• 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!

the official new supreme court thread - Very political

I’m curious what you don’t like about Harrison.

Oh and I have nothing against Harrison personally. Never met the guy.
But as a former Democratic National Committee Chair he is all about the Democratic agenda. Many issues, including their key leaders (Pelosi, Schumer) I have no use for.
 
How old would one have to be to be deserving? And at what age would one cease to be capable of of serving?

She had been a lawyer for all of 12 years, 3 of which was clerking before becoming a Circuit Court Judge with no judicial experience whatsoever.

Personally, I think there should be a graduated scale for District Court Judges, Circuit Court and Supreme. Regardless, I think someone should be practicing for at least 15 years before being nominated to the bench. Especially Federal Court. In terms of retirement, I think there should be forced retirement at 70, but I can be convinced to push it to 75. No older.
 
I respect that though I disagree that nominating "conservatives" to the Court are "blatantly political nominees". They have views; they have ways the interpret things. But they are all qualified.
Antoin Scalia was as qualified and exemplary a jurist as RBG was.

I would argue that these justices are much further to the right and more partisan than most justices nominated up until the Reagan years. They are much more blatantly political. Scalia is actually perfect example of what I'm saying. He no doubt was "qualified" under the usual metrics of that term, but if enough justices like him had sat on the Court gays still wouldn't be allowed to marry in most (if any) states, abortion would be illegal in most states, and many other social and minority advances over the past half-century would either be in peril or not have happened at all. And that's the GOP goal - put as many Scalias as possible on the Court to form a supermajority. And that, in turn, ultimately justifies liberals trying to expand the Court if they get the power.
 
Last edited:
I would argue that these justices are much further to the right and more partisan than most justices nominated up until the Reagan years. They are much more blatantly political. Scalia is actually perfect example of what I'm saying. He no doubt was "qualified" under the usual metrics of that term, but if enough justices like him had sat on the Court gays still wouldn't be allowed to marry in most (if any) states, abortion would be illegal in most states, and many other social and minority advances over the past half-century would either be in peril or not have happened at all. And that's the GOP goal - put as many Scalias as possible on the Court to form a supermajority. And that, in turn, ultimately justifies liberals trying to expand the Court if they get the power.

I get it; I do. You make excellent points. Frankly I am the most socially liberal of a Pub you'll find. I think that right wing Evangelists shit heads are as much of a of a threat as the far left asshole throwing a Molotov cocktail, if not more. And there's no way Roe should be over turned though abortion is the ultimate powder keg. Some of the most progressive people I know on many issues stand against abortion or feel it should be limited. And for the record, (ask RJ, we discussed this) I'm for a more balanced Court and would rather the election winner name his appointee in January.

I just don't feel that what is being done is neither surprising or unconstitutional. And I do (again) believe that stacking the Court can and will bite the Dems in the ass.
 
Of course stacking the court will eventually be used against the Democrats. Then you just have to stack it again and repeat the process until the Supreme Court undergoes some extreme reform through the amendment process which it desperately needs.
 
I get it; I do. You make excellent points. Frankly I am the most socially liberal of a Pub you'll find. I think that right wing Evangelists shit heads are as much of a of a threat as the far left asshole throwing a Molotov cocktail, if not more. And there's no way Roe should be over turned though abortion is the ultimate powder keg. Some of the most progressive people I know on many issues stand against abortion or feel it should be limited. And for the record, (ask RJ, we discussed this) I'm for a more balanced Court and would rather the election winner name his appointee in January.

I just don't feel that what is being done is neither surprising or unconstitutional. And I do (again) believe that stacking the Court can and will bite the Dems in the ass.

The problem with your argument is that the Dems have already been bitten in the ass, first with how Senate Republicans have treated them since Obama took office, and then with Garland. At some point you have to start fighting back and giving them a taste of their own medicine, as it's clear that nothing else works. With a 6-3 hard-right majority on the Court almost a certainty, there are no other real options at this point. The Republicans aren't going to listen to anything else. It's the Republicans who need to be bitten in the ass for once, and where it hurts.
 
Yes, sorry to disappoint. I know you Dems get a kick out of calling all Pubs, anti-immigrant.
And really, HD. Nothing about naming nominees to the Court that are "young adults with an ideological and partisan agenda for decades" is unconstitutional or "abusing the lifetime appointment feature"
Sounds like sour grapes to me, let alone far from accurate.

Wait, you admit that you are ok with placing judges with a partisan agenda rather than those that will reliably uphold our laws. Just sour grapes.
 
Oh and I have nothing against Harrison personally. Never met the guy.
But as a former Democratic National Committee Chair he is all about the Democratic agenda. Many issues, including their key leaders (Pelosi, Schumer) I have no use for.

So just partisan reasons.
 
Of course stacking the court will eventually be used against the Democrats. Then you just have to stack it again and repeat the process until the Supreme Court undergoes some extreme reform through the amendment process which it desperately needs.

How do we get past the 41% gap of republicans having more kids than democrats?
 
She had been a lawyer for all of 12 years, 3 of which was clerking before becoming a Circuit Court Judge with no judicial experience whatsoever.

Personally, I think there should be a graduated scale for District Court Judges, Circuit Court and Supreme. Regardless, I think someone should be practicing for at least 15 years before being nominated to the bench. Especially Federal Court. In terms of retirement, I think there should be forced retirement at 70, but I can be convinced to push it to 75. No older.

Makes sense.
 
How old would one have to be to be deserving? And at what age would one cease to be capable of of serving?

However old you are that you have more than a year and half of judicial experience.

Since 1900 the youngest Judge on the Supreme Court was William Douglas who was 40. Before that the next youngest to sit on the court was Joseph Story in 1811 at the ripe old age of 32.
 
Before the initial post gets buried, can we return to the ridiculous open borders accusation? Democrats don’t want open borders.

Deacspop will just never vote for a Democrat. Being a Republican is part of his personal identity. It is one of his most cherished personal values. Doesn’t matter that the party doesn’t represent him anymore. He’ll excuse it all away and hopefully enjoy another Trump term while believing his conscience is clean. Doesn’t need to see Harrison’s platform, doesn’t need to talk to the person, just seeing the D next to the name is enough to know. And if that starts to waver, just make up some fake outrage like open borders or BLM Marxism.
 
Stacking the Court is different than following the rule of law and appointing SC Judges, a Presidential function. I understand the Dems have the right and can change law to add justices if they win the Senate/WH in 2020. And I know its been used (and rebuked) in our history.

I don't quite understand how these are different to be honest. Tying this in with your earlier statement about how the Founder/Framers would "frown" upon "stacking" (expanding) the court but would be fine with partisan selection, I really don't understand the distinction or difference.

First and foremost, the reason that there is an advice and consent function is because the Framers agreed that it was "suboptimal" to have the Senate alone decide and felt similarly regarding the executive in that they were "by no means disposed to grant so great a power to any single person." George Mason stated that having the executive alone appoint such justices was a "dangerous prerogative" since it could "give him an influence over the judiciary itself" (whoops). Multiple efforts to allow the executive individual appointment power failed when voted upon.

Alexander Hamilton (of course) first suggested the advice and consent compromise, but comments from the Framers indicate that they actually found that this arrangement crippled the executive. "The president will not be the man of the people as he ought to be, but a minion of the Senate. He cannot even appoint a tide-waiter without the Senate." Nearly every Framer on record agreed with this view of the respective powers.

The Framers didn't really seem to have much of an opinion that I can find on expanding the Supreme Court or not, they intentionally left this power to the Congress to do as they please. The Framers didn't set any age limits, qualifications, or requirements for the Court nor did they set the size of the Court.

With all this in mind, it's pretty difficult to argue that one party - by attempting to expand the Court if they so choose, as clearly allowed without an Amendment or law to the contrary - is acting much different than the Senate merely acting as a rubber stamp for the executive's nominee if they are from the same party. Particularly given the Framers' respective awareness and understanding of each - while choosing to expressly pass on the former and address head on the latter with robust debate.
 
Last edited:
court stacking was rebuked?

Yeah I don't really see much about this either. The most famous instance that could be closest to a "rebuke" is the "switch in time that saved nine" when Justice Roberts switched from his normal jurisprudential views in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish to side with upholding FDR's New Deal legislation. But even with that switch, the court expansion bill still existed in Congress but was held up after the Senate Majority Leader who was in favor of it passed away and the Senate Judiciary Chair chose not to act on the bill for over 5 months - likely because the threat to the New Deal legislation no longer really existed from the SCOTUS. But we don't really know if that was the direct reason for it.

Regardless, it's difficult to call that a "rebuke." Most people I see just seem to assume that there are required to be nine justices on the SCOTUS (even though this obviously isn't the case) and that any change is far more an institutional threat than it is in reality when you look at Congress' ability to simply pass a law to change the size of the Court.
 
Yeah I don't really see much about this either. The most famous instance that could be closest to a "rebuke" is the "switch in time that saved nine" when Justice Roberts switched from his normal jurisprudential views in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish to side with upholding FDR's New Deal legislation. But even with that switch, the court expansion bill still existed in Congress but was held up after the Senate Majority Leader who was in favor of it passed away and the Senate Judiciary Chair chose not to act on the bill for over 5 months - likely because the threat to the New Deal legislation no longer really existed from the SCOTUS. But we don't really know if that was the direct reason for it.

Regardless, it's difficult to call that a "rebuke." Most people I see just seem to assume that there are required to be nine justices on the SCOTUS (even though this obviously isn't the case) and that any change is far more an institutional threat than it is in reality when you look at Congress' ability to simply pass a law to change the size of the Court.

Exactly it wasn't rebuked, it was used as political leverage by FDR because the Supreme Court tried to shoot down all the New Deal legislation that was being passed by FDR and the Democratic Party. Once the court backed off, the Democrats backed off.

So if a 6-3 Republican majority Court starts to roll back decisions and legislation that 75% of the country is in favor of because of their outdated ideology then you better fucking believe that we're going to expand that Court.
 
She had been a lawyer for all of 12 years, 3 of which was clerking before becoming a Circuit Court Judge with no judicial experience whatsoever.

Personally, I think there should be a graduated scale for District Court Judges, Circuit Court and Supreme. Regardless, I think someone should be practicing for at least 15 years before being nominated to the bench. Especially Federal Court. In terms of retirement, I think there should be forced retirement at 70, but I can be convinced to push it to 75. No older.

I agree with your entry requirements. But I disagree with your forced retirement recommendations. In my opinion, RBG was perfectly capable and qualified to discharge her obligations as a Supreme Court justice at age 87. Why would you want to lose the experience and wisdom of an RBG because of a number?
 
I agree with your entry requirements. But I disagree with your forced retirement recommendations. In my opinion, RBG was perfectly capable and qualified to discharge her obligations as a Supreme Court justice at age 87. Why would you want to lose the experience and wisdom of an RBG because of a number?

I agree with the idea of entry requirements. Part of the reason I'm opposed to Lagoa and Allison Jones being nominated to the Supreme Court is that they have less than two years on a circuit court - to me, that's a rather limited amount.

I see an upper age limit as similar to enacting term limits in Congress (which is something I support 100%). It would allow for more rotations through the Supreme Court; couple that with entry requirements, and realistically the longest someone would be able to serve is around 20 years - long enough to make plenty of impact, but not so long to have the seat held by one person for 30+ years, as we saw with John Paul Stevens and will hit next year with Clarence Thomas.
 
Every nominee should have defended at least one indigent defendant charged with capital murder.
 
Back
Top