Lifetime appointments that only open up when a justice dies or retires is a really random way to select a bench that's supposed to be very stable. It incentivizes justices to retire at strategic times and it encourages the President and Senate to pick younger and more partisan candidates for a stronger long-term advantage.
Ideally, we'd just hold a new nomination and appoint a new justice every X number of years, for a long but not indefinite term. If we appointed a single justice every year for 10-year terms, grandfathering in previous justices, we'd have a court that was similar in size but less random in terms of who gets to appoint them.
Lifetime appointments that only open up when a justice dies or retires is a really random way to select a bench that's supposed to be very stable. It incentivizes justices to retire at strategic times and it encourages the President and Senate to pick younger and more partisan candidates for a stronger long-term advantage.
Ideally, we'd just hold a new nomination and appoint a new justice every X number of years, for a long but not indefinite term. If we appointed a single justice every year for 10-year terms, grandfathering in previous justices, we'd have a court that was similar in size but less random in terms of who gets to appoint them.
How about Hybrid it.
Every presidential term, the president is allowed to appoint one judge where they remain until they either retire or pass away. The appointment then becomes an election issue instead of a shit show Senate issue as the 'will of the people' is being applied to the actual selection.
The Senate committee can still interview candidate(s) during the election cycle allowing their role to be fulfilled and if a selection like Kavanaugh seems unpopular with the voting public, they can replaced instead of just rubber stamped or face losing the election over it.
Lifetime appointments that only open up when a justice dies or retires is a really random way to select a bench that's supposed to be very stable. It incentivizes justices to retire at strategic times and it encourages the President and Senate to pick younger and more partisan candidates for a stronger long-term advantage.
Ideally, we'd just hold a new nomination and appoint a new justice every X number of years, for a long but not indefinite term. If we appointed a single justice every year for 10-year terms, grandfathering in previous justices, we'd have a court that was similar in size but less random in terms of who gets to appoint them.
You would think so, but turning the Supreme Court into a protracted partisan fight is something relatively new. It had an example or two over the nations history of course, but in general was not the case. For example, when RBG herself was put on the bench, she won the vote by 96-3. Scalia won 98-0. The Senate keeps an easy to reference record on Supreme Court nominations and you can see that it was common in the past century for Supreme Court Justices to get an overwhelming share of the vote, often from both sides of the aisle.
Good faith was once a thing in our politics, in certain domains.
Lifetime appointments that only open up when a justice dies or retires is a really random way to select a bench that's supposed to be very stable. It incentivizes justices to retire at strategic times and it encourages the President and Senate to pick younger and more partisan candidates for a stronger long-term advantage.
Ideally, we'd just hold a new nomination and appoint a new justice every X number of years, for a long but not indefinite term. If we appointed a single justice every year for 10-year terms, grandfathering in previous justices, we'd have a court that was similar in size but less random in terms of who gets to appoint them.
You would think so, but turning the Supreme Court into a protracted partisan fight is something relatively new. It had an example or two over the nations history of course, but in general was not the case. For example, when RBG herself was put on the bench, she won the vote by 96-3. Scalia won 98-0. The Senate keeps an easy to reference record on Supreme Court and you can see that it was common in the past century for Supreme Court Justices to get an overwhelming share of the vote, often from both sides of the aisle.
Good faith was once a thing in our politics, in certain domains.
This. It shouldnt be understated how norm-shattering this move has been. It's been in the best interest of both parties to try to keep the SCOTUS relatively bipartisan. The McConnell reinterpretation that the senate should act only in the the majority's self interest is new and permanently damaging to the court's credibility.
I'm not being hyperbolic when I say that McConnell's actions between 2016 and now have probably damaged the credibility of the court for generations to come - and set the precedent that each side needs to treat the SCOTUS like a political football rather than a time honored institution... I dont see a way back.
I would prefer we didnt destroy 200 year old institutions, but now that we're here - the only option is to go all in and hope the outcome isnt worse than where we started.
Lifetime appointments that only open up when a justice dies or retires is a really random way to select a bench that's supposed to be very stable. It incentivizes justices to retire at strategic times and it encourages the President and Senate to pick younger and more partisan candidates for a stronger long-term advantage.
Ideally, we'd just hold a new nomination and appoint a new justice every X number of years, for a long but not indefinite term. If we appointed a single justice every year for 10-year terms, grandfathering in previous justices, we'd have a court that was similar in size but less random in terms of who gets to appoint them.
You would think so, but turning the Supreme Court into a protracted partisan fight is something relatively new. It had an example or two over the nations history of course, but in general was not the case. For example, when RBG herself was put on the bench, she won the vote by 96-3. Scalia won 98-0. The Senate keeps an easy to reference record on Supreme Court and you can see that it was common in the past century for Supreme Court Justices to get an overwhelming share of the vote, often from both sides of the aisle.
Good faith was once a thing in our politics, in certain domains.
This. It shouldnt be understated how norm-shattering this move has been. It's been in the best interest of both parties to try to keep the SCOTUS relatively bipartisan. The McConnell reinterpretation that the senate should act only in the the majority's self interest is new and permanently damaging to the court's credibility.
I'm not being hyperbolic when I say that McConnell's actions between 2016 and now have probably damaged the credibility of the court for generations to come - and set the precedent that each side needs to treat the SCOTUS like a political football rather than a time honored institution... I dont see a way back.
I would prefer we didnt destroy 200 year old institutions, but now that we're here - the only option is to go all in and hope the outcome isnt worse than where we started.
The conservative intelligensia LOVES to pretend this is all about Robert Bork, creating this alternate history where he was unfairly denied a seat. First off, he was given a full hearing and up or down vote. Second of all, six REPUBLICANS voted against him. Third, Reagan's next choice was EASILY confirmed, and fourth, he is the man who fired Archibald Cox for Nixon, bringing the Republic closer to the precipice of falling apart than at any time excluding the Civil War and right now. And they NEVER mention this in their reenactments. The idea that Bork deserved to be anywhere near the highest court in the land given his role in Watergate is absolutely laughable, but not quite as laughable as the people who try tell his history without mentioning it's most central and unforgivable incident.
Lifetime appointments that only open up when a justice dies or retires is a really random way to select a bench that's supposed to be very stable. It incentivizes justices to retire at strategic times and it encourages the President and Senate to pick younger and more partisan candidates for a stronger long-term advantage.
Ideally, we'd just hold a new nomination and appoint a new justice every X number of years, for a long but not indefinite term. If we appointed a single justice every year for 10-year terms, grandfathering in previous justices, we'd have a court that was similar in size but less random in terms of who gets to appoint them.
You would think so, but turning the Supreme Court into a protracted partisan fight is something relatively new. It had an example or two over the nations history of course, but in general was not the case. For example, when RBG herself was put on the bench, she won the vote by 96-3. Scalia won 98-0. The Senate keeps an easy to reference record on Supreme Court and you can see that it was common in the past century for Supreme Court Justices to get an overwhelming share of the vote, often from both sides of the aisle.
Good faith was once a thing in our politics, in certain domains.
This. It shouldnt be understated how norm-shattering this move has been. It's been in the best interest of both parties to try to keep the SCOTUS relatively bipartisan. The McConnell reinterpretation that the senate should act only in the the majority's self interest is new and permanently damaging to the court's credibility.
I'm not being hyperbolic when I say that McConnell's actions between 2016 and now have probably damaged the credibility of the court for generations to come - and set the precedent that each side needs to treat the SCOTUS like a political football rather than a time honored institution... I dont see a way back.
I would prefer we didnt destroy 200 year old institutions, but now that we're here - the only option is to go all in and hope the outcome isnt worse than where we started.
The further we get from Garlands denied nomination the more it seems like it set us down a dangerous road. It's going to be a test of whether we are worthy of keeping a constitutional republic, in my opinion. One or more parties is going to have to rise above their own self interest for the purpose of preserving the integrity of our most important institutions. Nobody wants to see our most impartial branch of government become a puppet for immediate political self interest, and the case could easily be made to the American people that the Supreme Court is worth preserving.
I would be disappointed if this needs to be solved by a constitutional amendment. It was a testament to the health of our democratic system that we were able to keep this process honorable over the course of many generations by nothing more than a mutually agreed upon decision to respect the institution.
Lifetime appointments that only open up when a justice dies or retires is a really random way to select a bench that's supposed to be very stable. It incentivizes justices to retire at strategic times and it encourages the President and Senate to pick younger and more partisan candidates for a stronger long-term advantage.
Ideally, we'd just hold a new nomination and appoint a new justice every X number of years, for a long but not indefinite term. If we appointed a single justice every year for 10-year terms, grandfathering in previous justices, we'd have a court that was similar in size but less random in terms of who gets to appoint them.
You would think so, but turning the Supreme Court into a protracted partisan fight is something relatively new. It had an example or two over the nations history of course, but in general was not the case. For example, when RBG herself was put on the bench, she won the vote by 96-3. Scalia won 98-0. The Senate keeps an easy to reference record on Supreme Court and you can see that it was common in the past century for Supreme Court Justices to get an overwhelming share of the vote, often from both sides of the aisle.
Good faith was once a thing in our politics, in certain domains.
This. It shouldnt be understated how norm-shattering this move has been. It's been in the best interest of both parties to try to keep the SCOTUS relatively bipartisan. The McConnell reinterpretation that the senate should act only in the the majority's self interest is new and permanently damaging to the court's credibility.
I'm not being hyperbolic when I say that McConnell's actions between 2016 and now have probably damaged the credibility of the court for generations to come - and set the precedent that each side needs to treat the SCOTUS like a political football rather than a time honored institution... I dont see a way back.
I would prefer we didnt destroy 200 year old institutions, but now that we're here - the only option is to go all in and hope the outcome isnt worse than where we started.
The further we get from Garlands denied nomination the more it seems like it set us down a dangerous road. It's going to be a test of whether we are worthy of keeping a constitutional republic, in my opinion. One or more parties is going to have to rise above their own self interest for the purpose of preserving the integrity of our most important institutions. Nobody wants to see our most impartial branch of government become a puppet for immediate political self interest, and the case could easily be made to the American people that the Supreme Court is worth preserving.
I would be disappointed if this needs to be solved by a constitutional amendment. It was a testament to the health of our democratic system that we were able to keep this process honorable over the course of many generations by nothing more than a mutually agreed upon decision to respect the institution.
Constitutional amendment would be impossible in this political climate. A 50/50 split along ideological lines equals not a chance in Hell of getting 2/3 of Congess let alone 2/3 of state legislatures to agree to anything.
Lifetime appointments that only open up when a justice dies or retires is a really random way to select a bench that's supposed to be very stable. It incentivizes justices to retire at strategic times and it encourages the President and Senate to pick younger and more partisan candidates for a stronger long-term advantage.
Ideally, we'd just hold a new nomination and appoint a new justice every X number of years, for a long but not indefinite term. If we appointed a single justice every year for 10-year terms, grandfathering in previous justices, we'd have a court that was similar in size but less random in terms of who gets to appoint them.
You would think so, but turning the Supreme Court into a protracted partisan fight is something relatively new. It had an example or two over the nations history of course, but in general was not the case. For example, when RBG herself was put on the bench, she won the vote by 96-3. Scalia won 98-0. The Senate keeps an easy to reference record on Supreme Court and you can see that it was common in the past century for Supreme Court Justices to get an overwhelming share of the vote, often from both sides of the aisle.
Good faith was once a thing in our politics, in certain domains.
This. It shouldnt be understated how norm-shattering this move has been. It's been in the best interest of both parties to try to keep the SCOTUS relatively bipartisan. The McConnell reinterpretation that the senate should act only in the the majority's self interest is new and permanently damaging to the court's credibility.
I'm not being hyperbolic when I say that McConnell's actions between 2016 and now have probably damaged the credibility of the court for generations to come - and set the precedent that each side needs to treat the SCOTUS like a political football rather than a time honored institution... I dont see a way back.
I would prefer we didnt destroy 200 year old institutions, but now that we're here - the only option is to go all in and hope the outcome isnt worse than where we started.
The further we get from Garlands denied nomination the more it seems like it set us down a dangerous road. It's going to be a test of whether we are worthy of keeping a constitutional republic, in my opinion. One or more parties is going to have to rise above their own self interest for the purpose of preserving the integrity of our most important institutions. Nobody wants to see our most impartial branch of government become a puppet for immediate political self interest, and the case could easily be made to the American people that the Supreme Court is worth preserving.
I would be disappointed if this needs to be solved by a constitutional amendment. It was a testament to the health of our democratic system that we were able to keep this process honorable over the course of many generations by nothing more than a mutually agreed upon decision to respect the institution.
Well, you can rest assured that as long as Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein are running point on this in the Senate (even if they win it next year), the left are going to be the ones asked to "take one for the team". Playing Marquess of Queensberry when the other side is willing to let it become the street fight from "Anchorman".
Schumer can say "nothing is off the table" til the cows come home. He is ineffectual at best, worthless at worst. Against McConnell, he isn't even a speed bump. Biden is temperamentally unfit for this kind of fight, and people like Joe Manchin and Jon Tester are too vulnerable in overwhelmingly red states to even consider going to bat for this considering the all-out assault right-wing media would launch on them in their homes states if they did.
Lifetime appointments that only open up when a justice dies or retires is a really random way to select a bench that's supposed to be very stable. It incentivizes justices to retire at strategic times and it encourages the President and Senate to pick younger and more partisan candidates for a stronger long-term advantage.
Ideally, we'd just hold a new nomination and appoint a new justice every X number of years, for a long but not indefinite term. If we appointed a single justice every year for 10-year terms, grandfathering in previous justices, we'd have a court that was similar in size but less random in terms of who gets to appoint them.
You would think so, but turning the Supreme Court into a protracted partisan fight is something relatively new. It had an example or two over the nations history of course, but in general was not the case. For example, when RBG herself was put on the bench, she won the vote by 96-3. Scalia won 98-0. The Senate keeps an easy to reference record on Supreme Court and you can see that it was common in the past century for Supreme Court Justices to get an overwhelming share of the vote, often from both sides of the aisle.
Good faith was once a thing in our politics, in certain domains.
This. It shouldnt be understated how norm-shattering this move has been. It's been in the best interest of both parties to try to keep the SCOTUS relatively bipartisan. The McConnell reinterpretation that the senate should act only in the the majority's self interest is new and permanently damaging to the court's credibility.
I'm not being hyperbolic when I say that McConnell's actions between 2016 and now have probably damaged the credibility of the court for generations to come - and set the precedent that each side needs to treat the SCOTUS like a political football rather than a time honored institution... I dont see a way back.
I would prefer we didnt destroy 200 year old institutions, but now that we're here - the only option is to go all in and hope the outcome isnt worse than where we started.
The further we get from Garlands denied nomination the more it seems like it set us down a dangerous road. It's going to be a test of whether we are worthy of keeping a constitutional republic, in my opinion. One or more parties is going to have to rise above their own self interest for the purpose of preserving the integrity of our most important institutions. Nobody wants to see our most impartial branch of government become a puppet for immediate political self interest, and the case could easily be made to the American people that the Supreme Court is worth preserving.
I would be disappointed if this needs to be solved by a constitutional amendment. It was a testament to the health of our democratic system that we were able to keep this process honorable over the course of many generations by nothing more than a mutually agreed upon decision to respect the institution.
I agree. I think it will take both parties. I dont think the institutions can survive if even one party starts undermining them - since it will inevitably prompt a response from the second party (now acting out of a sense of survival).
If the GOP completes their version of court packing by stealing a seat and then taking a second seat under near identical circumstances as the first - the Democrats probably cannot just collectively shrug and accept a permanently conservative SCOTUS. If they do, there's no reason to believe the GOP wouldnt act in bad faith to continue to undermine other norms when it is to their advantage.
Edit - and while I wish it wouldnt take an amendment to deal with this, as a person who supports the aggrieved side of this absolute fiasco... I'm not sure I know how to trust a GOP senate not to do this just because they give their word. Restoring my faith in the GOP not to undermine the credibility of a co-equal branch of the federal government will probably require an amendment.
Lifetime appointments that only open up when a justice dies or retires is a really random way to select a bench that's supposed to be very stable. It incentivizes justices to retire at strategic times and it encourages the President and Senate to pick younger and more partisan candidates for a stronger long-term advantage.
Ideally, we'd just hold a new nomination and appoint a new justice every X number of years, for a long but not indefinite term. If we appointed a single justice every year for 10-year terms, grandfathering in previous justices, we'd have a court that was similar in size but less random in terms of who gets to appoint them.
You would think so, but turning the Supreme Court into a protracted partisan fight is something relatively new. It had an example or two over the nations history of course, but in general was not the case. For example, when RBG herself was put on the bench, she won the vote by 96-3. Scalia won 98-0. The Senate keeps an easy to reference record on Supreme Court and you can see that it was common in the past century for Supreme Court Justices to get an overwhelming share of the vote, often from both sides of the aisle.
Good faith was once a thing in our politics, in certain domains.
This. It shouldnt be understated how norm-shattering this move has been. It's been in the best interest of both parties to try to keep the SCOTUS relatively bipartisan. The McConnell reinterpretation that the senate should act only in the the majority's self interest is new and permanently damaging to the court's credibility.
I'm not being hyperbolic when I say that McConnell's actions between 2016 and now have probably damaged the credibility of the court for generations to come - and set the precedent that each side needs to treat the SCOTUS like a political football rather than a time honored institution... I dont see a way back.
I would prefer we didnt destroy 200 year old institutions, but now that we're here - the only option is to go all in and hope the outcome isnt worse than where we started.
The further we get from Garlands denied nomination the more it seems like it set us down a dangerous road. It's going to be a test of whether we are worthy of keeping a constitutional republic, in my opinion. One or more parties is going to have to rise above their own self interest for the purpose of preserving the integrity of our most important institutions. Nobody wants to see our most impartial branch of government become a puppet for immediate political self interest, and the case could easily be made to the American people that the Supreme Court is worth preserving.
I would be disappointed if this needs to be solved by a constitutional amendment. It was a testament to the health of our democratic system that we were able to keep this process honorable over the course of many generations by nothing more than a mutually agreed upon decision to respect the institution.
I agree. I think it will take both parties. I dont think the institutions can survive if even one party starts undermining them - since it will inevitably prompt a response from the second party (now acting out of a sense of survival).
If the GOP completes their version of court packing by stealing a seat and then taking a second seat under near identical circumstances as the first - the Democrats probably cannot just collectively shrug and accept a permanently conservative SCOTUS. If they do, there's no reason to believe the GOP wouldnt act in bad faith to continue to undermine other norms when it is to their advantage.
I think there is a 75% chance all the rest of our institutions collapse by January. No hyperbole.
Lifetime appointments that only open up when a justice dies or retires is a really random way to select a bench that's supposed to be very stable. It incentivizes justices to retire at strategic times and it encourages the President and Senate to pick younger and more partisan candidates for a stronger long-term advantage.
Ideally, we'd just hold a new nomination and appoint a new justice every X number of years, for a long but not indefinite term. If we appointed a single justice every year for 10-year terms, grandfathering in previous justices, we'd have a court that was similar in size but less random in terms of who gets to appoint them.
You would think so, but turning the Supreme Court into a protracted partisan fight is something relatively new. It had an example or two over the nations history of course, but in general was not the case. For example, when RBG herself was put on the bench, she won the vote by 96-3. Scalia won 98-0. The Senate keeps an easy to reference record on Supreme Court and you can see that it was common in the past century for Supreme Court Justices to get an overwhelming share of the vote, often from both sides of the aisle.
Good faith was once a thing in our politics, in certain domains.
This. It shouldnt be understated how norm-shattering this move has been. It's been in the best interest of both parties to try to keep the SCOTUS relatively bipartisan. The McConnell reinterpretation that the senate should act only in the the majority's self interest is new and permanently damaging to the court's credibility.
I'm not being hyperbolic when I say that McConnell's actions between 2016 and now have probably damaged the credibility of the court for generations to come - and set the precedent that each side needs to treat the SCOTUS like a political football rather than a time honored institution... I dont see a way back.
I would prefer we didnt destroy 200 year old institutions, but now that we're here - the only option is to go all in and hope the outcome isnt worse than where we started.
The further we get from Garlands denied nomination the more it seems like it set us down a dangerous road. It's going to be a test of whether we are worthy of keeping a constitutional republic, in my opinion. One or more parties is going to have to rise above their own self interest for the purpose of preserving the integrity of our most important institutions. Nobody wants to see our most impartial branch of government become a puppet for immediate political self interest, and the case could easily be made to the American people that the Supreme Court is worth preserving.
I would be disappointed if this needs to be solved by a constitutional amendment. It was a testament to the health of our democratic system that we were able to keep this process honorable over the course of many generations by nothing more than a mutually agreed upon decision to respect the institution.
Constitutional amendment would be impossible in this political climate. A 50/50 split along ideological lines equals not a chance in Hell of getting 2/3 of Congess let alone 2/3 of state legislatures to agree to anything.
I agree - although I somewhat think it's impossible because there's a perceived imbalance of power. The GOP has no incentive to agree to a constitutional amendment because they're currently reaping all the benefits they can from damaging the bipartisan nature of the SCOTUS.
Off the top of my head, I only see two ways to force them to the negotiating table:
A - Democrats start playing equally dirty, and find a way to do so that is perceived as at least equally bad by the GOP as the Democrats see in the GOP's shenanigans. (Redistricting. PR/DC, Court packing, etc)
B - Texas goes completely Blue, and the GOP is locked out of presidential politics for the foreseeable future. I could imagine this nightmare scenario prompting the GOP to agree to an amendment for the SCOTUS and in return we abolish the Electoral College (Which sounds like a double win for Democrats, but in the event that Texas goes reliably blue... it would suddenly be in the GOP's best interest).
Probably neither plan is particularly good. Option A is ill-defined and who knows how it would all play out, and Option B probably takes 16 to 20 years, and there's no guarantee that the midwest wont offset this gain entirely on its own.
Lifetime appointments that only open up when a justice dies or retires is a really random way to select a bench that's supposed to be very stable. It incentivizes justices to retire at strategic times and it encourages the President and Senate to pick younger and more partisan candidates for a stronger long-term advantage.
Ideally, we'd just hold a new nomination and appoint a new justice every X number of years, for a long but not indefinite term. If we appointed a single justice every year for 10-year terms, grandfathering in previous justices, we'd have a court that was similar in size but less random in terms of who gets to appoint them.
You would think so, but turning the Supreme Court into a protracted partisan fight is something relatively new. It had an example or two over the nations history of course, but in general was not the case. For example, when RBG herself was put on the bench, she won the vote by 96-3. Scalia won 98-0. The Senate keeps an easy to reference record on Supreme Court and you can see that it was common in the past century for Supreme Court Justices to get an overwhelming share of the vote, often from both sides of the aisle.
Good faith was once a thing in our politics, in certain domains.
This. It shouldnt be understated how norm-shattering this move has been. It's been in the best interest of both parties to try to keep the SCOTUS relatively bipartisan. The McConnell reinterpretation that the senate should act only in the the majority's self interest is new and permanently damaging to the court's credibility.
I'm not being hyperbolic when I say that McConnell's actions between 2016 and now have probably damaged the credibility of the court for generations to come - and set the precedent that each side needs to treat the SCOTUS like a political football rather than a time honored institution... I dont see a way back.
I would prefer we didnt destroy 200 year old institutions, but now that we're here - the only option is to go all in and hope the outcome isnt worse than where we started.
The further we get from Garlands denied nomination the more it seems like it set us down a dangerous road. It's going to be a test of whether we are worthy of keeping a constitutional republic, in my opinion. One or more parties is going to have to rise above their own self interest for the purpose of preserving the integrity of our most important institutions. Nobody wants to see our most impartial branch of government become a puppet for immediate political self interest, and the case could easily be made to the American people that the Supreme Court is worth preserving.
I would be disappointed if this needs to be solved by a constitutional amendment. It was a testament to the health of our democratic system that we were able to keep this process honorable over the course of many generations by nothing more than a mutually agreed upon decision to respect the institution.
Assuming the new appointment goes ahead, I think it will already be too late to restore the credibility of SCOTUS without some significant changes or restructuring. Even if the court is not in fact deciding cases on a partisan basis, I'm sure that would be the appearance. If for instance abortion were made illegal, despite a large majority of people being against that, I can't see that decision being respected or accepted - and ultimately a democracy is not going to be able to function where most people are not willing to follow laws.
Changes to the constitution wouldn't necessarily be required. It's already clear that Congress has the power to change the size of the court and there are other things it could try as well, e.g. introducing term limits (Supreme Court judges could be shifted to other judgeships to avoid the issue of life terms). What is done though is probably less important than the way it is done - I think a bipartisan approach, however unlikely that currently seems, will be a necessary pre-cursor to restoring the idea the Supreme Court can act independently from politics.
Lifetime appointments that only open up when a justice dies or retires is a really random way to select a bench that's supposed to be very stable. It incentivizes justices to retire at strategic times and it encourages the President and Senate to pick younger and more partisan candidates for a stronger long-term advantage.
Ideally, we'd just hold a new nomination and appoint a new justice every X number of years, for a long but not indefinite term. If we appointed a single justice every year for 10-year terms, grandfathering in previous justices, we'd have a court that was similar in size but less random in terms of who gets to appoint them.
You would think so, but turning the Supreme Court into a protracted partisan fight is something relatively new. It had an example or two over the nations history of course, but in general was not the case. For example, when RBG herself was put on the bench, she won the vote by 96-3. Scalia won 98-0. The Senate keeps an easy to reference record on Supreme Court and you can see that it was common in the past century for Supreme Court Justices to get an overwhelming share of the vote, often from both sides of the aisle.
Good faith was once a thing in our politics, in certain domains.
This. It shouldnt be understated how norm-shattering this move has been. It's been in the best interest of both parties to try to keep the SCOTUS relatively bipartisan. The McConnell reinterpretation that the senate should act only in the the majority's self interest is new and permanently damaging to the court's credibility.
I'm not being hyperbolic when I say that McConnell's actions between 2016 and now have probably damaged the credibility of the court for generations to come - and set the precedent that each side needs to treat the SCOTUS like a political football rather than a time honored institution... I dont see a way back.
I would prefer we didnt destroy 200 year old institutions, but now that we're here - the only option is to go all in and hope the outcome isnt worse than where we started.
The further we get from Garlands denied nomination the more it seems like it set us down a dangerous road. It's going to be a test of whether we are worthy of keeping a constitutional republic, in my opinion. One or more parties is going to have to rise above their own self interest for the purpose of preserving the integrity of our most important institutions. Nobody wants to see our most impartial branch of government become a puppet for immediate political self interest, and the case could easily be made to the American people that the Supreme Court is worth preserving.
I would be disappointed if this needs to be solved by a constitutional amendment. It was a testament to the health of our democratic system that we were able to keep this process honorable over the course of many generations by nothing more than a mutually agreed upon decision to respect the institution.
Assuming the new appointment goes ahead, I think it will already be too late to restore the credibility of SCOTUS without some significant changes or restructuring. Even if the court is not in fact deciding cases on a partisan basis, I'm sure that would be the appearance. If for instance abortion were made illegal, despite a large majority of people being against that, I can't see that decision being respected or accepted - and ultimately a democracy is not going to be able to function where most people are not willing to follow laws.
Changes to the constitution wouldn't necessarily be required. It's already clear that Congress has the power to change the size of the court and there are other things it could try as well, e.g. introducing term limits (Supreme Court judges could be shifted to other judgeships to avoid the issue of life terms). What is done though is probably less important than the way it is done - I think a bipartisan approach, however unlikely that currently seems, will be a necessary pre-cursor to restoring the idea the Supreme Court can act independently from politics.
Overturning of Roe would mean some states would have legal abortion and some states would not. Long story short, wealthy women will be able to get them no matter where they live, but poor people stuck in a red state will be unable. At least initially......
You'll see increasingly frightening laws passed in red states. Abortion won't be the only thing that's illegal. There will inevitably be organizations that attempt to help low-income women travel to another state. They'll make doing that illegal. Then they'll making crossing state lines for the purpose of getting an abortion illegal (essentially making women a prisoner of whatever state they are born in). Then they'll start investigating miscarriages. Eventually, they'll come for Plan B, and, at long last, birth control. Bank on all of this if Roe is overturned. Women traveling to other states will be a suspected crime in short order. And I suspect you'd see a mass exodus of females from any of those states within a decade, further tanking the GDP of states that are already at the bottom of the barrel in that regard.
Take this in conjunction with even more ridiculous "religious liberty" decisions, and you'll effectively have 5 or 6 theocracies within 25 years. They may ATTEMPT to roll back gay marriage, but they may find that's a bridge they can't possibly go back across if they don't want to face a near total economic boycott from other states.
And yes, the MAJORITY of the country is eventually going to say "fuck this, the game is rigged, none of this is legitimate anymore". Because the Presidency AND the Senate massively favor the minority of voters, so does, by extension, the Supreme Court (even morseo when you are able to essentially steal two picks). So all they have left is the House, which can effectively do nothing without the stamp of the Senate. So, basically, window dressing.
Understand, we are already looking at a situation where Biden not only has to have a landslide victory to avoid a possible EC defeat, but also open talk among most liberals that we have to drive the numbers up even higher just to make sure Trump can't litigate a loss into a victory. We are in a marathon with a full suit of armor, boots, and a backpack, and the other side is in running shorts and top of the line tennis shoes.
Lifetime appointments that only open up when a justice dies or retires is a really random way to select a bench that's supposed to be very stable. It incentivizes justices to retire at strategic times and it encourages the President and Senate to pick younger and more partisan candidates for a stronger long-term advantage.
Ideally, we'd just hold a new nomination and appoint a new justice every X number of years, for a long but not indefinite term. If we appointed a single justice every year for 10-year terms, grandfathering in previous justices, we'd have a court that was similar in size but less random in terms of who gets to appoint them.
You would think so, but turning the Supreme Court into a protracted partisan fight is something relatively new. It had an example or two over the nations history of course, but in general was not the case. For example, when RBG herself was put on the bench, she won the vote by 96-3. Scalia won 98-0. The Senate keeps an easy to reference record on Supreme Court and you can see that it was common in the past century for Supreme Court Justices to get an overwhelming share of the vote, often from both sides of the aisle.
Good faith was once a thing in our politics, in certain domains.
This. It shouldnt be understated how norm-shattering this move has been. It's been in the best interest of both parties to try to keep the SCOTUS relatively bipartisan. The McConnell reinterpretation that the senate should act only in the the majority's self interest is new and permanently damaging to the court's credibility.
I'm not being hyperbolic when I say that McConnell's actions between 2016 and now have probably damaged the credibility of the court for generations to come - and set the precedent that each side needs to treat the SCOTUS like a political football rather than a time honored institution... I dont see a way back.
I would prefer we didnt destroy 200 year old institutions, but now that we're here - the only option is to go all in and hope the outcome isnt worse than where we started.
The further we get from Garlands denied nomination the more it seems like it set us down a dangerous road. It's going to be a test of whether we are worthy of keeping a constitutional republic, in my opinion. One or more parties is going to have to rise above their own self interest for the purpose of preserving the integrity of our most important institutions. Nobody wants to see our most impartial branch of government become a puppet for immediate political self interest, and the case could easily be made to the American people that the Supreme Court is worth preserving.
I would be disappointed if this needs to be solved by a constitutional amendment. It was a testament to the health of our democratic system that we were able to keep this process honorable over the course of many generations by nothing more than a mutually agreed upon decision to respect the institution.
Assuming the new appointment goes ahead, I think it will already be too late to restore the credibility of SCOTUS without some significant changes or restructuring. Even if the court is not in fact deciding cases on a partisan basis, I'm sure that would be the appearance. If for instance abortion were made illegal, despite a large majority of people being against that, I can't see that decision being respected or accepted - and ultimately a democracy is not going to be able to function where most people are not willing to follow laws.
Changes to the constitution wouldn't necessarily be required. It's already clear that Congress has the power to change the size of the court and there are other things it could try as well, e.g. introducing term limits (Supreme Court judges could be shifted to other judgeships to avoid the issue of life terms). What is done though is probably less important than the way it is done - I think a bipartisan approach, however unlikely that currently seems, will be a necessary pre-cursor to restoring the idea the Supreme Court can act independently from politics.
Overturning of Roe would mean some states would have legal abortion and some states would not. Long story short, wealthy women will be able to get them no matter where they live, but poor people stuck in a red state will be unable. At least initially......
As I said the other day, I agree the likely outcome is a simple overturning of Roe - but it's not the only possibility. The position on abortion is governed by:
- to what extent you consider a fetus shares the same rights as a baby, and
- balancing constitutional rights against each other (for instance how does the right to life weigh against the right to liberty).
I'm sure you're far more familiar than I am with some of the debates that have happened in individual states, but it seems to me not inconceivable that SCOTUS could follow the pattern of some states by ascribing considerably more rights to a fetus in future - and that could lead to abortion being made illegal under the constitution rather than being left to individual states. It would be that situation in particular where I think there would be a likelihood of mass resistance to the law.
To some extent the Civil Rights movement can be argued to be an example of that sort of resistance, but the situation I have in mind is more akin to the resistance to Prohibition - where a law is in general disrepute and attempts to enforce it only make the problem worse (I suppose there are echoes there of the war on drugs as well). For older people based in the UK the poll tax failed in the 1990s as a result of both passive and active resistance following the failure of the government to persuade most people that it was fair. That sort of resistance would normally be to government legislation, rather than a court judgment, but the problem is that SCOTUS is in danger of becoming seen as more like a legislator rather than a neutral arbiter.
Lifetime appointments that only open up when a justice dies or retires is a really random way to select a bench that's supposed to be very stable. It incentivizes justices to retire at strategic times and it encourages the President and Senate to pick younger and more partisan candidates for a stronger long-term advantage.
Ideally, we'd just hold a new nomination and appoint a new justice every X number of years, for a long but not indefinite term. If we appointed a single justice every year for 10-year terms, grandfathering in previous justices, we'd have a court that was similar in size but less random in terms of who gets to appoint them.
You would think so, but turning the Supreme Court into a protracted partisan fight is something relatively new. It had an example or two over the nations history of course, but in general was not the case. For example, when RBG herself was put on the bench, she won the vote by 96-3. Scalia won 98-0. The Senate keeps an easy to reference record on Supreme Court and you can see that it was common in the past century for Supreme Court Justices to get an overwhelming share of the vote, often from both sides of the aisle.
Good faith was once a thing in our politics, in certain domains.
This. It shouldnt be understated how norm-shattering this move has been. It's been in the best interest of both parties to try to keep the SCOTUS relatively bipartisan. The McConnell reinterpretation that the senate should act only in the the majority's self interest is new and permanently damaging to the court's credibility.
I'm not being hyperbolic when I say that McConnell's actions between 2016 and now have probably damaged the credibility of the court for generations to come - and set the precedent that each side needs to treat the SCOTUS like a political football rather than a time honored institution... I dont see a way back.
I would prefer we didnt destroy 200 year old institutions, but now that we're here - the only option is to go all in and hope the outcome isnt worse than where we started.
The further we get from Garlands denied nomination the more it seems like it set us down a dangerous road. It's going to be a test of whether we are worthy of keeping a constitutional republic, in my opinion. One or more parties is going to have to rise above their own self interest for the purpose of preserving the integrity of our most important institutions. Nobody wants to see our most impartial branch of government become a puppet for immediate political self interest, and the case could easily be made to the American people that the Supreme Court is worth preserving.
I would be disappointed if this needs to be solved by a constitutional amendment. It was a testament to the health of our democratic system that we were able to keep this process honorable over the course of many generations by nothing more than a mutually agreed upon decision to respect the institution.
Assuming the new appointment goes ahead, I think it will already be too late to restore the credibility of SCOTUS without some significant changes or restructuring. Even if the court is not in fact deciding cases on a partisan basis, I'm sure that would be the appearance. If for instance abortion were made illegal, despite a large majority of people being against that, I can't see that decision being respected or accepted - and ultimately a democracy is not going to be able to function where most people are not willing to follow laws.
Changes to the constitution wouldn't necessarily be required. It's already clear that Congress has the power to change the size of the court and there are other things it could try as well, e.g. introducing term limits (Supreme Court judges could be shifted to other judgeships to avoid the issue of life terms). What is done though is probably less important than the way it is done - I think a bipartisan approach, however unlikely that currently seems, will be a necessary pre-cursor to restoring the idea the Supreme Court can act independently from politics.
Overturning of Roe would mean some states would have legal abortion and some states would not. Long story short, wealthy women will be able to get them no matter where they live, but poor people stuck in a red state will be unable. At least initially......
As I said the other day, I agree the likely outcome is a simple overturning of Roe - but it's not the only possibility. The position on abortion is governed by:
- to what extent you consider a fetus shares the same rights as a baby, and
- balancing constitutional rights against each other (for instance how does the right to life weigh against the right to liberty).
I'm sure you're far more familiar than I am with some of the debates that have happened in individual states, but it seems to me not inconceivable that SCOTUS could follow the pattern of some states by ascribing considerably more rights to a fetus in future - and that could lead to abortion being made illegal under the constitution rather than being left to individual states. It would be that situation in particular where I think there would be a likelihood of mass resistance to the law.
To some extent the Civil Rights movement can be argued to be an example of that sort of resistance, but the situation I have in mind is more akin to the resistance to Prohibition - where a law is in general disrepute and attempts to enforce it only make the problem worse (I suppose there are echoes there of the war on drugs as well). For older people based in the UK the poll tax failed in the 1990s as a result of both passive and active resistance following the failure of the government to persuade most people that it was fair. That sort of resistance would normally be to government legislation, rather than a court judgment, but the problem is that SCOTUS is in danger of becoming seen as more like a legislator rather than a neutral arbiter.
There entire argument for decades has been "returning the right to the states". If they one up that an attempt to dictate a full ban to the entire country, then we might as well get started on seperating ourselves into independent countries right now, because it will not be tolerated. 10s of millions of women are not going to submit to becoming broodmares for a theocratic state. Even if 90% of them never get an abortion, the fundamental attack on their bodily autonomy would not fly. And as I said, if they go that route, then people would be foolish to think birth control wouldn't be far behind. They'd be on a path to banning recreational sex. See Hobby Lobby and pharmacists who refuse to fill certain prescriptions if you think I'm kidding.
As for prohibition, the only thing it accomplished was the rise of organized crime to unprecedented levels.
Lifetime appointments that only open up when a justice dies or retires is a really random way to select a bench that's supposed to be very stable. It incentivizes justices to retire at strategic times and it encourages the President and Senate to pick younger and more partisan candidates for a stronger long-term advantage.
Ideally, we'd just hold a new nomination and appoint a new justice every X number of years, for a long but not indefinite term. If we appointed a single justice every year for 10-year terms, grandfathering in previous justices, we'd have a court that was similar in size but less random in terms of who gets to appoint them.
You would think so, but turning the Supreme Court into a protracted partisan fight is something relatively new. It had an example or two over the nations history of course, but in general was not the case. For example, when RBG herself was put on the bench, she won the vote by 96-3. Scalia won 98-0. The Senate keeps an easy to reference record on Supreme Court and you can see that it was common in the past century for Supreme Court Justices to get an overwhelming share of the vote, often from both sides of the aisle.
Good faith was once a thing in our politics, in certain domains.
This. It shouldnt be understated how norm-shattering this move has been. It's been in the best interest of both parties to try to keep the SCOTUS relatively bipartisan. The McConnell reinterpretation that the senate should act only in the the majority's self interest is new and permanently damaging to the court's credibility.
I'm not being hyperbolic when I say that McConnell's actions between 2016 and now have probably damaged the credibility of the court for generations to come - and set the precedent that each side needs to treat the SCOTUS like a political football rather than a time honored institution... I dont see a way back.
I would prefer we didnt destroy 200 year old institutions, but now that we're here - the only option is to go all in and hope the outcome isnt worse than where we started.
The further we get from Garlands denied nomination the more it seems like it set us down a dangerous road. It's going to be a test of whether we are worthy of keeping a constitutional republic, in my opinion. One or more parties is going to have to rise above their own self interest for the purpose of preserving the integrity of our most important institutions. Nobody wants to see our most impartial branch of government become a puppet for immediate political self interest, and the case could easily be made to the American people that the Supreme Court is worth preserving.
I would be disappointed if this needs to be solved by a constitutional amendment. It was a testament to the health of our democratic system that we were able to keep this process honorable over the course of many generations by nothing more than a mutually agreed upon decision to respect the institution.
Assuming the new appointment goes ahead, I think it will already be too late to restore the credibility of SCOTUS without some significant changes or restructuring. Even if the court is not in fact deciding cases on a partisan basis, I'm sure that would be the appearance. If for instance abortion were made illegal, despite a large majority of people being against that, I can't see that decision being respected or accepted - and ultimately a democracy is not going to be able to function where most people are not willing to follow laws.
Changes to the constitution wouldn't necessarily be required. It's already clear that Congress has the power to change the size of the court and there are other things it could try as well, e.g. introducing term limits (Supreme Court judges could be shifted to other judgeships to avoid the issue of life terms). What is done though is probably less important than the way it is done - I think a bipartisan approach, however unlikely that currently seems, will be a necessary pre-cursor to restoring the idea the Supreme Court can act independently from politics.
Overturning of Roe would mean some states would have legal abortion and some states would not. Long story short, wealthy women will be able to get them no matter where they live, but poor people stuck in a red state will be unable. At least initially......
As I said the other day, I agree the likely outcome is a simple overturning of Roe - but it's not the only possibility. The position on abortion is governed by:
- to what extent you consider a fetus shares the same rights as a baby, and
- balancing constitutional rights against each other (for instance how does the right to life weigh against the right to liberty).
I'm sure you're far more familiar than I am with some of the debates that have happened in individual states, but it seems to me not inconceivable that SCOTUS could follow the pattern of some states by ascribing considerably more rights to a fetus in future - and that could lead to abortion being made illegal under the constitution rather than being left to individual states. It would be that situation in particular where I think there would be a likelihood of mass resistance to the law.
Unfortunately - this scenario becomes more and more plausible as McConnell continues to push the idea that only the majority of the senate + presidency allows for the confirmation of a SCOTUS candidate. In the past - more moderate candidates were proposed in the event that the opposition party was in control of the senate, or at least the president's party did not control a full 60 seats.
With that idea effectively dead and gone - presidents will be incentivized to make more ideological and radical selections to the court. The idea of a swing justice like Kennedy will probably be dead and gone.
It's not hard to imagine that when pushed to the extreme, they might go well beyond just overturning Roe and returning the option to the states in question.
So, you'll possibly remember the citizens of Florida voted by referendum to restore voting rights to former felons. DeSantis and the legislature decided to implement what is nothing more than a poll tax on these people in regards to unpaid fines. Mike Bloomberg (of all people) has offered to pay for these fines. So now they are trying to stop that too:
It is SO fucking obvious this is based on no principle whatsoever, other than (for the 1000th time) preventing people from being able to exercise their rights. Apparently now Mike Bloomberg can't give away his own money.
If it comes down to it, Republicans in Florida will demand each of these former prisoners gather around a flagpole at midnight on Novmeber 2, turn exactly 3 times in a counter-clockwise circle, then spit to the northwest to regain their voting rights. I hate these people. True, deep hatred.
They have demanded the fines be paid. Now that someone is giving them money to pay the fines, the source of the money is viewed as unacceptable. This people are evil, rotten to the core, and their taking down the entire American experiment in their lust for power. The Republican Party has no intention of winning a legitimate election. They have every intention of stealing one outright. They don't even bother to pretend otherwise.
And for the love of God, please stop pretending this man is just "joking". He isn't:
Great, just great. Anybody still think a vaccine is going to just make this virus go away? My bet, it's going to be an annual addition to the flu vaccine eventually.
And for the love of God, please stop pretending this man is just "joking". He isn't:
Also in that conference, when asked about a peaceful transfer of power, he responded:
"I've been complaining very strongly about the ballots," Mr Trump, a Republican, said. "And the ballots are a disaster."
When the journalist countered that "people are rioting", Mr Trump interjected: "Get rid of the ballots, and you'll have a very - you'll have a very peaceful - there won't be a transfer, frankly, there'll be a continuation."
I guess he was intending to rehash his claim that he would win the election easily if there were no postal votes. Alternatively he may have been alluding to his old argument that, without the supposed many millions of fraudulent votes, he would have won the popular vote in the 2016 election. However, I suspect that what he actually said is in fact exactly what he'd like - to continue as president without the need for voting at all ...
He also said recently that he'll sign an executive order to prevent Biden from becoming president. He can allude to whatever he wants, he isn't leaving without a fight.
When the journalist countered that "people are rioting", Mr Trump interjected: "Get rid of the ballots, and you'll have a very - you'll have a very peaceful - there won't be a transfer, frankly, there'll be a continuation."
When the journalist countered that "people are rioting", Mr Trump interjected: "Get rid of the ballots, and you'll have a very - you'll have a very peaceful - there won't be a transfer, frankly, there'll be a continuation."
The US President: "Get rid of the ballots."
It's crazy
I suggest everyone start to wrap their head around the idea that he is, in fact, going to burn the whole thing down if necessary. Not metaphorically, but literally. There was also reporting today that they are openly attempting to recruit electors who will ignore the state vote totals. This isn't just about winning on Election Night anymore. It's about fending off attacks that will come from 10 different directions at once afterwards. This isn't a joke. It never has been, but I don't know how even skeptics can pretend it is now.
You will notice that everything these people favor in their ideal clampdown is supposed to apply to everyone but them. Authoritarian is one way to describe it. So is sociopathic. But they most certainly do not BELIEVE in America as it actually is.
But this article is a little late to the party (though I know the author is not, from what it sounds like). For years, while I could tolerate it, I watched FOX News and listened to AM radio. That masochistic streak has translated into reading hundreds of Youtube and Twitter comments a day from the "other" side, and from what I can gather, what they want is pretty damn clear. They don't just want Democrats to lose elections. They want liberals to be eradicated. Not the ideas, the PEOPLE.
They are more likely to support limiting the freedom of the press and agree that the media is the enemy of the people rather than a valuable independent institution.
Lmao. I wonder why so many targeted questions to gauge "authoritarianism" specifically use Trump slogans. Almost like they want to arrive at a particular conclusion! There's no excuse for this level of ham-fisted manipulation, but it's what you would come to expect from a press that isn't free nor honest. I guarantee that the people who think the media is the "enemy of the people" are those who think, rightly, that they are liars. If wanting an honest media makes you authoritarian, I am happily in that camp. If being a mindless consumer of ideological media and a shameless partisan hack makes you a paragon of citizenship, i'm happily against it. The connection between authoritarianism and belief in the honesty of the media is nonexistent. It is a belief that is neatly separated by party affiliation, with independents and republicans not trusting the media and democrats trusting it. So of course it is one of their primary metrics for gauging "authoritarianism", one that inherently excludes left wing folks but includes the majority of republicans and independents, and with a very questionable connection to what they attempting to measure at best. Absolutely wild that they get away with garbage like this and it passes for legitimate.
@WarChiefZeke I see now that you can't use it to try and discredit liberals, you're back to claiming that the press is manipulative and dishonest.
Yes, the press is manipulative and dishonest, and the majority of people have agreed with me on that fact for nearly 20 straight years. Has the majority of the country for the past two decades been crazy, or is it possible that I just might have a point?
Anywhere you look the mass media has gotten abysmally low ratings across the board, for years, from everyone but Democrats. At a certain point the numbers speak for themselves, the mass media speaks to the democrats in the American public, and nobody else, and the rest of us can see that.
If that echo chamber is where you reside normally, it's probably fine and you don't even notice it. But if you don't, it's glaringly obvious.
I just, honestly, don't see how it is up for debate at this point.
"More than 3-in-4 of 803 American respondents, or 77 percent, said they believe that major traditional television and newspaper media outlets report “fake news,” according to a Monmouth University poll released Monday, marking a sharp increase in distrust of those news organizations from a year ago, when 63 percent registered concerns about the spread of misinformation."
"Americans perceive inaccurate news to be intentional — either because the reporter is misrepresenting the facts (54%) or making them up entirely (28%)."
Anywhere you look the mass media has gotten abysmally low ratings across the board, for years, from everyone but Democrats. At a certain point the numbers speak for themselves, the mass media speaks to the democrats in the American public, and nobody else, and the rest of us can see that.
If that echo chamber is where you reside normally, it's probably fine and you don't even notice it. But if you don't, it's glaringly obvious.
I just, honestly, don't see how it is up for debate at this point.
"More than 3-in-4 of 803 American respondents, or 77 percent, said they believe that major traditional television and newspaper media outlets report “fake news,” according to a Monmouth University poll released Monday, marking a sharp increase in distrust of those news organizations from a year ago, when 63 percent registered concerns about the spread of misinformation."
"Americans perceive inaccurate news to be intentional — either because the reporter is misrepresenting the facts (54%) or making them up entirely (28%)."
I again ask, for the 100th time, why the TOTAL (as in basically 99.9%) domination of every AM radio station in the country by conservative programming 24/7 is not considered "mass media". When, unlike all cable news and newspapers, it is completely free to anyone who even owns a $200 beater Ford Focus. AND the fact that it reaches more people (still, even at this late date) than any of the other news mediums:
Nielsen recently released its Audio Today 2018 report. According to the report, radio reaches 93% of adults on a weekly basis. TV reaches 88% and smartphones reach 83%.
Radio reaches 243,381,000 users monthly. Compared to 229,960,000 monthly users of live or DVR TV, 179,216,742 monthly users of social media sites and 105,122,040 monthly users of news websites.
Ninety-five percent of Millennials are reached by radio each month. That number grows to 97% of Gen-Xers and 98% of Boomers. According to Brad Kelly, Managing Director of Nielsen Audio, “Each week, more Americans tune into AM/FM radio (93%) than watch television, or use smartphones, tablets or computers.”
If we're going to talk about willful omissions, the complete erasure of the NUMBER ONE media consumption device (by a large margin) is perhaps one that should be discussed. And I tell you again, from decades of experience and a futile search for any remotely progressive programming, there is NO variance in what the viewpoints are. It's Rush, Hannity and their acolytes 24/7/365 from coast to coast. Hell, even sports talk, which is the next most popular thing to listen to, has a pretty overwhelming conservative lean.
There is no honest conversation to be had about the media without talking about terrestrial radio on the AM dial since the early-90s. And that conversation doesn't even exist. And don't even get me started on what Sinclair broadcasting is doing to LOCAL news in well over 30% of the markets in this country. As I said last week, this constant focus on DC press outlets, the NYT, Washington Post and CNN is myopic at best.
Comments
Ideally, we'd just hold a new nomination and appoint a new justice every X number of years, for a long but not indefinite term. If we appointed a single justice every year for 10-year terms, grandfathering in previous justices, we'd have a court that was similar in size but less random in terms of who gets to appoint them.
How about Hybrid it.
Every presidential term, the president is allowed to appoint one judge where they remain until they either retire or pass away. The appointment then becomes an election issue instead of a shit show Senate issue as the 'will of the people' is being applied to the actual selection.
The Senate committee can still interview candidate(s) during the election cycle allowing their role to be fulfilled and if a selection like Kavanaugh seems unpopular with the voting public, they can replaced instead of just rubber stamped or face losing the election over it.
"New justices are appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of a panel of legal experts from each of the UK's nations. Applicants must have been a High Court judge for at least two years or a practising lawyer for 15."
Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49663001#:~:text=New justices are appointed by,members of the Supreme Court.
You would think so, but turning the Supreme Court into a protracted partisan fight is something relatively new. It had an example or two over the nations history of course, but in general was not the case. For example, when RBG herself was put on the bench, she won the vote by 96-3. Scalia won 98-0. The Senate keeps an easy to reference record on Supreme Court nominations and you can see that it was common in the past century for Supreme Court Justices to get an overwhelming share of the vote, often from both sides of the aisle.
Good faith was once a thing in our politics, in certain domains.
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm
This. It shouldnt be understated how norm-shattering this move has been. It's been in the best interest of both parties to try to keep the SCOTUS relatively bipartisan. The McConnell reinterpretation that the senate should act only in the the majority's self interest is new and permanently damaging to the court's credibility.
I'm not being hyperbolic when I say that McConnell's actions between 2016 and now have probably damaged the credibility of the court for generations to come - and set the precedent that each side needs to treat the SCOTUS like a political football rather than a time honored institution... I dont see a way back.
I would prefer we didnt destroy 200 year old institutions, but now that we're here - the only option is to go all in and hope the outcome isnt worse than where we started.
The conservative intelligensia LOVES to pretend this is all about Robert Bork, creating this alternate history where he was unfairly denied a seat. First off, he was given a full hearing and up or down vote. Second of all, six REPUBLICANS voted against him. Third, Reagan's next choice was EASILY confirmed, and fourth, he is the man who fired Archibald Cox for Nixon, bringing the Republic closer to the precipice of falling apart than at any time excluding the Civil War and right now. And they NEVER mention this in their reenactments. The idea that Bork deserved to be anywhere near the highest court in the land given his role in Watergate is absolutely laughable, but not quite as laughable as the people who try tell his history without mentioning it's most central and unforgivable incident.
The further we get from Garlands denied nomination the more it seems like it set us down a dangerous road. It's going to be a test of whether we are worthy of keeping a constitutional republic, in my opinion. One or more parties is going to have to rise above their own self interest for the purpose of preserving the integrity of our most important institutions. Nobody wants to see our most impartial branch of government become a puppet for immediate political self interest, and the case could easily be made to the American people that the Supreme Court is worth preserving.
I would be disappointed if this needs to be solved by a constitutional amendment. It was a testament to the health of our democratic system that we were able to keep this process honorable over the course of many generations by nothing more than a mutually agreed upon decision to respect the institution.
Constitutional amendment would be impossible in this political climate. A 50/50 split along ideological lines equals not a chance in Hell of getting 2/3 of Congess let alone 2/3 of state legislatures to agree to anything.
Well, you can rest assured that as long as Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein are running point on this in the Senate (even if they win it next year), the left are going to be the ones asked to "take one for the team". Playing Marquess of Queensberry when the other side is willing to let it become the street fight from "Anchorman".
Schumer can say "nothing is off the table" til the cows come home. He is ineffectual at best, worthless at worst. Against McConnell, he isn't even a speed bump. Biden is temperamentally unfit for this kind of fight, and people like Joe Manchin and Jon Tester are too vulnerable in overwhelmingly red states to even consider going to bat for this considering the all-out assault right-wing media would launch on them in their homes states if they did.
I agree. I think it will take both parties. I dont think the institutions can survive if even one party starts undermining them - since it will inevitably prompt a response from the second party (now acting out of a sense of survival).
If the GOP completes their version of court packing by stealing a seat and then taking a second seat under near identical circumstances as the first - the Democrats probably cannot just collectively shrug and accept a permanently conservative SCOTUS. If they do, there's no reason to believe the GOP wouldnt act in bad faith to continue to undermine other norms when it is to their advantage.
Edit - and while I wish it wouldnt take an amendment to deal with this, as a person who supports the aggrieved side of this absolute fiasco... I'm not sure I know how to trust a GOP senate not to do this just because they give their word. Restoring my faith in the GOP not to undermine the credibility of a co-equal branch of the federal government will probably require an amendment.
I think there is a 75% chance all the rest of our institutions collapse by January. No hyperbole.
I agree - although I somewhat think it's impossible because there's a perceived imbalance of power. The GOP has no incentive to agree to a constitutional amendment because they're currently reaping all the benefits they can from damaging the bipartisan nature of the SCOTUS.
Off the top of my head, I only see two ways to force them to the negotiating table:
A - Democrats start playing equally dirty, and find a way to do so that is perceived as at least equally bad by the GOP as the Democrats see in the GOP's shenanigans. (Redistricting. PR/DC, Court packing, etc)
B - Texas goes completely Blue, and the GOP is locked out of presidential politics for the foreseeable future. I could imagine this nightmare scenario prompting the GOP to agree to an amendment for the SCOTUS and in return we abolish the Electoral College (Which sounds like a double win for Democrats, but in the event that Texas goes reliably blue... it would suddenly be in the GOP's best interest).
Probably neither plan is particularly good. Option A is ill-defined and who knows how it would all play out, and Option B probably takes 16 to 20 years, and there's no guarantee that the midwest wont offset this gain entirely on its own.
Assuming the new appointment goes ahead, I think it will already be too late to restore the credibility of SCOTUS without some significant changes or restructuring. Even if the court is not in fact deciding cases on a partisan basis, I'm sure that would be the appearance. If for instance abortion were made illegal, despite a large majority of people being against that, I can't see that decision being respected or accepted - and ultimately a democracy is not going to be able to function where most people are not willing to follow laws.
Changes to the constitution wouldn't necessarily be required. It's already clear that Congress has the power to change the size of the court and there are other things it could try as well, e.g. introducing term limits (Supreme Court judges could be shifted to other judgeships to avoid the issue of life terms). What is done though is probably less important than the way it is done - I think a bipartisan approach, however unlikely that currently seems, will be a necessary pre-cursor to restoring the idea the Supreme Court can act independently from politics.
Overturning of Roe would mean some states would have legal abortion and some states would not. Long story short, wealthy women will be able to get them no matter where they live, but poor people stuck in a red state will be unable. At least initially......
You'll see increasingly frightening laws passed in red states. Abortion won't be the only thing that's illegal. There will inevitably be organizations that attempt to help low-income women travel to another state. They'll make doing that illegal. Then they'll making crossing state lines for the purpose of getting an abortion illegal (essentially making women a prisoner of whatever state they are born in). Then they'll start investigating miscarriages. Eventually, they'll come for Plan B, and, at long last, birth control. Bank on all of this if Roe is overturned. Women traveling to other states will be a suspected crime in short order. And I suspect you'd see a mass exodus of females from any of those states within a decade, further tanking the GDP of states that are already at the bottom of the barrel in that regard.
Take this in conjunction with even more ridiculous "religious liberty" decisions, and you'll effectively have 5 or 6 theocracies within 25 years. They may ATTEMPT to roll back gay marriage, but they may find that's a bridge they can't possibly go back across if they don't want to face a near total economic boycott from other states.
And yes, the MAJORITY of the country is eventually going to say "fuck this, the game is rigged, none of this is legitimate anymore". Because the Presidency AND the Senate massively favor the minority of voters, so does, by extension, the Supreme Court (even morseo when you are able to essentially steal two picks). So all they have left is the House, which can effectively do nothing without the stamp of the Senate. So, basically, window dressing.
Understand, we are already looking at a situation where Biden not only has to have a landslide victory to avoid a possible EC defeat, but also open talk among most liberals that we have to drive the numbers up even higher just to make sure Trump can't litigate a loss into a victory. We are in a marathon with a full suit of armor, boots, and a backpack, and the other side is in running shorts and top of the line tennis shoes.
As I said the other day, I agree the likely outcome is a simple overturning of Roe - but it's not the only possibility. The position on abortion is governed by:
- to what extent you consider a fetus shares the same rights as a baby, and
- balancing constitutional rights against each other (for instance how does the right to life weigh against the right to liberty).
I'm sure you're far more familiar than I am with some of the debates that have happened in individual states, but it seems to me not inconceivable that SCOTUS could follow the pattern of some states by ascribing considerably more rights to a fetus in future - and that could lead to abortion being made illegal under the constitution rather than being left to individual states. It would be that situation in particular where I think there would be a likelihood of mass resistance to the law.
To some extent the Civil Rights movement can be argued to be an example of that sort of resistance, but the situation I have in mind is more akin to the resistance to Prohibition - where a law is in general disrepute and attempts to enforce it only make the problem worse (I suppose there are echoes there of the war on drugs as well). For older people based in the UK the poll tax failed in the 1990s as a result of both passive and active resistance following the failure of the government to persuade most people that it was fair. That sort of resistance would normally be to government legislation, rather than a court judgment, but the problem is that SCOTUS is in danger of becoming seen as more like a legislator rather than a neutral arbiter.
There entire argument for decades has been "returning the right to the states". If they one up that an attempt to dictate a full ban to the entire country, then we might as well get started on seperating ourselves into independent countries right now, because it will not be tolerated. 10s of millions of women are not going to submit to becoming broodmares for a theocratic state. Even if 90% of them never get an abortion, the fundamental attack on their bodily autonomy would not fly. And as I said, if they go that route, then people would be foolish to think birth control wouldn't be far behind. They'd be on a path to banning recreational sex. See Hobby Lobby and pharmacists who refuse to fill certain prescriptions if you think I'm kidding.
As for prohibition, the only thing it accomplished was the rise of organized crime to unprecedented levels.
Unfortunately - this scenario becomes more and more plausible as McConnell continues to push the idea that only the majority of the senate + presidency allows for the confirmation of a SCOTUS candidate. In the past - more moderate candidates were proposed in the event that the opposition party was in control of the senate, or at least the president's party did not control a full 60 seats.
With that idea effectively dead and gone - presidents will be incentivized to make more ideological and radical selections to the court. The idea of a swing justice like Kennedy will probably be dead and gone.
It's not hard to imagine that when pushed to the extreme, they might go well beyond just overturning Roe and returning the option to the states in question.
It is SO fucking obvious this is based on no principle whatsoever, other than (for the 1000th time) preventing people from being able to exercise their rights. Apparently now Mike Bloomberg can't give away his own money.
If it comes down to it, Republicans in Florida will demand each of these former prisoners gather around a flagpole at midnight on Novmeber 2, turn exactly 3 times in a counter-clockwise circle, then spit to the northwest to regain their voting rights. I hate these people. True, deep hatred.
They have demanded the fines be paid. Now that someone is giving them money to pay the fines, the source of the money is viewed as unacceptable. This people are evil, rotten to the core, and their taking down the entire American experiment in their lust for power. The Republican Party has no intention of winning a legitimate election. They have every intention of stealing one outright. They don't even bother to pretend otherwise.
And for the love of God, please stop pretending this man is just "joking". He isn't:
https://www.reuters.com/article/reutersComService_2_MOLT/idUSKCN26E3KO
Also in that conference, when asked about a peaceful transfer of power, he responded:
"I've been complaining very strongly about the ballots," Mr Trump, a Republican, said. "And the ballots are a disaster."
When the journalist countered that "people are rioting", Mr Trump interjected: "Get rid of the ballots, and you'll have a very - you'll have a very peaceful - there won't be a transfer, frankly, there'll be a continuation."
I guess he was intending to rehash his claim that he would win the election easily if there were no postal votes. Alternatively he may have been alluding to his old argument that, without the supposed many millions of fraudulent votes, he would have won the popular vote in the 2016 election. However, I suspect that what he actually said is in fact exactly what he'd like - to continue as president without the need for voting at all ...
The US President: "Get rid of the ballots."
It's crazy
I suggest everyone start to wrap their head around the idea that he is, in fact, going to burn the whole thing down if necessary. Not metaphorically, but literally. There was also reporting today that they are openly attempting to recruit electors who will ignore the state vote totals. This isn't just about winning on Election Night anymore. It's about fending off attacks that will come from 10 different directions at once afterwards. This isn't a joke. It never has been, but I don't know how even skeptics can pretend it is now.
Amen...
You will notice that everything these people favor in their ideal clampdown is supposed to apply to everyone but them. Authoritarian is one way to describe it. So is sociopathic. But they most certainly do not BELIEVE in America as it actually is.
But this article is a little late to the party (though I know the author is not, from what it sounds like). For years, while I could tolerate it, I watched FOX News and listened to AM radio. That masochistic streak has translated into reading hundreds of Youtube and Twitter comments a day from the "other" side, and from what I can gather, what they want is pretty damn clear. They don't just want Democrats to lose elections. They want liberals to be eradicated. Not the ideas, the PEOPLE.
Lmao. I wonder why so many targeted questions to gauge "authoritarianism" specifically use Trump slogans. Almost like they want to arrive at a particular conclusion! There's no excuse for this level of ham-fisted manipulation, but it's what you would come to expect from a press that isn't free nor honest. I guarantee that the people who think the media is the "enemy of the people" are those who think, rightly, that they are liars. If wanting an honest media makes you authoritarian, I am happily in that camp. If being a mindless consumer of ideological media and a shameless partisan hack makes you a paragon of citizenship, i'm happily against it. The connection between authoritarianism and belief in the honesty of the media is nonexistent. It is a belief that is neatly separated by party affiliation, with independents and republicans not trusting the media and democrats trusting it. So of course it is one of their primary metrics for gauging "authoritarianism", one that inherently excludes left wing folks but includes the majority of republicans and independents, and with a very questionable connection to what they attempting to measure at best. Absolutely wild that they get away with garbage like this and it passes for legitimate.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/267047/americans-trust-mass-media-edges-down.aspx
Yes, the press is manipulative and dishonest, and the majority of people have agreed with me on that fact for nearly 20 straight years. Has the majority of the country for the past two decades been crazy, or is it possible that I just might have a point?
If that echo chamber is where you reside normally, it's probably fine and you don't even notice it. But if you don't, it's glaringly obvious.
I just, honestly, don't see how it is up for debate at this point.
"More than 3-in-4 of 803 American respondents, or 77 percent, said they believe that major traditional television and newspaper media outlets report “fake news,” according to a Monmouth University poll released Monday, marking a sharp increase in distrust of those news organizations from a year ago, when 63 percent registered concerns about the spread of misinformation."
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/02/poll-fake-news-494421
"Americans perceive inaccurate news to be intentional — either because the reporter is misrepresenting the facts (54%) or making them up entirely (28%)."
https://knightfoundation.org/reports/american-views-2020-trust-media-and-democracy/
I again ask, for the 100th time, why the TOTAL (as in basically 99.9%) domination of every AM radio station in the country by conservative programming 24/7 is not considered "mass media". When, unlike all cable news and newspapers, it is completely free to anyone who even owns a $200 beater Ford Focus. AND the fact that it reaches more people (still, even at this late date) than any of the other news mediums:
Nielsen recently released its Audio Today 2018 report. According to the report, radio reaches 93% of adults on a weekly basis. TV reaches 88% and smartphones reach 83%.
Radio reaches 243,381,000 users monthly. Compared to 229,960,000 monthly users of live or DVR TV, 179,216,742 monthly users of social media sites and 105,122,040 monthly users of news websites.
Ninety-five percent of Millennials are reached by radio each month. That number grows to 97% of Gen-Xers and 98% of Boomers. According to Brad Kelly, Managing Director of Nielsen Audio, “Each week, more Americans tune into AM/FM radio (93%) than watch television, or use smartphones, tablets or computers.”
If we're going to talk about willful omissions, the complete erasure of the NUMBER ONE media consumption device (by a large margin) is perhaps one that should be discussed. And I tell you again, from decades of experience and a futile search for any remotely progressive programming, there is NO variance in what the viewpoints are. It's Rush, Hannity and their acolytes 24/7/365 from coast to coast. Hell, even sports talk, which is the next most popular thing to listen to, has a pretty overwhelming conservative lean.
There is no honest conversation to be had about the media without talking about terrestrial radio on the AM dial since the early-90s. And that conversation doesn't even exist. And don't even get me started on what Sinclair broadcasting is doing to LOCAL news in well over 30% of the markets in this country. As I said last week, this constant focus on DC press outlets, the NYT, Washington Post and CNN is myopic at best.