2020 Presidential Election

[ryetales]

I never qualified my statement within our lifetime.

I would guess FDRs court packing after they started to rule against his unconstitutional New Deal would be the worst. It completely changed the balance of power between the judicial and executive branches.

Disclaimer: by unconstitutional I mean in their rulings at the time.

But in that case the Democratic chaired Senate Judiciary Committee held that up. Do you see the Republican let Judiciary Committee standing up to Trump or McConnell?

[sagegrouse]

I never qualified my statement within our lifetime.

I would guess FDRs court packing after they started to rule against his unconstitutional New Deal would be the worst. It completely changed the balance of power between the judicial and executive branches.

Disclaimer: by unconstitutional I mean in their rulings at the time.

Oh, my. FDR proposed after the 1936 landslide win to expand the Supreme Court, but it failed -- actually bottled up in committee chaired by a Democrat. The proposal was to add a new member every time a justice reached age 70 and failed to retire.

[mph]

David B. Rivkin and Andrew M. Grossman have an editorial in the WSJ laying out what I think will become the GOP's talking points to try to justify moving forward on the nomination. Unfortunately, it's paywalled. I'll report the arguments without commenting on their merits. The very short version:

They argue that there is a general presumption that judicial vacancies are filled in an election year. They use the example of Bryer's appointment to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. He was nominated the week after Carter lost the 1980 election and was confirmed before the inauguration. They also argue that 21 of 25 election-year nominations to the SCOTUS were confirmed.

They argue that the exception is when the presidency and senate are controlled by different parties. In that situation, the competing judicial philosophies of the senate and president should be resolved by the voters. As evidence, they quote Senate Judiciary Chair Biden arguing in 1992 that Bush shouldn't make any SCOTUS nominations until voters resolve competing judicial philosophies of the senate and president.

Finally, they argue that the 2020 election prominently featured Trump and HRC's competing judicial philosophies and the election should be read as voters endorsing Trump and the GOP senate's judicial philosophy.

If you live in a state with a competitive senate race outside of Maine, expect to hear these arguments from your GOP candidate.

[YmoBeThere]

Finally, they argue that the 2020 election prominently featured Trump and HRC's competing judicial philosophies and the election should be read as voters endorsing Trump and the GOP senate's judicial philosophy.

Which, as has been stated many times, runs into the issue that Trump lost the popular vote and may well lose it again.

[mph]

Which, as has been stated many times, runs into the issue that Trump lost the popular vote and may well lose it again.

Feel free to write them and let them know.

[SouthernDukie]

I never qualified my statement within our lifetime.

I would guess FDRs court packing after they started to rule against his unconstitutional New Deal would be the worst. It completely changed the balance of power between the judicial and executive branches.

Disclaimer: by unconstitutional I mean in their rulings at the time.

Ok, fair enough. But when I am personally expressing concern for the future of our country, I thought it would be understood that we were talking about in our lifetime.

[Furniture]

I am also extremely saddened by this. I worshipped RBG - my beloved late mother had a tremendous amount in common with her, both in terms of personality and beliefs but also going to the same high school and law school as her, though my mom was ten years younger. But in many ways my sadness over the follow-up to her death is making it difficult for me to go through the proper mourning process. Each day I say that that day is the day I have been most embarrassed to be an American. Today is far and away that day. I hate what this country has become and don't see a workable end game to this situation. Our founders thought they had accounted for most situations in writing the constitution but it is being made increasingly obsolete every day as its intent is being bastardized. When will this nightmare be over?

THIS^^^!!

[tendev]

David B. Rivkin and Andrew M. Grossman have an editorial in the WSJ laying out what I think will become the GOP's talking points to try to justify moving forward on the nomination. Unfortunately, it's paywalled. I'll report the arguments without commenting on their merits. The very short version:

They argue that there is a general presumption that judicial vacancies are filled in an election year. They use the example of Bryer's appointment to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. He was nominated the week after Carter lost the 1980 election and was confirmed before the inauguration. They also argue that 21 of 25 election-year nominations to the SCOTUS were confirmed.

They argue that the exception is when the presidency and senate are controlled by different parties. In that situation, the competing judicial philosophies of the senate and president should be resolved by the voters. As evidence, they quote Senate Judiciary Chair Biden arguing in 1992 that Bush shouldn't make any SCOTUS nominations until voters resolve competing judicial philosophies of the senate and president.

Finally, they argue that the 2020 election prominently featured Trump and HRC's competing judicial philosophies and the election should be read as voters endorsing Trump and the GOP senate's judicial philosophy.

If you live in a state with a competitive senate race outside of Maine, expect to hear these arguments from your GOP candidate.

The exception is when the President's party is different from the party that controls the Senate? I am stunned! And the ostensible reason is the resolution of competing judicial philosophies? How nice of them to let the voters decide.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Some of the Republicans who tweeted about replacing Ginsburg within moments of her death are getting some heat for it. In addition to those mentioned in the article (Ernst, McSally, Loeffler), McConnell also did this. My guess is that those who were offended by this are those who were unlikely to vote for them anyway. Even Trump had the basic decency to at least wait a little while and separate his condolence tweet from his tweet on the replacement process.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/only-ghou...142726436.html

[bundabergdevil]

As expected, Susan Collins is 1...

[sagegrouse]

As expected, Susan Collins is 1...

Headline -- not expected --

GOP’s Collins Says Court Pick Should Be Left to Nov. 3 Winner

I guess she has an inkling the nomination process will be delayed until later:

• If Trump loses and she wins, then she may have to follow through on her promise of a "no" vote.
• If she and Trump both lose, then she can do whatever she wants; she says she'll vote "no," but we'll see.
• If Trump wins and she loses, she can can vote for his nominee.
• If she and Trump both win, then she can also vote for his nominee.

[PackMan97]

Oh, my. FDR proposed after the 1936 landslide win to expand the Supreme Court, but it failed -- actually bottled up in committee chaired by a Democrat. The proposal was to add a new member every time a justice reached age 70 and failed to retire.

Yes, because it proved highly unpopular. Amazingly enough, after FDR proposed his court stacking, Justice Owens switched many of his positions and started delivering victories at the Supreme Court level for FDR and the plan was abandoned. At the time it was called "The switch in time that saved nine".

From what I recall of history, there was never any doubt that FDR was going to get his New Deal one way or the other.

[Furniture]

So if Trump and the republicans push through a replacement now, the SCOTUS will have a majority of justices appointed by presidents who finished 2d in the popular vote, confirmed by senate majorities who represented less than half of the country. Isn’t something wrong with the setup of US democracy?

[Lord Ash]

So if Trump and the republicans push through a replacement now, the SCOTUS will have a majority of justices appointed by presidents who finished 2d in the popular vote, confirmed by senate majorities who represented less than half of the country. Isn’t something wrong with the setup of US democracy?

Seems yes.

I, too, am profoundly sad about the state of our union. Heartbroken, to be honest.

[OldPhiKap]

So if Trump and the republicans push through a replacement now, the SCOTUS will have a majority of justices appointed by presidents who finished 2d in the popular vote, confirmed by senate majorities who represented less than half of the country. Isn’t something wrong with the setup of US democracy?

It is rare that the winner of the electoral college does not win the popular vote:

1876 — Ruthy B. Hayes
1888 — Benny Harrison
2000 — G “no H” W Bush
2016 — DJ Jazzy Trump

I’m not sure the system is the problem, so much as we are in an anomaly. We’ve had two deeply divided periods since the civil war where our federalist republic (small r) system resulted in something different than a straight democratic (small d) system would. But we are a Republic, not a strict democracy.

To the extent it’s a problem, instead of abolishing the Electoral College I would suggest a 20-year term limit on Supreme Court Justices if I was Pope. Or whoever.

[PackMan97]

So if Trump and the republicans push through a replacement now, the SCOTUS will have a majority of justices appointed by presidents who finished 2d in the popular vote, confirmed by senate majorities who represented less than half of the country. Isn’t something wrong with the setup of US democracy?

Only three of the justices were appointed by someone who won more than 50% of the vote.

[mkirsh]

So if Trump and the republicans push through a replacement now, the SCOTUS will have a majority of justices appointed by presidents who finished 2d in the popular vote, confirmed by senate majorities who represented less than half of the country. Isn’t something wrong with the setup of US democracy?

I’ve been thinking about this, and about the general voter disengagement in the US, and have come up with a working theory. The US system is designed to more or less preserve the status quo, and substantial change is very hard. However change is not impossible, it just requires substantial effort. So if your views aren’t far off the status quo then it’s not worth the effort to try to make small changes. What that leaves is people who’s views are farther away from existing status deciding it is worth the effort, and as a result politics is more weighted with those with strong views and beliefs away from the mainstream. And it used to be that general elections would suppress these candidates, but gerrymandered districts mean that most general elections are between two extreme candidates from each side. Just a few not-so-well constructed musings so feel free to shoot holes in this.

[sagegrouse]

Only three of the justices were appointed by someone who won more than 50% of the vote.

Well, that's not the same thing. Although he didn't win a majority, Clinton's wins were sizable and not affected by a third party candidate (Perot).

[ClemmonsDevil]

Nate Cohn of the NY Times poses an interesting question. What makes McConnell's maneuvers to stymie Obama's pick but grant Trump's more justifiable than a presumed Democratic controlled Senate court packing (which I am personally against by the way) and adding DC/PR as states? All of these maneuvers (McConnell's and presumably Schumer's)are legally under the purview of the Senate and all are norm breaking. Why would the norm breaking be any more or less defensible on the left than on the right? If this has just become a method of projecting power, then why would there be indignation at one norm breaking move vs another?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Nate Cohn of the NY Times poses an interesting question. What makes McConnell's maneuvers to stymie Obama's pick but grant Trump's more justifiable than a presumed Democratic controlled Senate court packing (which I am personally against by the way) and adding DC/PR as states? All of these maneuvers (McConnell's and presumably Schumer's)are legally under the purview of the Senate and all are norm breaking. Why would the norm breaking be any more or less defensible on the left than on the right? If this has just become a method of projecting power, then why would there be indignation at one norm breaking move vs another?

This is my initial concern too. It's just further erosion of any level of decorum or political honor or principles by both parties.

I'm getting further and further from even being able to see a solution to the nonsense.