt to destroy his reputation and career.
        kelnos 4y ago
        I'm not familiar with Bork's confirmation, but "character assassination" is a bit of a weird take on Thomas' and Kavanaugh's hearings. Neither of them seem to have much character in the first place; both seem unfit for the bench IMO.
        lliamander 4y ago
        If you've ever heard of something being "borked", the phrase comes precisely from what happened Bork. I don't think Kavanaugh is especially impressive as a legal mind, but in the debates I had at the time with staunch opponents of Kavanaugh, none of them could produce anything to substantiate the allegations. Their whole argument rested solely on the allegations themselves. What little evidence that was presented only served to undermine those allegations. I don't see how that is anything other than character assassination. I haven't actually looked deeply into the accusations against Thomas during his confirmation hearing, but I have read several of his legal opinions, all of which were quite impressive.
        adamc 4y ago
        There is so much to dislike about your answer, but let's start with this: You haven't established that it was "character assassination", rather than a rather honest assessment of character, in any of these cases... and I think the evidence strongly leans against you. The second issue is that people deserve a hearing after nomination -- failing to give Garland one was intensely disrespectful. If you don't want to face the possible heat of a hearing, you don't accept the nomination. There was nothing mild about it. It was Mitch McConnell playing politics and overturning established precedent for the sake of a political result. It has not been forgotten, and it will get paid back, with interest.
    - shadowfiend 4y ago
      The fact that Garland got no confirmation hearings or consideration at all, as well as the bipartisan nature of the confirmation vote Bork actually received that Garland did not, both seem more than sufficient to make these entirely unrelated.
    - HDThoreaun 4y ago
      Bork was voted on for starters.
- mikem170 4y ago
  > And the democrats would do the same thing The Democrats helped force a Democrat appointed supreme court justice out in 1969, over a similar but lesser situation, even though Nixon would get to appoint a replacement. > In 1969, Justice Abe Fortas was forced to resign after his financial relationship came to light with businessman Louis Wolfson, who paid Fortas to consult for his foundation. Fortas was a Democratic appointee, but the scandal led to a bipartisan call for his resignation — even though his replacement would be named by Republican President Richard Nixon and shift the balance of the court [0] I definitely don't see today's Republicans doing that. Eleven months before an election they unconstitutionally refused to vote on Obama's nomination of Garland [1] to the Supreme Court, but afterwards they were ok breaking convention and approving Barret and other judges as lame ducks after an election where they lost their senate majority [2]. This is quite the change from several decades ago when Nixon resigned because he knew that some Republicans would vote with Democrats to impeach him. I guess that back then our constitution and institutions were more important than party and power [3]. [0] https://www.democracynow.org/2023/4/19/clarence_thomas_abe_fortas https://www.democracynow.org/2023/4/19/clarence_thomas_abe_f... [1] https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/594574-mcconnells-unconstitutional-blockade-of-garland-poisoned-subsequent/ https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/594574-mcconnells-unco... [2] https://rollcall.com/2020/10/30/mcconnell-senate-judges-lame-duck/ https://rollcall.com/2020/10/30/mcconnell-senate-judges-lame... [3] refer to the book "How Democracies Die" by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt
- jutrewag 4y ago
  [dead]
slg 4y ago
The Garland/Barrett shenanigans were at least strategic. Kavanaugh was even worse in my opinion. There was nothing special about that man. They could have easily dumped him as soon as the credible accusation against him came out. There are plenty of other judges with similar ideology and opinions that could have replaced him and provided the exact same impact on the court. There was no strategic reason to stick by him. The only reason was to prove a point about not caring about these accusations. The only way that any more than a couple Republicans vote to remove Thomas or Gorsuch is if they see an opportunity to replace an older conservative justice with a younger conservative justice.
- influx 4y ago
  I don't find Kavanaugh a particularly great legal mind, but your definition of credible accusation and mine are very different.
  - slg 4y ago
    Fine, I'll bite. What wasn't credible about the accusation?
    - jandrese 4y ago
      I'd guess it would be a complaint about the age of the accusation. Veteran watchers of the court know that those sort of accusations aren't a serious impediment to confirmation however. Who can forget Clarence Thomas's Coke cans? They were even more credible and provided only a minor delay in his appointment. If you want that sort of behavior to matter you need to elect better representatives.
      - adamc 4y ago
        We need a different process, and no, I don't know what. But the current system is electing people based on sound-bites and posturing. The results, which are terrible, speak for themselves.
      - slg 4y ago
JeremyNT 4y ago
Of course, it's all Realpolitik. The US system of governance at this point is such a failure for real democratic rule. It's devolved into a two-party system, and for some reason we grant whichever party happens to be in power the ability to appoint party apparatchiks to vacancies on the Supreme Court. These people then rule until death, when they are replaced in the same manner. This being the framework, there is never any structural incentive to do anything but convince voters that your opponent is a monster, so you can retain power. Good governance is not rewarded, bad behavior is not punished - we may only rely on the questionable morality of the elected officials to "do the right thing," since they cannot be held accountable.
- pas 4y ago
  good governance is rewarded by winning elections. economy is still the no1. issue for the median voter

spacephysics 4y ago

[flagged]

jandrese 4y ago
The Democrats did not do the same thing. The obstruction of Merrick Garland is novel and unique.
- jerkstate 4y ago
  What would you say the key differences were between the nomination of Merrick Garland and the nomination of Robert Bork?
  - jandrese 4y ago
    Bork was rejected due to his role in the Saturday Night Massacre, not because it was "too close to an election". Also, he actually got a vote.
  - jcranmer 4y ago
    Robert Bork's nomination was rejected by the Senate in a vote after about 3 months (about typical time for a Supreme Court nomination hearing). Merrick Garland's nomination was never heard by the Senate, and lapsed at the end of the Senate session with no hearings nor votes taking place for almost 9 months. Seems like a critical difference to me, at least.
    - lliamander 4y ago
      A more critical difference to me seems to be the abhorrent character assassination tactics employed against Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh during their confirmation hearings. Merely refusing to consider Garland seems much milder than to attempt to destroy his reputation and career.
      - kelnos 4y ago
        I'm not familiar with Bork's confirmation, but "character assassination" is a bit of a weird take on Thomas' and Kavanaugh's hearings. Neither of them seem to have much character in the first place; both seem unfit for the bench IMO.
        lliamander 4y ago
        If you've ever heard of something being "borked", the phrase comes precisely from what happened Bork. I don't think Kavanaugh is especially impressive as a legal mind, but in the debates I had at the time with staunch opponents of Kavanaugh, none of them could produce anything to substantiate the allegations. Their whole argument rested solely on the allegations themselves. What little evidence that was presented only served to undermine those allegations. I don't see how that is anything other than character assassination. I haven't actually looked deeply into the accusations against Thomas during his confirmation hearing, but I have read several of his legal opinions, all of which were quite impressive.
      - adamc 4y ago
        There is so much to dislike about your answer, but let's start with this: You haven't established that it was "character assassination", rather than a rather honest assessment of character, in any of these cases... and I think the evidence strongly leans against you. The second issue is that people deserve a hearing after nomination -- failing to give Garland one was intensely disrespectful. If you don't want to face the possible heat of a hearing, you don't accept the nomination. There was nothing mild about it. It was Mitch McConnell playing politics and overturning established precedent for the sake of a political result. It has not been forgotten, and it will get paid back, with interest.
  - shadowfiend 4y ago
    The fact that Garland got no confirmation hearings or consideration at all, as well as the bipartisan nature of the confirmation vote Bork actually received that Garland did not, both seem more than sufficient to make these entirely unrelated.
  - HDThoreaun 4y ago
    Bork was voted on for starters.
mikem170 4y ago
> And the democrats would do the same thing The Democrats helped force a Democrat appointed supreme court justice out in 1969, over a similar but lesser situation, even though Nixon would get to appoint a replacement. > In 1969, Justice Abe Fortas was forced to resign after his financial relationship came to light with businessman Louis Wolfson, who paid Fortas to consult for his foundation. Fortas was a Democratic appointee, but the scandal led to a bipartisan call for his resignation — even though his replacement would be named by Republican President Richard Nixon and shift the balance of the court [0] I definitely don't see today's Republicans doing that. Eleven months before an election they unconstitutionally refused to vote on Obama's nomination of Garland [1] to the Supreme Court, but afterwards they were ok breaking convention and approving Barret and other judges as lame ducks after an election where they lost their senate majority [2]. This is quite the change from several decades ago when Nixon resigned because he knew that some Republicans would vote with Democrats to impeach him. I guess that back then our constitution and institutions were more important than party and power [3]. [0] https://www.democracynow.org/2023/4/19/clarence_thomas_abe_fortas https://www.democracynow.org/2023/4/19/clarence_thomas_abe_f... [1] https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/594574-mcconnells-unconstitutional-blockade-of-garland-poisoned-subsequent/ https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/594574-mcconnells-unco... [2] https://rollcall.com/2020/10/30/mcconnell-senate-judges-lame-duck/ https://rollcall.com/2020/10/30/mcconnell-senate-judges-lame... [3] refer to the book "How Democracies Die" by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt
jutrewag 4y ago
[dead]

slg 4y ago

The Garland/Barrett shenanigans were at least strategic. Kavanaugh was even worse in my opinion. There was nothing special about that man. They could have easily dumped him as soon as the credible accusation against him came out. There are plenty of other judges with similar ideology and opinions that could have replaced him and provided the exact same impact on the court. There was no strategic reason to stick by him. The only reason was to prove a point about not caring about these accusations. The only way that any more than a couple Republicans vote to remove Thomas or Gorsuch is if they see an opportunity to replace an older conservative justice with a younger conservative justice.

influx 4y ago
I don't find Kavanaugh a particularly great legal mind, but your definition of credible accusation and mine are very different.
- slg 4y ago
  Fine, I'll bite. What wasn't credible about the accusation?
  - jandrese 4y ago
    I'd guess it would be a complaint about the age of the accusation. Veteran watchers of the court know that those sort of accusations aren't a serious impediment to confirmation however. Who can forget Clarence Thomas's Coke cans? They were even more credible and provided only a minor delay in his appointment. If you want that sort of behavior to matter you need to elect better representatives.
    - adamc 4y ago
      We need a different process, and no, I don't know what. But the current system is electing people based on sound-bites and posturing. The results, which are terrible, speak for themselves.
    - slg 4y ago

JeremyNT 4y ago

Of course, it's all Realpolitik. The US system of governance at this point is such a failure for real democratic rule. It's devolved into a two-party system, and for some reason we grant whichever party happens to be in power the ability to appoint party apparatchiks to vacancies on the Supreme Court. These people then rule until death, when they are replaced in the same manner. This being the framework, there is never any structural incentive to do anything but convince voters that your opponent is a monster, so you can retain power. Good governance is not rewarded, bad behavior is not punished - we may only rely on the questionable morality of the elected officials to "do the right thing," since they cannot be held accountable.

pas 4y ago
good governance is rewarded by winning elections. economy is still the no1. issue for the median voter