Pete Buttigieg 2020 campaign megathread

[MarkD]

But Mayor Pete does have a fascinating plan for how to appoint Supreme Court Justices, and he got this idea from Yale Law Journal.

[MarkD]

He doesn’t support outright court packing though. He believes the court needs some kind of reform to depoliticized it, which I think most people agree with, but he doesn’t have a specific proposal for it. He just likes to bring up the 15 seat theory as an example of a potential reasonable proposal. What he specifically said in the debate is that we should bring together a panel of legal experts and scholars to come together on this issue to hash out some kind of reform that would depoliticized the court.

This is interesting to me. Depoliticizing the Supreme Court is the single most important issue to me -- in presidential politics -- and I like the direction Pete is heading in. I first read about Pete's views on this a little over two months ago in this article and it made me take his candidacy very seriously. The only thing about him and his idea that worried me was this quote in the article, "It's not a debate on how to make the court more progressive. Obviously, I'd like to see a court that is more in line with my values. So would everybody else." What I value most about the Supreme Court is that it should be made up of the nine most objective interpreters of law that we can find in the country.

I regret that I wasn't able to watch the debates, and I'm pleased to learn here that he talked about his Supreme Court plan during the debate, if that is what you are saying he did. If you could tell me, please, did any other candidates ever talk about their Supreme Court plans during the debates? The only other thing I've heard about it was someone told me Bernie Sanders rejected the idea of expanding the number of seats on the Court.

[MarkD]

MAYOR PETE! in third place in latest Iowa poll:

http://www.focusonruralamerica.com/2019/09/18/september-2019-poll-results/

Momentum!

[MarkD]

If I wanted Republicans on the Supreme Court, I'd vote for Donald Trump.

His plan for a large chunk of SC seats being chosen by the Justices themselves has already been up for, like, months... If you want someome who'll pack the courts and get you some policy wins, followed by a GOP President packing the court with 10 Roy Moores, enjoy it. Right now, Buttigieg is the only one with the plan to make the American SC less of a polarized partisan war, and by the way, when the Court isn't polarized it ususally becomes a court the right hates. The fact that everyone is latching onto him mentioning Kennedy (which was a mistake) while the disastrous plan half the candidates are suggesting isn't getting scrutinized is a good representation of current politics (especially in twitter).

I'm very skeptical of all these "reform the Supreme Court" plans.

What happens when the GOP puts Brett Kavanaugh on the bench and he steadfastly refuses to approve any SC justice who isn't a hardcore right-wing partisan?

Does the court simply run with 14 justices?  Is there an interim appointee?  If so, how do you guarantee that the interim appointee isn't a partisan hack, thus motivating the GOP to constantly deny new appointments and just pack the court with interim appointees via this loophole?

Buttigieg's plan isn't perfect, to be honest, it's just the best one out there right now because the American judiciary system beign a constant partisan fistfight is extremely unhealthy. I'd create a committee of both congresspeople, the Attorney General and several Justices (chosen by the Court) to appoint any new justices. It would take time, but I do believe it'd make the judiciary less polarized with the years.

Hear, hear!!

I hope you mean that "less polarized" means less subjective, more objective. The reason the Court is almost entirely insulated from political pressure (lifetime appointments; no accountability to the other two branches; the Justices themselves attend the State of the Union Address but never applaud when the President says political things) is because they need to have the elbow room to do their jobs objectively. What else is the Supreme Court supposed to be than the nine (or more) most highly objective interpreters of law that we can find in the whole country?

I believe BOTH parties are to blame, Averroes, for why the Court is politicized. Presidents of BOTH PARTIES have chosen to appoint people to the Supreme Court for the wrong reasons -- selected appointees for their ideology, not their objectivity. Regardless of which party has controlled the chamber, the Senate has completely failed in its responsibility of "advising" the President to look for the quality of objectivity. The Senate has looked for ideological reasons too. That is why I like your idea, Parrotguy, of involving the Court itself in the selection of new Justices, and why I like Buttigieg's plan, so long as all of the Justices who are involved HAVE TO BE UNANIMOUS in agreeing who to select for appointment.

[MarkD]

I would pay to see a Mayor Pete v Trump debate.  I'd give it about 10 minutes before Trump starts yelling slurs at him.

Yup!

Pete's my man! His plan for appointing Supreme Court Justices is excellent!