Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer
Conservatives seem to love this. ACB would be the 3rd conservative member of this court (with Roberts and Thomas) who was on an appeals circuit for <3 years before getting the call-up to the big show. This would apply to Lagoa as well if she was the pick. (the only analogous liberal is Kagan, who didn't come from an appeals court and whose previous jobs were dean of Harvard Law and then Obama's solicitor general - Sotomayor/Breyer/RBG did major time on appeals courts before being nominated)
I have strong suspicions it's because experienced judges all have rulings that taint their ideological purity.
The need for ideological purity and penchant for nakedly political appointments aren't without historical precedent. We've seen it happen with both major parties during times of political polarization and/or when the more extreme wings of the respective parties are in charge. FDR's nominations were even more nakedly political than Amy Barret. Lyndon B Johnson put a crony into SCOTUS that would literally tell him how the Court was going to rule on any issue and eventually had to resign due to blatant ethics issues that surfaced.
Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, as justices at least, are well qualified justices who likely will keep politics at an arm''s length.
Amy Barret likely will do the same (to protect her husbands job and reputation if nothing else.) Her route to Appelate court was nakedly political but she served her 3 year stint there competently.
The GOP (and rest of us frankly, by not voting more and participating in political process more often) are definitely attacking many of the things that make USA exceptional. Trump has made a mockery of the White House. Mitch has made a mockery of the Senate/Congress. SCOTUS, for all of its faults and anti-democratic traits (by design), still stands as a testament to America's institutional strengths (namely the respect for rule of law, even if we disagree with the laws and even the justices that make the rulings).
Trump (and conservatives) ran super good getting 3 nominations with Senate. Are they doing it while representing ~45% of the country? Yeah. But the constitution was always designed to create rare circumstances while the minority could exert control. I think this trait has become a feature, intended or not, that has kept America from lurching from one political extreme to another as support for one party rises or drops below 50%. Its a feature that forces more ruling by consensus rather than my the imposition of the will of 51%, whatever that coalition happens to be at the time, on the rest.
I think the ask of Democrats and RINOs (I still consider myself an R but most would say INO) to get out of our current situation is clear: What are our solutions for Middle America?
That's the only way to chip away at the unified resentment much of the GOP base has toward, as they'd perceive it, the coastal elites who, increasingly, look, speak, grow up, and just generally have totally different experiences growing up. Take the 2016 election for example, Hillary, the Dems, and even liberals essentially giving up on steel and coals workers, caused enough unions members that historically voted reliably Democratic to flip for Trump, taking PA (definitely) and Ohio (probably) with them.
More recently, many posters around have wanted Manchin to just leave the Democratic party and some even said John Lewis wasn't worthy of the admiration he got because he became an Establishment Dem and, in essence, was ideologically tainted.
Last edited by grizy; 09-23-2020 at 10:33 PM.