Except not. They are already complaining that some of the conservatives are not sufficiently conservative, especially Roberts. You know with them 98% agreement is a betrayal. They need a full on fascist in the the same lane as Thomas (who confuses the hell out of me, honestly.)
9 Likes
Your country salutes you!
2 Likes
2/4 so far (sort of; they didn’t commit to voting no).
3 Likes
SCOTUS has expanded gradually from 3 to 9 since the founding. There’s been no genie in the bottle up to this point, and while there’s a lot of noise about the “partisan divide” in the country right now, we’ve been through this before. If anything, through the lens of history, we’re due for another expansion.
11 Likes
Same with Tom Cotton. IIRC, you can’t vote to confirm yourself into the SCOTUS.
ETA:
The Constitution is against it. What McConnell did in 2016 was unconstitutional. The President has the power to nominate justices of the Supreme Court, with the “Advice and Consent” of the Senate. Not the Majority Leader, not the Judiciary Committee, but the full Senate. If they had taken the nomination of Garland to committee, held hearings, and put it to a vote of the full Senate, then that would have fulfilled the obligations of the Constitution. But one man blocked any action on the nomination. That’s plainly unconstitutional. The Majority Leader of the Senate isn’t even a position outlined or mentioned in the Constitution!
17 Likes
wnyc podcast about a book about thomas, and no transcript. but i do remember finding it enlightening when i heard it. 
6 Likes
That’s a GOP level strategy, sure. But this will seal the deal on court expansion with the accomodationist wing of the DLC and dooms Collins, McSally and maybe Tillis. I’m assuming Gardner is already a goner. If that happens then they may get their third justice at the cost of four new progressive justices.
The Constitution also says that the houses of Congress make their own rules. While what McConnell did and has done the entire time he’s been stinking up the place is deeply unethical and wrong (hell, it’s anti-American and that’s not a term I throw around lightly), I don’t think it’s illegal.
5 Likes
I’m not a legal scholar by any means, but if the Constitution says it’s up to the Senate, the whole body, then I don’t think that can be bypassed by rules. That responsibility cannot be abdicated in such a way. We are talking about a body that is constantly being remade through the election process and even in between elections. How can a rule made by a Senate with members who are all long since dead apply to the current body?
1 Like
I don’t think there’s any reasonable way to interpret “I won’t even allow consideration of any candidate this President nominates” as compatible the Constitutionally-mandated role of the Senate in this process.
That’s not providing “Advice and Consent,” it’s withholding Advice and Consent.
8 Likes
I think that’s the thing - the rules are whatever the majority says it is. It’s not helped by how Article III barely says anything about how SCOTUS appointments work so the Senate gets a lot of latitude here.
It’s basically Calvinball.
8 Likes
But I don’t see how rules determined by a majority over a century ago can apply to the current body. At the very least, those rules shouldn’t be allowed to just carry over automatically. They should have to be voted on every time the makeup of the Senate is changed. Otherwise, unwise and unjust rules just self-propagate infinitely.
2 Likes
Today it again struck me exactly how unjust and broken our Republic is in terms of representing the people.
If McConnell and Trump successfully install another Justice before Trump leaves office, then a majority of the court will be comprised of appointees who
-
Were nominated by Presidents who entered office despite losing the popular vote, and
-
Were confirmed by a Senate majority that represents a minority of American voters (since the most populous states tend to have more Democratic Senators than less-populous states)
In other words the Executive Branch, the Judicial Branch and the Senate will ALL represent the will of less than half of the American voters. Essentially all three branches of the Federal Government under the control of tyrannical minority.
14 Likes
10 Likes
Ruth is mitzvah.
2 Likes
Plus, majority leader of the Senate isn’t even a thing in the Constitution, and wasn’t a thing until Woodrow Wilson’s day. This is like the security guard at the door shutting down voting by not letting anyone in.
8 Likes
Here’s hoping Pelosi blocks them by pushing impeachment through the end of Trumps term. We shouldn’t allow a minority of the country speak for the majority. This is ridiculous, 1 Iowan does not equal 1000+ Californians.
9 Likes
What do you mean by “real”. I’m hoping they stick to their principles.
Exactly this! Her job and all the others is to do their job apolitically and staying till death takes you working the whole time does not get any more on point.
