The fight to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg megathread

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So rich and white, it's like I'm running against a cheesecake!

Republicans need a puppet, and you fit!

Got their hands so far up your rear, call you Mitt!

The original Lincoln Project!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Delaying the vote till after the election is a terrible idea. She's going on the Court either way, so it's better (from a DSCC/DCCC tactical perspective) to let the ACB Train leave the station before all the "I don't like Trump personally, but at least he's stacking the courts with City of God types" socons go to the polls.

If you're worried about the Republicans pulling a Bush v. Gore II then I could see wanting to keep her off the court until after the election has been decided if you think such a case would go 4-4 instead of 5-3 without her. Besides, socons who care enough about courts to base their vote on this issue will vote Republican regardless. I just don't see anyway the Democrats could reasonably hope to cause such a delay.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I pitched this idea in a different thread but is it possible Dems if they get a big enough trifecta ca. amend the constitution that the Supreme Court membership can’t go pass the amount of numbered circuit courts as was originally tradition so after Puerto Rico and DC get state hoods we get 3 new judges for the Supreme Court to make up for Mitch’s garbage while also making a tit for tat on SC size harder?

Amending the Constitution concerning the Supreme Court ain't happening except on a bipartisan basis. An amendment would require the approval of 39 of the then  52 States.  In any case, all your proposed amendment would do is give Republicans even more of  a reason to split up the 9th circuit.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I pitched this idea in a different thread but is it possible Dems if they get a big enough trifecta ca. amend the constitution that the Supreme Court membership can’t go pass the amount of numbered circuit courts as was originally tradition so after Puerto Rico and DC get state hoods we get 3 new judges for the Supreme Court to make up for Mitch’s garbage while also making a tit for tat on SC size harder?

Amending the Constitution concerning the Supreme Court ain't happening except on a bipartisan basis. An amendment would require the approval of 39 of the then  52 States.  In any case, all your proposed amendment would do is give Republicans even more of a reason to split up the 9th circuit.

What about including splitting up the 9th circuit as a bone to conservatives as part of a judicial reform package that primarily focuses on packing/reforming the Supreme Court?

I have yet to see any proposals that actually solve the politicization of the court. This one doesn't even try. All it attempts is to give political cover to the Democrats adding more seats to the Supreme Court while hopefully limiting the ability of Republicans to do the same. It's doubtful it achieves the former, but it certainly fails at the latter.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

https://twitter.com/LisaDNews/status/1320898650848059394?s=20

I believe her.

Why?  There's no objective reason to believe or disbelieve her at this point. I intend to wait until we have some decisions from her before coming to a definite opinion on her.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

However it has been a very long time(1930's) since the courts have seriously impeded Democratic governance. Note impeding Democratic governance does not mean overturning Roe which is actually an impendence of Republican governance.

 We have started to inch towards that area with more limited decisions but there hasn't been any big decision yet , this includes stuff like Citizens united and similar decisions, it will be interesting to see how far the Roberts Courts goes if they get a chance.

At the time, Roe was not a partisan decision. Indeed, it wouldn't be that difficult to create an alt-hist timeline in which the Democratic Party ended up being the pro-life party and the Republican Party was the pro-choice party. Tho, that probably requires Watergate to not happen so that Republicans retain the Presidency in 1976. Alternatively, a second Carter term might have set the stage for that.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It was the Warren Court that ruled prayer and the teaching of creationism unconstitutional in public schools,

It is the year 2020, and people are bringing up banning the teaching of creationism in public schools as a radical overreach... I guess it fits into the modern conservative agenda of filling people’s minds with false information and conspiracy theories.

Creationism obviously has no place being taught in a school, but that is far outside the courts' competence to decide.

 "… shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion …" .

There has yet to be a coherent non-religious explanation of how creationism would work. At best, there have been various non-sectarian explanations that involve an unspecified Creator.  Incidentally, Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), which barred prohibitions on the teaching of evolution, was decided unanimously.