The fight to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg megathread

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/1320889171066716160

[Del Tachi]

-snip-

Oh please, if you're going to ascribe partisan blame for the politicization of the Supreme Court, at least go back to the very beginning.  The Warren Court (1953-69) was easily the most activist in American history, and it usurped the legislative process to establish new, sweeping affirmative rights and severely limit State control of local political matters.  It was the Warren Court that ruled prayer and the teaching of creationism unconstitutional in public schools, gave blanket protections to obscene speech, prohibited states from regulating access to contraception and of course, fortified civil rights and rights for the criminally-accused.  Say whatever you want to about these cases on their merits, but these issues remain controversial political questions today (much less 50 years ago!)  Liberals began politicizing the Court when they started using judicial review as a blunt instrument to cut citizens and legislatures out of the political process.   
 
Of course, as William F. Buckley, Jr. said best, the job of the conservative is "to stand athwart history and yell stop!"  There was new, conservative (neoconservative?) reaction to the Warren Court.  In1968, Richard Nixon explicitly campaigned and was elected on a promise to appoint strict constructionists.  After having two of his nominees rejected in 1969-70 by a liberal majority in the Senate (first time that had happened since 1894!), conservative William Rehnquist was confirmed by one of the narrowest margins in American history to date.  The Federalist Society was founded as an "alternative legal elite" in 1982.  It's no surprise that liberals sank the nomination of Robert Bork in 1987 - the same year the U.S. Senate allowed television cameras into its proceedings and Ted Kennedy delivered a fiery speech impugning Bork's character by calling him a segregationist and misogynist.  Clarence Thomas' 1991 confirmation is the most recent time a Senate controlled by an opposition party has approved a President's nominee.  Liberals made a fuss in each of these occasions because they feared losing the political power the Warren Court's jurisprudence had given them.   

[lfromnj]

^^^ TBF  the court has been plenty politicized before especially with the Lochner area striking down many New Deal regulations, however FDR did get to appoint all 9 justices which was effectively a reset on the court in his favor(he did win 4 elections in landslides to his credit)

[Dr. Arch]

Days between nomination and confirmation
Kavanaugh: 89
Gorsuch: 66
Kagan: 87
Sotomayor: 66
Alito: 82
Roberts: 62
Breyer: 73
Ginsburg: 50
Thomas: 99
Barrett: 30

Courtesy of AAD.

Garland: Never got a hearing for hundreds of days

[Del Tachi]

^^^ TBF  the court has been plenty politicized before especially with the Lochner area striking down many New Deal regulations, however FDR did get to appoint all 9 justices which was effectively a reset on the court in his favor(he did win 4 elections in landslides to his credit)

Which is really just great evidence that these things ebb and flow; liberal jurisprudence is en vogue for a while then there's a conservative reaction, and then a liberal reaction a few decades later...there will one day again be a liberal court, and it won't take court packing.

[lfromnj]

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.

[R.P. McM]

"We want to live in a land of sunshine and friendship with the other party but in the meantime we'll have fun destroying them and watching them suffer until they conform to our wishes"

Sure, sure  ... we all know which impulse will win out in the end if you are given the chance. 

You know, we tried, we really tried.  Rewind to 2008 and early 2009 and listen to what Obama was saying, look at the agenda he pushed, look at how he governed.  Or even better, go back to when Bill Clinton was president -- everyone on the left hates him now because of all the bipartisan compromises he made!

But that's over now.  We stretched out the hand, and you cut it off.  We've only got one hand left, and we're not gonna make the same mistake.  We're getting a gun in eight days, and we're going to use it to      , just remember that it's your own damn fault for turning this into a gunfight in the first place.

Raindrops  ☔︎  on roses and whiskers on kittens
Bright copper kettles  and warm woolen  mittens
DIE DIE RETHUGLICAN SCUMMMMMMM1!!!!!!!!!!☠☠☠☠☠
These are a few of my favorite things…

I would never be so irresponsible as to support a deeply amoral, unqualified buffoon who attempted to extort a foreign power to aid his reelection bid, and whose inept response to a crisis has likely cost tens of thousands of lives. Yes, I hate Republicans, and view them as enemies rather than fellow countrymen. Quite justifiably. But I cannot even imagine the depths of hatred they must feel for me to have conducted themselves as they have over the past four years.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

-snip-

Oh please, if you're going to ascribe partisan blame for the politicization of the Supreme Court, at least go back to the very beginning.  The Warren Court (1953-69) was easily the most activist in American history, and it usurped the legislative process to establish new, sweeping affirmative rights and severely limit State control of local political matters.  It was the Warren Court that ruled prayer and the teaching of creationism unconstitutional in public schools, gave blanket protections to obscene speech, prohibited states from regulating access to contraception and of course, fortified civil rights and rights for the criminally-accused.  Say whatever you want to about these cases on their merits, but these issues remain controversial political questions today (much less 50 years ago!)  Liberals began politicizing the Court when they started using judicial review as a blunt instrument to cut citizens and legislatures out of the political process.   
 
Of course, as William F. Buckley, Jr. said best, the job of the conservative is "to stand athwart history and yell stop!"  There was new, conservative (neoconservative?) reaction to the Warren Court.  In1968, Richard Nixon explicitly campaigned and was elected on a promise to appoint strict constructionists.  After having two of his nominees rejected in 1969-70 by a liberal majority in the Senate (first time that had happened since 1894!), conservative William Rehnquist was confirmed by one of the narrowest margins in American history to date.  The Federalist Society was founded as an "alternative legal elite" in 1982.  It's no surprise that liberals sank the nomination of Robert Bork in 1987 - the same year the U.S. Senate allowed television cameras into its proceedings and Ted Kennedy delivered a fiery speech impugning Bork's character by calling him a segregationist and misogynist.  Clarence Thomas' 1991 confirmation is the most recent time a Senate controlled by an opposition party has approved a President's nominee.  Liberals made a fuss in each of these occasions because they feared losing the political power the Warren Court's jurisprudence had given them.   

This isn't about politicization of the court itself. This is about undermining institutions. The Warren court was appointed through normal, fair mechanisms. It had a legitimacy stemming from the appointment process itself. The justices all deserved to be there. The same, of course, cannot be said in this case.

[Catholics vs. Convicts]

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.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

https://twitter.com/LisaDNews/status/1320898650848059394?s=20
https://twitter.com/markknoller/status/1320900335305711619

I just wanted to make that contrast between word and deed crystal clear.

[Xeuma]

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.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

"We want to live in a land of sunshine and friendship with the other party but in the meantime we'll have fun destroying them and watching them suffer until they conform to our wishes"

Sure, sure  ... we all know which impulse will win out in the end if you are given the chance. 

You know, we tried, we really tried.  Rewind to 2008 and early 2009 and listen to what Obama was saying, look at the agenda he pushed, look at how he governed.  Or even better, go back to when Bill Clinton was president -- everyone on the left hates him now because of all the bipartisan compromises he made!

But that's over now.  We stretched out the hand, and you cut it off.  We've only got one hand left, and we're not gonna make the same mistake.  We're getting a gun in eight days, and we're going to use it to     , just remember that it's your own damn fault for turning this into a gunfight in the first place.

Raindrops  ☔︎  on roses and whiskers on kittens
Bright copper kettles  and warm woolen  mittens
DIE DIE RETHUGLICAN SCUMMMMMMM1!!!!!!!!!!☠☠☠☠☠
These are a few of my favorite things…

I would never be so irresponsible as to support a deeply amoral, unqualified buffoon who attempted to extort a foreign power to aid his reelection campaign, and whose inept response to a crisis has likely cost tens of thousands of lives. Yes, I hate Republicans, and view them as enemies rather than fellow countrymen. Quite justifiably. But I cannot even imagine the depths of hatred they must feel for me to have conducted themselves as they have over the past four years.

I assure you most Republicans do not hate you, they don't even know who you are.

[R.P. McM]

"We want to live in a land of sunshine and friendship with the other party but in the meantime we'll have fun destroying them and watching them suffer until they conform to our wishes"

Sure, sure  ... we all know which impulse will win out in the end if you are given the chance. 

You know, we tried, we really tried.  Rewind to 2008 and early 2009 and listen to what Obama was saying, look at the agenda he pushed, look at how he governed.  Or even better, go back to when Bill Clinton was president -- everyone on the left hates him now because of all the bipartisan compromises he made!

But that's over now.  We stretched out the hand, and you cut it off.  We've only got one hand left, and we're not gonna make the same mistake.  We're getting a gun in eight days, and     , just remember that it's your own damn fault for turning this into a gunfight in the first place.

Raindrops  ☔︎  on roses and whiskers on kittens
Bright copper kettles  and warm woolen  mittens
DIE DIE RETHUGLICAN SCUMMMMMMM1!!!!!!!!!!☠☠☠☠☠
These are a few of my favorite things…

I would never be so irresponsible as to support a deeply amoral, unqualified buffoon who attempted to extort a foreign power to aid his reelection campaign, and whose inept response to a crisis has likely cost tens of thousands of lives. Yes, I hate Republicans, and view them as enemies rather than fellow countrymen. Quite justifiably. But I cannot even imagine the depths of hatred they must feel for me to have conducted themselves as they have over the past four years.

I assure you most Republicans do not hate you, they don't even know who you are.

Trump is the purest expression of tribal hatred I've ever witnessed in American politics. No, I'm not a Mexican or a Muslim, but like most of the country, my politics don't align with the GOP. Republicans voted for an unhinged, unqualified, racist sexual predator who promoted mob violence as a massive FU to the rest of us. Your attempts to pretend otherwise are just a futile effort at gaslighting.

[DrScholl]

"We want to live in a land of sunshine and friendship with the other party but in the meantime we'll have fun destroying them and watching them suffer until they conform to our wishes"

Sure, sure  ... we all know which impulse will win out in the end if you are given the chance. 

You know, we tried, we really tried.  Rewind to 2008 and early 2009 and listen to what Obama was saying, look at the agenda he pushed, look at how he governed.  Or even better, go back to when Bill Clinton was president -- everyone on the left hates him now because of all the bipartisan compromises he made!

But that's over now.  We stretched out the hand, and you cut it off.  We've only got one hand left, and we're not gonna make the same mistake.  We're getting a gun in eight days, and we're going to use it to    , just remember that it's your own damn fault for turning this into a gunfight in the first place.

Raindrops  ☔︎  on roses and whiskers on kittens
Bright copper kettles  and warm woolen  mittens
DIE DIE RETHUGLICAN SCUMMMMMMM1!!!!!!!!!!☠☠☠☠☠
These are a few of my favorite things…

I would never be so irresponsible as to support a deeply amoral, unqualified buffoon who attempted to extort a foreign power to aid his reelection campaign, and whose inept response to a crisis has likely cost tens of thousands of lives. Yes, I hate Republicans, and view them as enemies rather than fellow countrymen. Quite justifiably. But I cannot even imagine the depths of hatred they must feel for me to have conducted themselves as they have over the past four years.

I assure you most Republicans do not hate you, they don't even know who you are.

Republicans don't need to know somebody to hate them. They hate anyone who is not 100% conservative and make that a litmus test. That is how far gone this party has become.

[Frodo]

https://twitter.com/SenatePress/status/1320416413119582212?s=19

I hope the Federalist Society is enjoying this moment in history, as they are at the peak of their power and influence.  From the moment Joe Biden is sworn in with a Democratic trifecta next January, the Federalist Society (and the conservative movement and Republican Party more generally) will be on the defensive fighting the long retreat. 

[Sir Mohamed]

Yup, we have to pack the court. And my take is that Biden is likely to do/attempt to do so. I think the commission he intends to set up is more of an attempt to raise acceptance for such a step by putting a different set of people on it.

The GOP for years has trashed institutional norms and created a climate of hyper partisanship. It started with Gingrich and peaked under Obama, when they gave him a big middle finger for every reasonable policy he wanted to pass. Now they have stolen 2 seats from the bench, having appointed 5 out of 8 justices since 1993, but only won the NPV once since then. They are weaponizing the federal judiciary to ram through their unpopular agenda because they can't pass it in congress. Now they have ZERO rights to complain about "assault on institutions" of Dems pack the court with at least 2 seats to restore some balance. It isn't even an attack on institutions, since congress has the right add seats. If the 117th congress wants to do so and said bill becomes law with Biden's signature, that's legitimate process. And as prez, he has the right to name additional justices with approval of a Dem-controlled senate.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Yup, we have to pack the court. And my take is that Biden is likely to do/attempt to do so. I think the commission he intends to set up is more of an attempt to raise acceptance for such a step by putting a different set of people on it.

I think otherwise that Biden is not likely to pack the courts and that the commission facilitate to NOT do it. Packing the Court sounds like a big and fairly controversial (at least for now according to polls) policy and you're better do it during the honeymoon period, not before. 180 days for commission, X months for discussion, Y months for this Z months for that - and you're facing midterm elections. All during the times when you're still fighting Covid and its economical consequences. Also, Biden unifying message, bipartisanship, "restoration" to decency and normal days etc. Obviously, it depends heavily on margin of his win and Senate count.


Still, all equal, Mitch, perhaps, should be quite delightful with Biden.

[Brittain33]

A new administration must reform the federal courts and the Supreme Court to restore legitimacy, democracy, respect for rights, and good government.

Republicans and Republican-leaning independents have no idea what you have unleashed with your behavior in the last month. The $1b raised for Democrats because Graham and McConnell danced on RBG's grave should have been an indicator of what has changed.

Remember that you guys fought Roe v. Wade for 50 years before winning. You have done what no Democrat could do - make us see that the Supreme Court is a life-or-death issue. We will mobilize and every scheissig, tendentious, boasty, ends-oriented, corrupt decision Amy Covid Barrett and Chad Kavanaugh hand down will be met with 10x the force in organization and money.

Let's just hope enough of our beloved Dem dinosaurs in the Senate open their eyes to what McConnell has done.

[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.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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.

That's fine.  Everyone I have heard who knows her has said she approaches things with integrity and an open mind.

[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.

[lfromnj]

Yup, we have to pack the court. And my take is that Biden is likely to do/attempt to do so. I think the commission he intends to set up is more of an attempt to raise acceptance for such a step by putting a different set of people on it.

I think otherwise that Biden is not likely to pack the courts and that the commission facilitate to NOT do it. Packing the Court sounds like a big and fairly controversial (at least for now according to polls) policy and you're better do it during the honeymoon period, not before. 180 days for commission, X months for discussion, Y months for this Z months for that - and you're facing midterm elections. All during the times when you're still fighting Covid and its economical consequences. Also, Biden unifying message, bipartisanship, "restoration" to decency and normal days etc. Obviously, it depends heavily on margin of his win and Senate count.


Still, all equal, Mitch, perhaps, should be quite delightful with Biden.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/19/opinion/biden-supreme-court.html

The Republicans on the commission will be Reagan's solicitor general.

[Woody]

Say goodbye to the ACA :-)

[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.

[lfromnj]

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.

Yeah unless one wishes that the 14th doesn't apply to states, I think its a fairly reasonable decision to ban the teaching of creationism as it is religion specific. I would say a non mandatory school prayer would be ok however. The Warren Court did have other more extreme decisions such as banning the usage of state senates following the same role as the US senate in Reynolds v Sims. Although requiring population equality for congressional districts had some basis, I believe Reynolds v Sims was going too far in interfering with each state.