• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

FWIW, here is the current age of the Supreme Court justices:

Barrett 49
Gorsuch 53
Kavanaugh 56
Kagan 60
Sotomayor 66
Roberts 66
Alito 70
Thomas 72
Breyer 82

Not clear if the Dems will hold a majority of the Senate after 2022 (20 Republican and 14 Democratic seats up; 3 Republican incumbents have announced they will not run: Burr (NC), Toomey (PA), Portman (OH)) . Given that Republicans only need to net flip one seat to take control of the Senate, it would be risky to put the confirmation process back in Mitch McConnell's hands. Will be interesting to see how many, if any, SCOTUS vacancies open over the next year and a half. Breyer seems like a lock to step down. Not sure if he will be the only one.

I don't see any way that Alito or Thomas retire with the Democrats having the White House and Senate.
 
Dems need to take more seats in 22 and expand the Supreme Court.
 
There are more Republican seats in play than Dems in 2022. If they have 52-54 in the Senate, the first thing they should do is end the filibuster. Then add DC and Puerto Rico as states. When their Senators are elected, then they should expand the Supreme Court.
 
If it were possible for Dems in 2022 to add to senate majority PA (very possible), WI (fairly possible), NC (50-50), & then a wild card form somewhere else (Blunt?) and not lose any seats, then you might be able to make some of those arguments RJ mentions above.
 
If it were possible for Dems in 2022 to add to senate majority PA (very possible), WI (fairly possible), NC (50-50), & then a wild card form somewhere else (Blunt?) and not lose any seats, then you might be able to make some of those arguments RJ mentions above.

We would also have to hold the House to expand the SC. Not a guarantee, even if we expand our lead in the Senate (see Pubs in 2018).
 
Junebug, what do you think about the Ginni Thomas on the CT SCOTUS clerk listserv stuff? Interesting to me that she just assumed all of Thomas' former clerks are partisan hacks like she is.

*lol, my phone tried to correct your name to "humbug", which is a good joke.
 
Yeah, I know 4 people from law school who clerked for him (2 people from my class and 1 each from the classes above/below mine) and 2 more from private practice, and none of them are Trumplicans. Law clerks are not going to challenge their judge's spouse on their political views, but, still, she should know that Trump has divided the party.
 
I'm wondering why GT is allowed to post on that listserv at all? As a de facto directory of the conservative intelligentsia, makes sense a political operative would want to make use of it.

I'm a big fan of the counter clerk, though I'm not sure if it really exists anymore in practice. I'm guessing CT isn't willing to countenance challenges to his own biases like Scalia apparently was.
 
The Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering was fine. Seems like partisan voting restrictions would be fine too.
 
Feel free to make partisan decisions to Disenfranchise people when you are in power as long as you admit it out loud? 'Merica!
 
next thing you know GOP will push that black people only count 3/5 of a white person again...in order to stay competitive with Demarcates

'merica
 
Maybe let’s wait for a ruling before we start screaming the sky is falling.
 
Maybe let’s wait for a ruling before we start screaming the sky is falling.

The sky is falling. SCOTUS says partisan gerrymandering is ok no matter how egregious. This will only lead to increased radicalization. We're headed toward an autocracy if the leaders keep choosing their constituents.
 
Back
Top