Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire (from SCOTUS)

[The Romulan Republic]

The polls show there is nothing you can do to galvanize Republican voter participation than court nomination issues, the effect is not nearly as notable for Dem voters. If the Dems succeed and leave this nomination hanging out there through November they are just shooting themselves in the foot. The Senate is already a long shot for them, leaving this hanging is slamming the door.

This same calculus was surely a close second consideration for McConnell during the Scalia vacancy.

With all due respect, its pretty clear which horse you back in American politics, and I'm not inclined to take strategy advice from the enemy, especially when that advice is "Give us a huge win without contest right before the election, otherwise we'll win!"

The advice is neutral and I note you had no actual objection to it, but your quote above perfectly encapsulates why you and your allies have no hope of accessing power anytime soon. Namely, your inability to assess things not fed to you from an agreeable mouthpiece sourced from your bubble because you see nothing but "enemies" around you.

Please. Practically every time I criticize Trump or the Alt. Reich, you come crawling out to defend them. A week or so ago, you were literally defending concentration camps for children. Everyone knows which side you're on. In any case, my objection is quite clear: Trump is an aspiring strong man who will likely try to appoint a Justice (for life) who will back his policies and be personally loyal to him. The stakes are too high to concede this fight from the start, based on an assumption that fighting will motivate Republicans more than Democrats.

You also fall back on the usual stereotypes by asserting that I get my news only from sources inside my "bubble". My positions are not founded simply on ignorance of what the other side has to say. I have seen what the other side has to say. I have evaluated it. And I have found it intellectually and morally wanting.

You have zero hope of stalling the nomination anyway, doing so erases any chance you have at getting a Senate win which is the only way you can hope to stall the next one or maybe two Supreme Court vacancies for a potential post Presidential election fill, and if you bet and lose (the Senate stays R) Trump gets to pursue all of these vacancies with no interference.

You should really learn how to examine things dispassionately.

Again, I question the wisdom of taking strategy advice from our opponents.

Additionally, why does an octogenarian have to work himself to death when you, someone who believes literal 1940s equivalent Nazis are goosestepping the streets en masse, sit on your ass doing nothing but rave on internet boards?

For the record, I am an active volunteer with Democrats Abroad, and donate to the Democrats to the extent that my limited finances permit me to. Something which I have stated before on this forum.

I would also like to ask the mods whether it is considered permissible on this board for posters to make assertions about my behavior in real life of which they have no knowledge, and then attack me based on those claims. I would also like to ask whether I will be subject to disciplinary action if I respond in kind (say, for example, by posting a description of Patroklos attending a Trump rally).

I know we like to lionize these people but when you are still on the court at 80 I see power clinging arrogance, not dutiful public servants. I know a lot of you really like RGB, but is it more important to have her specifically on the court than a 40 year younger version of her nominated by Obama when he had the Senate? If she was really down for the cause and the long term preservation of her legacy as it stands, was sticking around a smart/selfless move? These people are playing by nobodies rules but their own.

If they had stepped down under Obama, McConnel would have postponed their replacements until after Trump was elected, and we would currently have a court utterly dominated by the far Right.

Its easy to say "they should step down" when the consequence is handing your side unchecked power.

[Patroklos]

Please. Practically every time I criticize Trump or the Alt. Reich, you come crawling out to defend them. A week or so ago, you were literally defending concentration camps for children. Everyone knows which side you're on. In any case, my objection is quite clear: Trump is an aspiring strong man who will likely try to appoint a Justice (for life) who will back his policies and be personally loyal to him. The stakes are too high to concede this fight from the start, based on an assumption that fighting will motivate Republicans more than Democrats.

I barely post on this board, even less in N&P, an easily verified fact via this sites search function, and when I do it is generally not to take a side. This is not a friendly board for people of my political leanings, the idea that I just waltz around taking definitive stands on anything or for anyone as a matter of course is laughable.

You also fall back on the usual stereotypes by asserting that I get my news only from sources inside my "bubble". My positions are not founded simply on ignorance of what the other side has to say. I have seen what the other side has to say. I have evaluated it. And I have found it intellectually and morally wanting.

Then tell me what exactly about what I offered, again neutrally, is not correct.

Again, I question the wisdom of taking strategy advice from our opponents.

Like I said, safe inside your bubble....

For the record, I am an active volunteer with Democrats Abroad, and donate to the Democrats to the extent that my limited finances permit me to. Something which I have stated before on this forum.

As you have told us many times before, which given the gravity of the threat you rant about amounts to fuck all.

I would also like to ask the mods whether it is considered permissible on this board for posters to make assertions about my behavior in real life of which they have no knowledge, and then attack me based on those claims. I would also like to ask whether I will be subject to disciplinary action if I respond in kind (say, for example, by posting a description of Patroklos attending a Trump rally).

As you just did yet again above, we know exactly what you do in this regard in real life because you actively volunteer the information. Over and over. Any time you feel it gives you some sort of street credibility to signal and preen. We get it, the Nazis are at the gates and you, like, totally donated to the Democrats and stuff. Nazi problem solved!

I, on the other hand, do not volunteer this information. But if it makes you feel any better, I have never been to a political rally or protest in my entire life for any person or cause. Nor have I ever donated money to the same. I also don't claim there Nazis are roaming my neighborhood either, so the stakes are just a bit lower to me than to you.

If they had stepped down under Obama, McConnel would have postponed their replacements until after Trump was elected, and we would currently have a court utterly dominated by the far Right.

You understand that the Democrats held the Senate for a significant portion of Obama's presidency, right? This is, like, something you just know without looking it up, correct?

Its easy to say "they should step down" when the consequence is handing your side unchecked power.

In reality, the consequence of them not stepping down was exposing their side to handing over said power. Exactly what is happening now. You would have lost five years of RGB, but you would have had 20+ years of her replacement. Do you really like RGB that much? In her defense she probably thought Hillary was going to be in power for many years pre-election, but it was still reckless to hang on at her age. A needless risk, she had a long and productive career and is hailed as a hero, and now she may follow that up by give her opponents generations of judicial dominance.

I have the exact same idea regarding Thomas if he doesn't retire during Trump's first term assuming the Senate remains Republican. He is getting up there, and there is a good chance Trump is a one term President. Assuming Justices care about the perpetuation of the jurisprudence beyond their tenure, its a risk to think he can last through the next probably Democrat President to get a like minded successor.

[houser2112]

Please. Practically every time I criticize Trump or the Alt. Reich, you come crawling out to defend them. A week or so ago, you were literally defending concentration camps for children. Everyone knows which side you're on. In any case, my objection is quite clear: Trump is an aspiring strong man who will likely try to appoint a Justice (for life) who will back his policies and be personally loyal to him. The stakes are too high to concede this fight from the start, based on an assumption that fighting will motivate Republicans more than Democrats.

I barely post on this board, even less in N&P, an easily verified fact via this sites search function, and when I do it is generally not to take a side. This is not a friendly board for people of my political leanings, the idea that I just waltz around taking definitive stands on anything or for anyone as a matter of course is laughable.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. You post in N&P enough that it's obvious what your political leanings are. When I see your name at the top of a post, I usually have a pretty good idea what the arguments advanced within are going to be. There's nothing wrong with that (unless you're trying to impress me, of course ), but at least own it.

[Patroklos]

I never said my leanings are not known, but the claim was " Practically every time I criticize Trump or the Alt. Reich, you come crawling out to defend them." I probably have maybe three dozenish posts in N&P this calendar year, and many of them have nothing to do with Trump. I don't know of any that praise him.

In any case I have been here a longish time. I have no problem with people knowing my leanings, especially since my leanings are correct. I do not, however, often interject those leanings into the vast majority of political conversations of this board. There is little point.

[The Romulan Republic]

It gets worse:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/28/us/p ... ement.html

WASHINGTON - President Trump singled him out for praise even while attacking other members of the Supreme Court. The White House nominated people close to him to important judicial posts. And members of the Trump family forged personal connections.

Their goal was to assure Justice Anthony M. Kennedy that his judicial legacy would be in good hands should he step down at the end of the court's term that ended this week, as he was rumored to be considering. Allies of the White House were more blunt, warning the 81-year-old justice that time was of the essence. There was no telling, they said, what would happen if Democrats gained control of the Senate after the November elections and had the power to block the president's choice as his successor.

In short, Kennedy was pressured to step down now for the specific purpose of ensuring Trump's control over the court.

There were no direct efforts to pressure or lobby Justice Kennedy to announce his resignation on Wednesday, and it was hardly the first time a president had done his best to create a court opening. "In the past half-century, presidents have repeatedly been dying to take advantage of timely vacancies," said Laura Kalman, a historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

But in subtle and not so subtle ways, the White House waged a quiet campaign to ensure that Mr. Trump had a second opportunity in his administration's first 18 months to fulfill one of his most important campaign promises to his conservative followers - that he would change the complexion and direction of the Supreme Court.

While he is facing an investigation into the legitimacy of his Presidency and his possible crimes, which will almost certainly lead to multiple constitutional crises that could end up before the Court.

When Mr. Trump took office last year, he already had a Supreme Court vacancy to fill, the one created by the 2016 death of Justice Antonin Scalia. But Mr. Trump dearly wanted a second vacancy, one that could transform the court for a generation or more. So he used the first opening to help create the second one. He picked Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who had served as a law clerk to Justice Kennedy, to fill Justice Scalia's seat.

And when Justice Gorsuch took the judicial oath in April 2017 at a Rose Garden ceremony, Justice Kennedy administered it - after Mr. Trump first praised the older justice as "a great man of outstanding accomplishment."

"Throughout his nearly 30 years on the Supreme Court," Mr. Trump said, "Justice Kennedy has been praised by all for his dedicated and dignified service."

That was an overstatement. Justice Kennedy is reviled by many of Mr. Trump's supporters for voting to uphold access to abortion, limit the death penalty and expand gay rights. Conservatives have called for his impeachment. James C. Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, once called Justice Kennedy "the most dangerous man in America."

Mr. Trump himself said he wanted to appoint justices who would overrule Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion. Justice Kennedy has voted to reaffirm Roe's core holding. And Mr. Trump has not hesitated to criticize far more conservative members of the Supreme Court, notably Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

"Justice Roberts turned out to be an absolute disaster, he turned out to be an absolute disaster because he gave us Obamacare," Mr. Trump said in 2016, presumably referring to Chief Justice Roberts's votes to sustain President Barack Obama's health care law.

There is reason to think, then, that Mr. Trump's praise of Justice Kennedy was strategic.

Then, after Justice Gorsuch's nomination was announced, a White House official singled out two candidates for the next Supreme Court vacancy: Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and Judge Raymond M. Kethledge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati.

The two judges had something in common: They had both clerked for Justice Kennedy.

In the meantime, as the White House turned to stocking the lower courts, it did not overlook Justice Kennedy's clerks. Mr. Trump nominated three of them to federal appeals courts: Judges Stephanos Bibas and Michael Scudder, both of whom have been confirmed, and Eric Murphy, the Ohio solicitor general, whom Mr. Trump nominated to the Sixth Circuit this month.

One person who knows both men remarked on the affinity between Mr. Trump and Justice Kennedy, which is not obvious at first glance. Justice Kennedy is bookish and abstract, while Mr. Trump is earthy and direct.

But they had a connection, one Mr. Trump was quick to note in the moments after his first address to Congress in February 2017. As he made his way out of the chamber, Mr. Trump paused to chat with the justice.

"Say hello to your boy," Mr. Trump said. "Special guy."

Mr. Trump was apparently referring to Justice Kennedy's son, Justin. The younger Mr. Kennedy spent more than a decade at Deutsche Bank,

That alone should raise huge red flags for anyone following the Russian investigation at all closely- Deutsche Bank is notorious for being a favorite avenue for Russian money laundering.

eventually rising to become the bank's global head of real estate capital markets, and he worked closely with Mr. Trump when he was a real estate developer, according to two people with knowledge of his role.

During Mr. Kennedy's tenure, Deutsche Bank became Mr. Trump's most important lender, dispensing well over $1 billion in loans to him for the renovation and construction of skyscrapers in New York and Chicago at a time other mainstream banks were wary of doing business with him because of his troubled business history.

In short, Kennedy's son was closely connected to Trump's business empire and is potentially neck-deep in the collusion case. I'm sure that that has nothing to do with Kennedy retiring before the fruits, or legitimacy, of the Mueller investigation end up before the Supreme Court.

About a week before the presidential address, Ivanka Trump had paid a visit to the Supreme Court as a guest of Justice Kennedy. The two had met at a lunch after the inauguration, and Ms. Trump brought along her daughter, Arabella Kushner. Occupying seats reserved for special guests, they saw the justices announce several decisions and hear an oral argument.

Ms. Trump tweeted about the visit and posted a photo. "Arabella & me at the Supreme Court today," she wrote. "I'm grateful for the opportunity to teach her about the judicial system in our country firsthand."

If the overtures to Justice Kennedy from the White House were subtle, the warnings from its allies were blunt. Last month, Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, went on Hugh Hewitt's radio program to issue an urgent plea.

"My message to any one of the nine Supreme Court justices," he said, was, "If you're thinking about quitting this year, do it yesterday."

Mr. Grassley said speed was of the essence in light of the midterm elections in November. "If we have a Democrat Senate," he said, "you're never going to get the kind of people that are strict constructionists."

Intermediaries pressed the point with Justice Kennedy privately, telling him that Donald F. McGahn II, Mr. Trump's White House counsel, would in all probability leave after the midterms. Mr. McGahn has been a key architect of Mr. Trump's successful efforts to appoint wave after wave of conservative judges, they said, and his absence would complicate a Supreme Court confirmation.

There is nothing particularly unusual in urging older justices to retire for partisan reasons.

Yeah, but its not usually done by and for the benefit of a President who's immunity from the law may soon be going before said Court.

During the Obama administration, prominent liberals called for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to retire so that Mr. Obama could name her successor.

I guess that was before they knew how low McConnel would stoop to subvert the Constitution.

Justice Kennedy waited until the last day of the term to announce his retirement. The move disappointed liberals who had hoped that he would not want Mr. Trump to name his successor. But the justice, saying he wanted to spend more time with his family, betrayed no hesitation.

Yeah, I expect his family had a great deal to do with it, albeit not in the way that he's claiming.

His departure is a triumph for Mr. Trump, who has taken particular satisfaction in his judicial appointments. Naming justices and judges is easier than forging legislative compromises, and Mr. Trump understands that his judicial appointments represent a legacy that will long outlast his presidency.

Replacing Justice Scalia with another conservative did not alter the basic ideological balance of the court. But replacing Justice Kennedy, who for decades held the decisive vote in many of the court's closely divided cases, would give Mr. Trump the opportunity to move the court sharply to the right.

Justice Kennedy visited the White House on Wednesday to tell Mr. Trump of his retirement and to deliver a letter setting out the details. Its warm opening words - "My dear Mr. President" - acknowledge a cordial relationship between the two men, as well as the success of the White House's strategy.

In short, this retirement was likely not the decision of an old man who just wanted to retire in peace, but the actions of a man was under intense political pressure, who had a close relationship with Trump, and who's son may very well be compromised in the Russia investigation.

[Elfdart]

1) If the Democrats take back the Senate, they should block any and all Trump appointees -no exceptions.

2) If they take both houses and the presidency in 2020, they should pack the shit out of the courts immediately. If that means the Supreme Court has 15 justices instead of 9, so be it. Ditto for all federal courts.

3) Guam, Samoa, Puerto Rico and D.C. should be admitted as states.

4) Since the GOP squeals like stuck pigs no matter what the Democrats do, by all means stick them. And remind them that like Lynne Cheney, payback is a bitch.

Great idea! Let's perpetuate the cycle of zero-sum partisanship that has led to near complete government deadlock for the better part of a decade, confirm for the die-hard right-wingers all of their conspiracy theories that the left wants to dismantle democracy, and generally continue to erode our government institutions in order to pave the way for more populist presidents! Burn the whole fucking thing down, man!

Since unconditional surrender to (and collaboration with) fascists isn't really my bag, I'm simply offering the only remotely plausible solution within the system of government we have. There's precedent for blocking nominees, admitting states and packing courts, so it's not like I'm calling for insurrection (Personally, I find it grotesque that some of the more fatuous Dems are styling themselves as #TheResistance when they spend so much time attacking lefties -a double insult to real resistance movements against fascism). You can't stomach a little hardball in politics? Fine. Let's hear your solution. In the meantime, I'd like to recommend this scene (esp the 2:00 mark) from The Best Man:

[Elfdart]

That does not automatically guarantee that the same Democrats will vote for Kennedy's replacement, especially since we are no longer in the "Trump's new, give him a chance" phase that some Democrats were dumb enough to fall for, that Gorsuch (as Scalia's replacement) essentially maintained rather than significantly shifting the existing balance of the court, and that Democrats now will be facing imminent midterms where they will depend on votes from people who DO NOT want to see them vote in a far Right Justice.

Except it's the same three (Donnelly, Heidkamp, Manchin) who usually vote with the GOP on things like this. They approved Trump's hand-picked torturer, along with Warner. You might as well spend all your next paycheck on lottery tickets if you think they'll vote against Trump's newest henchman.

Normally, I'd agree with most of that, although you should not dismiss the significance of the Mueller investigation and other investigations into Trump (even if they ultimately rely largely on Congressional support to protect them and to act on their conclusions). And hoping for "army generals with hearts of gold" to save us is essentially calling for a military coup, which is not what I'd call a "fairy tale" solution.

What significance will this probe have when, by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court rules that Mueller can't bring charges against Trump? As for the generals, I was referring to the silly notion among media types that the Pentagon and the ex-generals in the White House will defy Trump's more retarded commands or at least talk some sense into him. That is pure fantasy.

But considering the stakes here, I see no harm in trying to lobby a few of the... if not moderate, then less extreme/less committed to Trump of the Republican Senators, since its the only hope, however, slim, of blocking a potential theocratic fascist/Trump loyalist nominee. And its not completely hopeless; there are a few Senators who vote against Trump at least some of the time, and the occasional bill has been blocked or delayed before now. This time around, with McCain gone, we need only one defection. Note also that the typical time span for approving a Supreme Court Justice is reportedly about 140 days- which would put it past the midterms and into the lame duck session. While I expect McConnel to try to ram it through as fast as possible, delaying or voting down Trump's initial nominee might conceivably stall it until the new Senate comes in next year. Considering the likely price of failure (control of the Supreme Court by far Right theocrats for the foreseeable future), its at least worth trying, rather than writing off from the outset.

Here's what will happen: You will hear some "concern" from Susan Collins, Rand Paul or maybe St. McCain, but when the vote is held, they will vote for whatever fascist furball Trump coughs up. The only way you MIGHT see a Republican vote No is if enough Dems (see above) vote for the nominee to make one or two votes against meaningless. How do I know this? The same way I know the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning: That's what it has always done before and there's no reason to think this time will be any different.

2) If they take both houses and the presidency in 2020, they should pack the shit out of the courts immediately. If that means the Supreme Court has 15 justices instead of 9, so be it. Ditto for all federal courts.

I actually don't support this. Set that precedent, and you can bet every party thenceforth will pack the court until a Constitutional Amendment is passed prohibiting it. Its no good winning a short-term victory if it sets you up for a long-term defeat. Packing the court would effectively permanently destroy the impartiality and credibility of the Supreme Court.

A better option would be to a) try to block Kennedy's replacement now, and b) try to impeach Trump's appointees if possible, or declare Trump's appointees invalid if it turns out that Trump colluded with Russia, on the grounds that his Presidency is illegitimate. Of course, declaring a Presidency illegitimate has no precedent, and would be a Constitutional crisis that would have to be ruled on by the court- in which case, it would be reasonable to demand that both Trump appointees recuse themselves due to conflict of interest.

Let's compare and contrast our proposals here. I don't think anyone believes an openly partisan Court like the one we have now is anything close to impartial. Credibility? That went down the shitter with Bush v Gore in 2000. Humpty Dumpty fell into a fucking black hole. So hand-wringing over the loss of things that were gone with wind almost two decades ago is a waste of time. Stacking the courts would require simple majorities in both houses and a presidential signing. Impeaching the judges already appointed would require a two-thirds majority in the senate for each one. Declaring Trump's appointees invalid and demanding Gorsuch and the new judge recuse themselves would be about as effective as declaring Trump himself illegitimate and demanding the boiling point of water to change.

3) Guam, Samoa, Puerto Rico and D.C. should be admitted as states.

This is long overdue, but not really related to this issue.

Eight new Democratic senators would be VERY relevant.

[houser2112]

3) Guam, Samoa, Puerto Rico and D.C. should be admitted as states.

This is long overdue, but not really related to this issue.

Eight new Democratic senators would be VERY relevant.

Yes, they would, and I would love to see it happen. However, can Congress force a territory to become a state? The only one of those that I've heard inklings of a possibility for statehood is Puerto Rico, and the plebiscites they've conducted on the matter are inconclusive, if not leaning away.

[The Romulan Republic]

Except it's the same three (Donnelly, Heidkamp, Manchin) who usually vote with the GOP on things like this. They approved Trump's hand-picked torturer, along with Warner. You might as well spend all your next paycheck on lottery tickets if you think they'll vote against Trump's newest henchman.

Well, we'll see. But considering the stakes, I think it is irresponsible to advise people to give up and not even try to lobby Congress in this fight.

What significance will this probe have when, by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court rules that Mueller can't bring charges against Trump? As for the generals, I was referring to the silly notion among media types that the Pentagon and the ex-generals in the White House will defy Trump's more retarded commands or at least talk some sense into him. That is pure fantasy.

Probably, yes. You can't guide Trump-he's far too erratic and ego-maniacal for that.

About the most I hope for from our military establishment right now is that if Trump, say, decided to order a preemptive nuke launch on whim, there are some who would not immediately obey. And even that's a maybe.

Here's what will happen: You will hear some "concern" from Susan Collins, Rand Paul or maybe St. McCain, but when the vote is held, they will vote for whatever fascist furball Trump coughs up. The only way you MIGHT see a Republican vote No is if enough Dems (see above) vote for the nominee to make one or two votes against meaningless. How do I know this? The same way I know the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning: That's what it has always done before and there's no reason to think this time will be any different.

There have been a few cases where Republicans have defected under Trump (one of the health care votes, IIRC).

Again, considering the stakes, I think that it is irresponsible for you to tell people to concede the fight without even trying, because you KNOW what will happen in advance. Even if there were a .1% chance of stopping the nominee, I'd consider it a fight worth having.

Hell, we don't even have to stop it outright. Just stall it until the new Congress comes in.

I'm not even saying that we shouldn't do some of things you're suggesting as well. Just that this is also worth doing.

Let's compare and contrast our proposals here. I don't think anyone believes an openly partisan Court like the one we have now is anything close to impartial. Credibility? That went down the shitter with Bush v Gore in 2000. Humpty Dumpty fell into a fucking black hole. So hand-wringing over the loss of things that were gone with wind almost two decades ago is a waste of time. Stacking the courts would require simple majorities in both houses and a presidential signing. Impeaching the judges already appointed would require a two-thirds majority in the senate for each one.

Well, we're certainly not getting a Presidential signing on that before 2020, so that's a non-starter. But then, we're not getting a 2/3rds. Senate majority before 2020 either (its literally impossible, given which seats are up for grabs this year), so on this point its basically a wash.

Declaring Trump's appointees invalid and demanding Gorsuch and the new judge recuse themselves would be about as effective as declaring Trump himself illegitimate and demanding the boiling point of water to change.

I honestly don't know whether Gorsuch would recuse himself in that case. He'd be under tremendous pressure to do so, and Sessions recused himself from the investigation, so its possible another Trump pick would as well. I wouldn't want to bet on it though.

Frankly, there are no safe or sure options here. But while I fully acknowledge that the court's credibility and impartiality are badly compromised right now, I don't think the solution should be to just shrug, say "Its already broken", and then try to break it even more. This is where I usually end up disagreeing with the BURN IT ALL school of politics- I see a broken system and want to try to repair it and make it work. They see a broken system and say "Well, its already broken, might as well blow it up." Even when they don't have a functional replacement.

Your solution would set a lasting precedent for stacking the court to make it purely a partisan tool of whatever administration is currently in power. It would honestly be arguably less damaging to the country to just abolish the Supreme Court altogether, at that point.

Eight new Democratic senators would be VERY relevant.

That is based on the assumption that Guam, Puerto Rico, DC, and Samoa would all be reliably blue. That should not be a factor in whether their people should be granted their full rights and representation as Americans, of course, but it is relevant when discussing whether such an addition would benefit the Democratic party in their fight against Neo-Fascism.

I am confident that DC would be the bluest of the blue. I'm not so sure about the others, though if it were the Democratic Party that gave them their statehood, that might incline them to lean more blue.

[Elfdart]

I'm not suggesting they concede anything. I'm just pointing out the most likely scenario. If every Dem votes against the new judge, it's not enough. Republican defections are few, far between and usually offset by Democratic defections.

Your solution would set a lasting precedent for stacking the court to make it purely a partisan tool of whatever administration is currently in power.

That precedent was set back in 2016. If the Democrats let it go unavenged, they might as well shut down the party. Even centrist hacks like Chris Matthews have figured that out.

[Knife]

Meh, it's already 5 v4. If they are going for a turn of Roe v Wade, a couple of GOPers are going to have to vote yes against their records.

[Knife]

I'm not suggesting they concede anything. I'm just pointing out the most likely scenario. If every Dem votes against the new judge, it's not enough. Republican defections are few, far between and usually offset by Democratic defections.

Your solution would set a lasting precedent for stacking the court to make it purely a partisan tool of whatever administration is currently in power.

That precedent was set back in 2016. If the Democrats let it go unavenged, they might as well shut down the party. Even centrist hacks like Chris Matthews have figured that out.

Oh, I agree. The Dems should force the GOP to push the nuclear option just in front of a mid term. If the GOP d/c's the filibuster rule trying to stop the dems from stopping a SCOTUS nominee, should make the GOP pay.

[Rogue 9]

I'm not suggesting they concede anything. I'm just pointing out the most likely scenario. If every Dem votes against the new judge, it's not enough. Republican defections are few, far between and usually offset by Democratic defections.

Your solution would set a lasting precedent for stacking the court to make it purely a partisan tool of whatever administration is currently in power.

That precedent was set back in 2016. If the Democrats let it go unavenged, they might as well shut down the party. Even centrist hacks like Chris Matthews have figured that out.

Oh, I agree. The Dems should force the GOP to push the nuclear option just in front of a mid term. If the GOP d/c's the filibuster rule trying to stop the dems from stopping a SCOTUS nominee, should make the GOP pay.

They already did for Neil Gorsuch. Senate rules currently do not allow filibustering Supreme Court nominees.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Since unconditional surrender to (and collaboration with) fascists isn't really my bag, I'm simply offering the only remotely plausible solution within the system of government we have. There's precedent for blocking nominees, admitting states and packing courts, so it's not like I'm calling for insurrection (Personally, I find it grotesque that some of the more fatuous Dems are styling themselves as #TheResistance when they spend so much time attacking lefties -a double insult to real resistance movements against fascism). You can't stomach a little hardball in politics? Fine. Let's hear your solution. In the meantime, I'd like to recommend this scene (esp the 2:00 mark) from The Best Man:

Yes, yes, your bland, angry ranting is a grand and noble defense against fascism, and everyone who disagrees with you is just a cowardly Quisling. Really ironic that you vaguely refer to some other group of "fatuous Dems" attacking lefties, while you yourself are doing the self-same thing, claiming that YOUR solution is the ONLY PLAUSIBLE one, and that I'm just a grotesque coward for thinking that your "solution" is neither plausible nor helpful.

[Elfdart]

I'm still waiting for your solution.

[Knife]

I think the Dems should push, pull, bribe, Flake to flip to Dem. He's already announced he isn't running again, he's been talking a good game about anti Trump. The dems should give him a silver platter to serve up to him to be what he's trying to say he is.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm not suggesting they concede anything. I'm just pointing out the most likely scenario. If every Dem votes against the new judge, it's not enough. Republican defections are few, far between and usually offset by Democratic defections.

Your solution would set a lasting precedent for stacking the court to make it purely a partisan tool of whatever administration is currently in power.

That precedent was set back in 2016. If the Democrats let it go unavenged, they might as well shut down the party. Even centrist hacks like Chris Matthews have figured that out.

So, your "solution" is to just concede that the Supreme Court is permanently and irreparably a partisan tool, and double down on it? Essentially conceding that the notion of an independent judiciary is dead, and with it the rule of law as anything other than the will of the current party in power?

We absolutely need to address the Republicans' actions with regard to the Supreme Court- I think blocking any nominee is a good start, and trying to impeach Trump's appointments if possible. But I do not see any good coming in the long run from saying "Its broken, so let's break it harder and make sure it stays broke". That's the end of the Rule of Law, which is the foundation of a non-despotic government.

You can repeat all you want how its already discredited, but that doesn't change the fact that what you're offering is not a solution, but a perpetuation of the problem. If we're going to concede that its too late to fix or save our fundamental institutions, we might as well just go straight to civil war right now, because that's where it'll end up.

[The Jester]

With all due respect, the Republicans' actions with Garland and Gorsuch (and everything else in the past ~20 years) show that they're perfectly happy to use everything they can for partisan purposes regardless of what Democrats do. You're trying to win a game of monopoly against someone willing to blatantly steal money from the bank. Unless you take some serious action, gerrymandering, unlimited campaign contributions and voter suppression are only going to keep doing their thing.

Your judiciary isn't independent. It wasn't independent back in 2001 and it's very likely to get even worse by the end of the year.

If we're going to concede that its too late to fix or save our fundamental institutions, we might as well just go straight to civil war right now, because that's where it'll end up.

We're all royally fucked by global warming. Guess we may as well give up now.

The future obviously hasn't happened yet and there's a helluva a lot of stuff that can change it between it and now.

[Elfdart]

I'm not "conceding" any of those things any more than I'm "conceding" that water is wet. If this leaves you flabbergasted, I'd suggest you grow the fuck up.

We absolutely need to address the Republicans' actions with regard to the Supreme Court- I think blocking any nominee is a good start, and trying to impeach Trump's appointments if possible. But I do not see any good coming in the long run from saying "Its broken, so let's break it harder and make sure it stays broke". That's the end of the Rule of Law, which is the foundation of a non-despotic government.

Drama queen much? The Supreme Court has at various times had six, eight and nine members. The number of seats has been changed before and the sky didn't fall. So why all the pearl-clutching? The Constitution allows Congress to do it, so how in the world can it be The End Of The Rule Of Law to do it?

The good that will come from expanding the courts is that fascist judges will be effectively neutralized in a way that (a) is legal and (b) might be feasible in three years. Apparently, you'd rather counter forty years' worth of fascist jurisprudence with wishful thinking about impeaching/removing these judges.

[The Romulan Republic]

My response to both of you is:

Repeating "The Supreme Court is broken/corrupt/not independent" or "the Republicans play dirty" as if I'm just too stupid to get it does not address my point. Which is that what you are offering is not a solution to that problem, but simply conceding that the judicial system (which very much is the foundation of a society built on the Rule of Law) is irreparably broken. And there WILL be serious consequences for that. Yes, drastic actions may be necessary, but you need to consider, and address, the cons as well as the pros of the actions you support.

But of course, this just makes me stupid/a coward/a drama queen/"pearl-clutching" and all the other insults people here love to smear me and ad hominem me with, which conveniently means that you do not (or so you think) have to address my actual points.

If you want to, Elfdart, you might elaborate on the circumstances in which the number of justices was changed in the past, so that its more clear what the reasons were at the time and whether the circumstances parallel the current ones. You might also elaborate on why you feel that removing Trump's justices is impossible, and should be discarded out-of-hand in favor of doubling down on making the Supreme Court simply a partisan tool.

If you're just going to insult me, however (while hypocritically whining about Leftists attacking other Leftists)... well, I've had more than enough of shit-flinging fests (for which I usually get most of the blame) on this board, so if all you want to do is insult me, I'm not going to engage with that further.

[The Jester]

Repeating "The Supreme Court is broken/corrupt/not independent" or "the Republicans play dirty" as if I'm just too stupid to get it does not address my point. Which is that what you are offering is not a solution to that problem, but simply conceding that the judicial system (which very much is the foundation of a society built on the Rule of Law) is irreparably broken. And there WILL be serious consequences for that. Yes, drastic actions may be necessary, but you need to consider, and address, the cons as well as the pros of the actions you support.

But the claim isn't that it's irreparably broken. The claim is that it's so far gone that drastic action is required to have a hope of bringing it back to some semblance of balance. And yes, there are substantial risks and cons to that. Not going to disagree. That's what drastic action typically entails. But it doesn't have to be a good decision; just a better one than the alternatives.

A lot of people are going to end up suffering. That is unavoidable.

[The Romulan Republic]

Okay, fair enough, but how does your approach actually restore balance in the long-run, as opposed to simply entrenching as a norm that the Supreme Court is simply a partisan tool, and that consequently no trust can be placed by the people in the Justice System or the law unless their party is in power? I'm open to being convinced.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

But that is already entrenched reality.

[The Romulan Republic]

But that is already entrenched reality.

Again: Saying "its broken" over and over does not explain why yours' is the best or only solution to fix it, as opposed to breaking it further.

This is something that a lot of people seem to forget in political discussions, and it always leads to damaging knee-jerk arguments and actions (like people protest-voting for Trump in 2016, to take an obvious example). Pointing out a problem with the status quo is not sufficient justification by itself for following your proposed solution. You have to actually show how your solution can actually make things better, because as bad as things are, we are most definitely not living in the worst of all possible worlds.

I'm trying to think beyond reacting to what the Republicans are doing now, as important as that is, and to spare some thought to what sort of a society we're going to have in twenty years if we win the fight now. I don't want to pursue courses of action which will give us short-term gains, but only give us more problems in the long-run.

[The Jester]

I'm trying to think beyond reacting to what the Republicans are doing now, as important as that is, and to spare some thought to what sort of a society we're going to have in twenty years if we win the fight now. I don't want to pursue courses of action which will give us short-term gains, but only give us more problems in the long-run.

The World is going to be a vastly different place in 20 years that trying to make plans that far in advance is utterly meaningless. You need to look at the situation as one that needs to be incrementally improved and prioritise the most pressing issues as they arise. Fixing Citizens United would probably go a long way though.

EDIT: I should add, the pendulum will swing back against you sometimes. That's the nature of politics. But if you can keep its long term motion leftward, then you are doing better in the long-run.