GOP plans to block any Biden Supreme Court pick

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

They're not gonna get the majority Rs won WI and PA by 150K votes and we have NV, GA, AZ as vulnerable Biden only has to get to 50/45 on Election night, to duplicate a 304 map, they might get it after 24 due to OH, WVA and MT if Covid isn't fixed but the D's are Favs in the Senate

The House Delegation map with majorities reflects the Blue Wall as well tipping pt is WI in this Environment, if it's a D wave of course OH is but we haven't seen any indication of a blue wave yet

[Yoda]

Breyer is so unbelievably, unfathomably stupid if he does not retire next year.

I beg to differ. Breyer is a very intelligent judge. Evidently he doesn't play politics and is not concerned that people want him to retire. That's what I'm reading.

Gee, he's a good judge. Let him keep doing his job if he feels up to it. Mitch and his ilk are going to cheat no matter what the Dems do. Breyer said he does not intend to die in office, but there are many considerations to think about before he retires. Frankly, it's his call.

You have to work with the hand you are dealt, unless you want to assassinate the guy.

Like I said: unbelievably stupid. Thank you for proving my point for me.

[SnowLabrador]

Breyer is so unbelievably, unfathomably stupid if he does not retire next year.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Breyer is so unbelievably, unfathomably stupid if he does not retire next year.

Lol he is fully healthy and doesn't have cancer like Ginnaberg if he did he would retire he isn't on his deathbed

Ginnaberg was waiting on Hillary to be on the Majority that's why she didn't retire, she was sick a long time

Colon cancer for Females is very painful not for men as someone whom had my mom die from colon cancer all the females in my family not men died from colon cancer

[Person Man]

Breyer is so unbelievably, unfathomably stupid if he does not retire next year.

I beg to differ. Breyer is a very intelligent judge. Evidently he doesn't play politics and is not concerned that people want him to retire. That's what I'm reading.

Gee, he's a good judge. Let him keep doing his job if he feels up to it. Mitch and his ilk are going to cheat no matter what the Dems do. Breyer said he does not intend to die in office, but there are many considerations to think about before he retires. Frankly, it's his call.

You have to work with the hand you are dealt, unless you want to assassinate the guy.

Like I said: unbelievably stupid. Thank you for proving my point for me.

What’s the point of him doing anything if he dies in office if then the ass groove in his office is desecrated by a Federalist Society Justice before his body is even in the ground?

[Inmate Trump]

Breyer needs to retire NOW.

[lfromnj]

Breyer needs to retire NOW.

Nah its worth the risk waiting for another term till June. Having an old judge with likely good connections to the rest of the bench can possibly help moderate any upcoming opinions for a very important term.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The thing is, all supreme court members have to essentially buy into the delusion that they are apolitical public servants, even though reality clearly shows SCOTUS is little more than an indirectly elected legislature with lifelong appointments. Bryer almost certainly believes by being "above" making plans for his succession, because jr genuinely believes the hype of the Court.

Tbh the best thing to do would be a complete overhaul of how the Court is structured. Make it like selected like the Swiss Federal Council and have its members directly chosen by legislature to ensure ratios of conservative to liberal are roughly matched. Would make a mockery of its supposed independence from the legislature, but such qualms have long since been trampled, better codify it rather than this bizarre worst of all worlds status quo.

[Saint Milei]

I'm glad dems in this thread admit they want the SC to be partisan

[lfromnj]

Basically the nominee I can see Biden nominating that an R senate would confirm would be
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnnie_B._Rawlinson
She seems to be a relative moderate and lets biden keep his black women promise. She is also relatively older.

However Breyer will likely retire next year anyway.

[Ljube]

Kamala Harris would get 100 votes in the Senate.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

This is political posturing for 22 they're the Favs but Midterm rule doesn't apply it's VBM not same day voting

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

Duh

EDIT re:Breyer

Breyer has told several people who've made unofficial efforts to push him to retire that he thinks the confirmation process shouldn't be political, according to people told of those discussions, and Democrats worry he'd remain as an act of resistance to show he's not bowing to politics.

Wow, leaving a vacancy that will be held open for political reasons for years on end will sure take the politics out of the confirmation process.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

Even during the Bush years I subscribed to the by-now quaint notion that judges and Justices nominated even by the President of the opposing party should be seriously considered and given an up-or-down vote on their merits whether you agree with them or not so long as they are qualified for the position they are being nominated for.  Even members of the Federalist Society.

So much for that...  

Well you had me right until here.
The FedSoc is an organization openly devoted to taking over the judiciary in order to achieve political goals that democratic procedures make impossible.
Membership should bar anyone from being on a federal bench.

[NYSforKennedy2024]

Welcome back, 2010.

[Utah Neolib]

Not particularly surprising. Every major Republican dreams of a 7-2 Supreme Court.

[Badger]

Breyer is so unbelievably, unfathomably stupid if he does not retire next year.

I beg to differ. Breyer is a very intelligent judge. Evidently he doesn't play politics and is not concerned that people want him to retire. That's what I'm reading.

Gee, he's a good judge. Let him keep doing his job if he feels up to it. Mitch and his ilk are going to cheat no matter what the Dems do. Breyer said he does not intend to die in office, but there are many considerations to think about before he retires. Frankly, it's his call.

You have to work with the hand you are dealt, unless you want to assassinate the guy.

 Is intelligent, but utterly lacking common sense or in touch with the realities of the world around him.. He apparently have this mythical idea of  How judicial nominations should be completely apolitical and decided by Is an a political merit system.And of course come of that sh**t had broken down long before 2016. Hes just enough of an ivory Tower guy who doesn't want to give up being one of the Is 9 most powerful members of the American Judiciary out of ego whether he wants to call it that or not.

[TheReckoning]

I'm glad dems in this thread admit they want the SC to be partisan

Gr8 B8 m8 I r8 8/8

[Indy Texas]

Reminder that Democrats have never denied a Republican POTUS the opportunity to nominate a SCOTUS justice, while Republicans are poised to have done that to Democrats twice.

(No, turning down Bork's nomination is not equivalent. Reagan nominated Kennedy after that and the Senate confirmed him. That's why it's called "advise and consent." You don't automatically get your first choice, particularly one with as many ethical issues as Bork had.)

[lfromnj]

Reminder that Democrats have never denied a Republican POTUS the opportunity to nominate a SCOTUS justice, while Republicans are poised to have done that to Democrats twice.

(No, turning down Bork's nomination is not equivalent. Reagan nominated Kennedy after that and the Senate confirmed him. That's why it's called "advise and consent." You don't automatically get your first choice, particularly one with as many ethical issues as Bork had.)

Maybe they didn't block but they certainly would before the GOP did it in 2016

https://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

[Yoda]

Duh

EDIT re:Breyer

Breyer has told several people who've made unofficial efforts to push him to retire that he thinks the confirmation process shouldn't be political, according to people told of those discussions, and Democrats worry he'd remain as an act of resistance to show he's not bowing to politics.

Wow, leaving a vacancy that will be held open for political reasons for years on end will sure take the politics out of the confirmation process.

I mean, the sheer amount of naivety this man displays with respect to the modern history of the body ON WHICH HE SERVES is......it's something else.

[Yoda]

The thing is, all supreme court members have to essentially buy into the delusion that they are apolitical public servants, even though reality clearly shows SCOTUS is little more than an indirectly elected legislature with lifelong appointments. Bryer almost certainly believes by being "above" making plans for his succession, because jr genuinely believes the hype of the Court.

Tbh the best thing to do would be a complete overhaul of how the Court is structured. Make it like selected like the Swiss Federal Council and have its members directly chosen by legislature to ensure ratios of conservative to liberal are roughly matched. Would make a mockery of its supposed independence from the legislature, but such qualms have long since been trampled, better codify it rather than this bizarre worst of all worlds status quo.

I've seen multiple posters in the past suggest that a good way to reform the Court and in particular do away with judges strategically retiring in order to choose their successor would be to make it so that every President appoints two judges to the Court (with a two-term President filling two seats per term). The two most senior Justices would be volunteered for retirement and replaced by the two new appointments. I like the idea of each presidential election inherently having the power to fill two SCOTUS seats baked in. Turnout, for one thing, would in all likelihood be perpetually higher than it is now. I think it would be far superior to the system we have now, where republican Justices conspire with republican politicians to keep the Court conservative no matter how many presidential elections democrats win in a row with a majority of the vote. The downside to this system would be that republicans would still be over represented in the EC and in the Senate without reforming those as well, so a President could still appoint Justices while losing the vote - like trump did - and a republican controlled Senate that won tens of millions of votes less could still confirm them. For this system to be a great reform we would also have to do away with the EC and add DC add Puerto Rico as states OR do away with the Senate having the power to confirm or deny altogether.

[lfromnj]

The thing is, all supreme court members have to essentially buy into the delusion that they are apolitical public servants, even though reality clearly shows SCOTUS is little more than an indirectly elected legislature with lifelong appointments. Bryer almost certainly believes by being "above" making plans for his succession, because jr genuinely believes the hype of the Court.

Tbh the best thing to do would be a complete overhaul of how the Court is structured. Make it like selected like the Swiss Federal Council and have its members directly chosen by legislature to ensure ratios of conservative to liberal are roughly matched. Would make a mockery of its supposed independence from the legislature, but such qualms have long since been trampled, better codify it rather than this bizarre worst of all worlds status quo.

I've seen multiple posters in the past suggest that a good way to reform the Court and in particular do away with judges strategically retiring in order to choose their successor would be to make it so that every President appoints two judges to the Court (with a two-term President filling two seats per term). The two most senior Justices would be volunteered for retirement and replaced by the two new appointments. I like the idea of each presidential election inherently having the power to fill two SCOTUS seats baked in. Turnout, for one thing, would in all likelihood be perpetually higher than it is now. I think it would be far superior to the system we have now, where republican Justices conspire with republican politicians to keep the Court conservative no matter how many presidential elections democrats win in a row with a majority of the vote. The downside to this system would be that republicans would still be over represented in the EC and in the Senate without reforming those as well, so a President could still appoint Justices while losing the vote - like trump did - and a republican controlled Senate that won tens of millions of votes less could still confirm them. For this system to be a great reform we would also have to do away with the EC and add DC add Puerto Rico as states/OR do away with the Senate having the power to confirm or deny altogether.

Rehnquist died on the court, Sandra Day O Connor retired due to her husband, Scalia died on the court. Only Kennedy chose to retire in relatively normal circumstances but he is literally 83.

[Hermit For Peace]

Well the joke is on you guys. Breyer doesn't appear to be retiring anytime soon. You're just going to have to deal with it. Just like we have to deal with people who refuse to get vaccinated. You/we can rant all you/we want but it doesn't change anything and just gets us all stressed out.

And even if he retired tomorrow, what did the GOP just say?

[Mr. Smith]

Reminder that Democrats have never denied a Republican POTUS the opportunity to nominate a SCOTUS justice, while Republicans are poised to have done that to Democrats twice.

(No, turning down Bork's nomination is not equivalent. Reagan nominated Kennedy after that and the Senate confirmed him. That's why it's called "advise and consent." You don't automatically get your first choice, particularly one with as many ethical issues as Bork had.)

More than that if we add Fortas into the equation.