The Dems don't even have 50 votes to get rid of the filibuster.

What don't you understand... Both parties like the idea of the filibuster. Allows them the ability of not having to take hard votes and vote on the dumpster fire bills that the House sends.

Dems would relish the day Roe is overturned and the GOP dreads it. State legislature races will become polarized.

But Roe is never being overturned. It is the literal carrot for social conservative voters. On this current court I think you may have only Alito and Thomas that would vote to overturn. Roberts, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch would just scream "stare decisis" over and over again.

And if they do that, Biden will be forced to go with DC statehood, end the fillibister and name at least 3 new SCOTUS judges.

No. There is nothing in the constitution about the number of justices on the court. It's been up to 15 judges at one time.


The average lifespan was 40 when the constitution was written. 77 now. Lifetime appointment means a lot more these days.

There's a law. It says 9 Supreme Court justices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1869

There could be a new law, though.
It would just need to pass the House, have 60 votes to pass the Senate filibuster and be signed by the President.

There is a Constitutional argument that DC (the federal district) cannot be a State. Guess where that gets decided --- Supreme Court.

The Dems don't have the votes to end the filibuster. They like being a slow and "deliberative" body.

Interestingly (to me at least, since I just read up on this), it replaced the Judicial Circuits Act from 1866, which congress passed in large part to prevent Andrew Johnson from selecting new judges and reduced the amount from ten to seven. Under Ulysses Grant they decided that this president was a much better fit for their tastes and passed a new act, setting the number at nine.

History is a funny thing.

It only needs 60 votes to pass a filibuster if a simple majority of Senators say it does.

Anyway, congrats on killing the ACA and taking away health care from millions of people so that you could save a few hundred bucks on your taxes. You win.

What's funny is the ACA was explicitly on the legislative agenda and it failed to even get a 50 vote threshold by people who represent a minority of Americans so the route to striking down the ACA with democratic legitimacy is now Trump was voted to put a Supreme Court Justice in who would then strike down the ACA so it's what the voters want! Don't even need 50 votes in the Senate to do it.

Yeah, even with reconciliation they couldn’t get 50% of the senate who represent about 33% of the population to overturn the ACA lol. But lecture us all on democracy republicans

Wookie:

What Harry Reid did was exercise the nuclear option

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclea...upreme%20Court.

in order to waive the [then standing] Senate rule on the confirmation of lower court judicial appointments.

I'm trying to recall this from memory, but Reid's action was triggered by Republican attempts to kill the Affordable Care Act. At least two cases challenging the legality of the ACA were working their way up through district courts and were likely to wind up being argued before three-judge appeals court panels. From there the cases could go up to the U.S. Supreme Court as the "losing" side was sure to appeal.

In close consultation with the Obama administration, a decision was [apparently] made to try and circumvent the cases moving from the appeals courts to the U.S. Supreme Court. (The fear among Obama and the Dems was that the ACA might be struck down if one or more of the challenges made its way to the SCOTUS.)

There were a number of open [unfilled] seats on the appeals court benches. Obama and Reid wanted to appoint more "liberal" judges to these lower court vacancies as these nominees would [presumably] be more likely to uphold the ACA. Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, naturally resisted the appointment of liberal judges. The "filibuster rule" existing at that time allowed Republicans to effectively block a judicial nomination as it would require 60 votes (in the Senate) to negate the filibuster and clear the way for confirmation of the nominee. The Democrats did not have enough votes to block the filibuster. Realizing this, Harry Reid - who was the Senate Majority Leader - "changed the rules" so that a nominee could be confirmed on a simple majority vote. (Reid tried to have it both ways by insisting that this rule change would apply only to lower court nominees and not to Supreme Court nominees.) So, based on this rule change, (which was labeled the "nuclear option"), Harry Reid and the Democrats were able to get a handful of liberal judges confirmed and placed on the appeals courts.

This waiving of the filibuster rule infuriated McConnell and the Republicans. In fact, McConnell issued a statement at the time promising that Democrats would [eventually] rue the day they exercised the nuclear option. Now it's payback time.

It has nothing to do with ideology. If Trump wins another term, I'd bet on Manchin voting in favor of a Trump nominee. But he won't yes on a Trump nominee unless Trump is reelected. The only possible exception would be if he has decided to switch parties. I guess that I can't 100% rule that out.

I would be very surprised if the Court agreed to hear a case that presented an unavoidable direct challenge to Roe.

And I agree with you re social conservatives. If you are catering to that group, Roe is much better as a fugitive than as a captured prisoner. But abortion rights will continue to be incrementally eroded.

I think the current makeup of the Senate is 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats and 2 Independents (that caucus with the Democrats).

The Republicans can afford to only have 3 of their senators defect and say wait until after the election. The number is currently at 2 with Collins and Murkowski saying wait. Senators return to work tomorrow and it will be interesting to see if any other Republicans join the wait until after the election group. And to reiterate a point I made in a recent post, although the Republicans can currently afford to have 3 say wait, if Democrat Kelly wins the Arizona special election for late Sen. McCain's seat, then after maybe the end of November the Republicans can only lame duck session confirm with 2 Republicans defections. Therefore, expect the Republicans/McConnell to move very fast to confirm if they have 3 or less defections.

Read her quote carefully.
Collins is voting Aye, after the election.

Politically it makes no sense to vote on this prior to the election.
Trump will nominate. Then turtle will say Schumer and the Dems are “obstructing”.
They will start proceedings and see what the polls say.
If the polls look bad they will delay.
But this SCOTUS judge is getting approved.
Likely in the Lame Duck.

Thanks avwal.

lol, is awval trying to lecture people about politics?

Nothing going to stop sitting president from appointing a scotus. Tough break losers!

For the benefit of everyone who forgot, could you remind us again what a non-Trumper you are? Thx.

Talking about the supreme Court itt. Try to keep up, sport!

"Muh president is gonna appoint Alex Jones to the SC so suck it, libs!" is hardly an insightful contribution on your part.

awval is this your Twitter? Weird that your RTs are significantly more deplorable than the "moderate" facade you present on this forum.

Maybe you will be less upset after tea and crumpets! Probably not though

Oh ****, the world's greatest detective just met his match!

Surely the rumors that Justice Ginsburg never hired any African-American law clerks are false. Let's all hope so!