Study: Without court packing, conservatives may control the Supreme Court until 2065
TML:
In this recently published paper, the authors conducted simulations regarding packing the Supreme Court (or lack thereof), and the study concludes that if no court packing occurs and no justices flip politically, conservatives would probably dominate the Supreme Court for another four decades until around 2065 or so. On the other hand, the paper also concluded that if Democratic appointees had been successfully seated in the seats formerly occupied by Ginsburg and/or Scalia, this could have enabled liberals to take control of the court by around 2029 or so.
Does anyone else agree with the paper's conclusions?
brucejoel99:
Quote from: TML on May 13, 2023, 01:52:03 AM
In this recently published paper, the authors conducted simulations regarding packing the Supreme Court (or lack thereof), and the study concludes that if no court packing occurs and no justices flip politically, conservatives would probably dominate the Supreme Court for another four decades until around 2065 or so. On the other hand, the paper also concluded that if Democratic appointees had been successfully seated in the seats formerly occupied by Ginsburg and/or Scalia, this could have enabled liberals to take control of the court by around 2029 or so.
Does anyone else agree with the paper's conclusions?
If a Democratic appointee had been successfully seated in the seat formerly occupied by Scalia, liberals would've taken control of the Court immediately, without having to wait 'til 2029.
politicallefty:
I'd say 42 years is a long time, but it did work out pretty well the last time the right-wing stole the Court. A lot of those on the right like to trace the start of the court battles to the rejection of the Bork nomination. However, they conveniently like to leave out what happened in 1968. There was a concerted effort on the right against the Warren Court. It was Strom Thurmond that led a filibuster of the Fortas nomination to succeed Earl Warren as Chief Justice. So, instead of Abe Fortas and Homer Thornberry, we ended up with Warren Burger and Harry Blackmun. (Keep in mind that while Blackmun ended up being more liberal is his later years, he was pretty conservative in the 70s.) Nixon radically changed the direction of the Court.
It's quite extraordinary how different the Court would've looked if Humphrey had won. He probably would've had five openings during that term. He would've been able to nominate a new Chief Justice and nominate successors for Fortas, Black, and Harlan. It's also very likely Douglas would've retired earlier as he was trying to wait out Nixon/Ford. That would've left Stewart and White as the only Justices not on the left. You're looking at something well to the left of the Warren Court at that point.
Quote from: brucejoel99 on May 13, 2023, 07:17:37 AM
If a Democratic appointee had been successfully seated in the seat formerly occupied by Scalia, liberals would've taken control of the Court immediately, without having to wait 'til 2029.
I share the viewpoint that that was the seat that was stolen (unlike some that say all three were stolen). It would've been a short-lived liberal majority though (assuming Trump still wins and Kennedy still retires). Ginsburg's death gets us back to a conservative majority, though a 5-4 one with Roberts in the middle.
DaleCooper:
I don't know if that's true. We have two men in their 70s, plus John Roberts who is nearly 70. One of the Trump judges is an alcoholic so that will decrease his life expectancy.
But yeah, it is a shame. This is a reason why no one should honor or respect Ginsburg or any other liberal judge who hates America and refuses to retire at an appropriate time. If the left wants a statue to destroy, target the Thurgood Marshall idol Pelosi put up in Congress, lol.
OSR stands with Israel:
Quote from: DaleCooper on May 13, 2023, 12:17:03 PM
I don't know if that's true. We have two men in their 70s, plus John Roberts who is nearly 70. One of the Trump judges is an alcoholic so that will decrease his life expectancy.
But yeah, it is a shame. This is a reason why no one should honor or respect Ginsburg or any other liberal judge who hates America and refuses to retire at an appropriate time. If the left wants a statue to destroy, target the Thurgood Marshall idol Pelosi put up in Congress, lol.
I don't know why you are mad at Marshall for retiring in 1991 given the prospects for 1992 looked extremely bleak for the Democrats then. Literally not a single major democrat at the time decided to run for President as they thought 1992 was unwinnable and many Democrats were fearing huge Republican gains in the House and Senate as well.
So Marshall just calculated it would be better to retire in 1991 given Democrats had a comfortable senate majority and hope any strongly conservative nominee would be rejected like Bork was and forcing Bush to nominate someone like Kennedy instead.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page