Re: Me Me Me Democrats Think The Republicans Should Give Them The US Supreme Court Nomination For Them To Name The Justice Who Will Succeed Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Posted by:
Now lets look at the boods
()
Date: September 30, 2020 11:26PM
How Supreme Court justices have been selected has been governed by a few written rules and a larger number of traditional ones. The only rule set in stone though was the one that said that no justice could be removed from the court unless he died, resigned or was impeached.
For the period starting right after the blatant effort of Federalists to pack the courts before Jefferson took office, regardless of which party controlled the Senate and regardless of the president's party, the general rule was if the president nominated a reasonable, qualified candidate, the Senate would confirm him. There were a few blatant exceptions to this. The first major exception was after the Civil War when the Republican Congress deliberately reduced the size of the Supreme Court to prevent Johnson from being able to appoint any justices, and then immediately returned it to its previous size when Grant took office. The second was during the last year of the LBJ administration when Republican Senators joined with conservative Southern Democrats to prevent Johnson from appointing Justice Fortas to succeed retiring Chief Justice (and Republican) Earl Warren so that Nixon was ultimately able to appoint Burger. The most recent instance before 2016 was when Clarence Thomas squeaked through. Although there were more than enough Democrats to prevent the Thomas nomination from proceeding to a final vote, the Democrats did not prevent the vote.
What the asswipe from Kentucky did in 2016 was a raw exercise of power which as majority leader he clearly had the ability to do under Senate rules, but which had absolutely no basis in precedent. Having done that he turned around and expanded Harry Reid's simple majority rule to Supreme Court nominees. Now he's saying that his rationale for not considering the Gorsuch nomination in 2016 does not apply in 2020 because its his own president's nominee that is being considered. No question there is nothing in the written in stone rules which prevents him from doing this.
However naked exercises of power can be met with naked exercises of power. Majorities are seldom permanent and the presidency switches from party to party. Nine justices on the Supreme Court isn't written in stone. We have had different numbers in the past. There is a good reason why the number of justices should be expanded. Currently individual Supreme Court justices are appointed to supervise the circuit courts. Since there are more than nine circuits certain justices have to supervise multiple circuits. It would only take a bare majority of Democrats in the House, the Senate and a Democratic president to change the rules on the number of justices on the court. Having changed that number the Democrats could then fill those new spots without any change among current members. Then if Republicans can gain control of the House, Senate and presidency they can do the same.
This nightmare scenario of the Supreme Court being reduced to being a mere political football is exactly what current Chief Justice Roberts has been fighting against. The U.S. Supreme Court fucked up royally when it stepped into the Bush-Gore fight. Bush-Gore stands with Plessy v. Ferguson, Dred Scott and Koromatsu was the biggest wounds the Supreme Court inflicted on itself. Ironically it was totally unnecessary.
The reality though is that neither Donald Trump nor Mitch McConnell can act any differently than they currently are. Its a myth that Republicans have not been in control of the courts. However it is a myth that the Republican base believes. The Republican base would never forgive a Republican president or a Republican senate from not taking whatever steps they could to cement a Republican controlled court. And your comments OP clearly demonstrate this.