After the Election and assuming the D's win all 3 then I say make it a 13 or 15 judge panel and fill it with D's.

The Democrats needs to start defending themselves more and become just as ruthless as the Republicans
The majority of America Does not want A conservative majority in the SC

Packing the court is a horrible idea. So what if Trump wins and the Republicans retain the Senate and win the House. You're OK with the adding 6 seats giving the Republicans a super majority 12-3?

If Trump wins let em do whatever the f they want.

If Biden wins and We win the senate+ house I say we ram and jam every liberal judge and policy down their throats

1 out of 4 Judges in America have been appointed by Trump


Let the people speak.

Trump wins then the people have spoken and same goes for the Senate

Whoever wins a fair election should have the right to install the policies that the people chose no matter which side wins

I know you're much better at politics than I am so go ahead

I'm all ears

This much seems obvious. It's now time to put to bed these idiotic ideas of American exceptionalism. It was a lie all along guys.

It's going to get ugly but I do have faith that in the end the Election will be fair and all the votes will be counted

America has been holding free and fair elections for a long time and until proven not to work I have faith that it does and will work

So the Dems can't do anything if the Repubs want to do this before next year? Yikes, they might win the battle but lose the war. Dems will be even more motivated to un-rig the system (DC/PR statehood, electoral college, jerrymandering, voting rights, etc) and this will cause even more partisanship, rancor, lack of civility and then the Repubs will of course retailate and it will go tit for tat until...?

Also, lol at the group of people who tie so much of their self worth to preventing gay people from getting married or women from having abortions. What an utterly humourless and pathetic existence.

All the people on your little Island would be speaking German if not for American exceptionalism
That or you might not even have an Island if not for American exceptionalism


Not all Americans are stupid fat ****s like you seem to think


(only about 41%-46% are )

What is the supposed rationale for distinguishing between preventing a vote in an election year when the president is the opposite party as the Senate but not when they are in the same party?

Probably more due to Turing and the code breakers who were responsible for the Midway win and to the fact that Hitler hated Jews so much they moved west.

lol is this a serious question? I think you already know the answer

There is no rationale for any of this other than "We control the senate so we have the power to seat or deny anyone we want." Why do people try to argue these dumb things on the merits? McConnell's "rule" was total bullshit. The fact that Dems are arguing "But what about your rule??" is silly. There is no rule. It's an excuse. Now they came up with a new excuse.

They got the Senate and they got the White House and they literally re-wrote the rulebook on SCOTUS confirmations in 2017, so that's pretty much it. If they want to and got the votes, they can get another SCOTUS judge confirmed.

Confirming SCOTUS judges on simple majority and pledging to do it in a short time-span would be potentially disastrous approaches on their own, together it's fairly horrifying. Not necessarily in a political sense though. If one views SCOTUS seats as merely a political victory, then it makes perfect sense - especially in a common law system. Of course viewing SCOTUS seats as merely political victories is in itself emblematic of a system which is far gone, so there is that.

So yeah, the lesson is a sad one. The US is currently in a political climate where blocking a SCOTUS candidate with wide bi-partisan support (Garland) and confirming a candidate with simple majority a year later was seen as a great political win. That pretty much leaves opponents of choosing a new SCOTUS judge now with only one viable path: To make doing so a political loss. I think that is an uphill battle of gargantuan proportions, esp. considering it could be done in lame duck sessions with no immediate election cost.

I should probably caveat that I write this post as someone who sees common law systems as beautiful to look at, but outdated and archaic. A bit like living in a medieval castle; romantic, then it starts raining in cold seasons and you die of pneumonia.

I think you got American exceptionalism confused with Soviet exceptionalism?

Can someone explain to me the importance of highlighting that there are most likely 2 dissenting republican senators to voting on a Supreme Court justice replacement during this term of the US presidency? One that faces a tough re-election and the other who has dissented before on a nomination picked by the republicans - is that really a significant enough obstacle to the republicans that it should be reported as being a big deal?

These four Rs in bold have committee spots and competitive Senate elections.
Committee is 12-10.

Each one is going to have to decide for themselves what is the bigger political risk. Voting "aye" or "nay".

I think in the end they role with the social conservative vote/Supreme Court voters. And all vote "aye". They may not win their election even with this vote. But they will certainly lose without it.

Majority
Lindsey Graham, South Carolina, Chairman
Chuck Grassley, Iowa
John Cornyn, Texas
Mike Lee, Utah
Ted Cruz, Texas
Ben Sasse, Nebraska
Josh Hawley, Missouri
Thom Tillis, North Carolina
Joni Ernst, Iowa
Mike Crapo, Idaho
John Kennedy, Louisiana
Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee

*Democrats*
Dianne Feinstein, California, Ranking Member
Patrick Leahy, Vermont
Dick Durbin, Illinois
Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island
Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota
Chris Coons, Delaware
Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii
Cory Booker, New Jersey
Kamala Harris, California

The importance of it is that there is a non-zero chance that at least 2 other Republicans will join them and therefore block Trump's nomination.

Ok so absolutely nothing for highlighting it. Why am I not surprised

I would say hardly any. and I would say far less than the number of poor people with violence inflicted upon them by the authorities. I mean, how many people have you helped evict recently?

I'm trying to keep an open mind about what point you're trying to make but I really just can't even imagine how you think it's not worthy of discussion.

Not trying to derail, but I don't think Turing had anything to do with codebreaking in the Pacific.

There's another lesson which is that the running of a country by a bunch of 'wise men' appointed for life, interpreting an ancient text is most unlikely to end well.

USA have to get rid of the system cos there's really not much point complaining when the inevitable happens.

Not what he was saying.

The Supreme Court doesn't run the country as a matter of law or as a matter of fact. And "getting rid of the system" inevitably would vest more power in the other branches of government. No matter how broken you think the judicial branch is, it is less broken than the executive branch or the Senate.