RBG

[TheStatGuy]

Passed away on Friday at 87. The 2nd woman ever to be on supreme court, lived her life to the fullest. She stood up for what's right. 

Edited September 19, 2020 by TheStatGuy

[Bobref]

She will go down as one of the great Associate Justices in the history of the Court for her work on gender equality.

And what is going to happen now with her replacement is going to be a real sh*t show, you can bet on that.

When the dust clears, if Trump sends a nominee to the Senate, my money is on Amy Barrett from the Seventh Circuit.

[TheStatGuy]

9 hours ago, Bobref said:

She will go down as one of the great Associate Justices in the history of the Court for her work on gender equality.

And what is going to happen now with her replacement is going to be a real sh*t show, you can bet on that.

When the dust clears, if Trump sends a nominee to the Senate, my money is on Amy Barrett from the Seventh Circuit.

Yup. Gay marriage, Medicaid expansion and Roe V Wade all gone by next September. 

I could see however by next year at this time Barrett won't be the newest SCOTUS. Dems will pack the court by adding 2 new SCOTUS and will work to push DC State hood. 

[TheStatGuy]

9 hours ago, Bobref said:

She will go down as one of the great Associate Justices in the history of the Court for her work on gender equality.

And what is going to happen now with her replacement is going to be a real sh*t show, you can bet on that.

When the dust clears, if Trump sends a nominee to the Senate, my money is on Amy Barrett from the Seventh Circuit.

I wanted to edit my post. 

Its not if, its when. 

I could see McConnell holding off till after the election to do it because They still want to do a stimulus package, gov shutdown is near + campaigning so he might hold off but on the flip side, i could see him pushing through now if he believes they'll be losing the majority anyway. 

[DanteEstonia]

1 hour ago, TheStatGuy said:

I wanted to edit my post. 

Its not if, its when. 

I could see McConnell holding off till after the election to do it because They still want to do a stimulus package, gov shutdown is near + campaigning so he might hold off but on the flip side, i could see him pushing through now if he believes they'll be losing the majority anyway. 

Always remember, turnabout is fair play. Appoint now, and that 6-3 conservative majority can be a 7-6 liberal majority in two years. 

@Bobref as much as I lambast the Missouri Plan, a well-executed version for the Federal courts would be a positive improvement. 

[Bobref]

17 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

Always remember, turnabout is fair play. Appoint now, and that 6-3 conservative majority can be a 7-6 liberal majority in two years. 

@Bobref as much as I lambast the Missouri Plan, a well-executed version for the Federal courts would be a positive improvement. 

Yeah, but there’s that pesky constitution...

[Alduflux]

33 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Yeah, but there’s that pesky constitution...

The constitution does not restrict the number of Supreme Court Justices.  Congress and the President set the number.  A Biden presidency and Democratic Congress can up the number to any number they want.  I'm not sure why they would stop at 13 and not just add a couple hundred for good measure.

"The answer is that under the Constitution, the number of Supreme Court Justices is not fixed, and Congress can change it by passing an act that is then signed by the President. Article III, Section 1, starts with a broad direction to Congress to establish the court system: “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”"

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/packing-the-supreme-court-explained

[Bobref]

15 minutes ago, Alduflux said:

The constitution does not restrict the number of Supreme Court Justices.  Congress and the President set the number.  A Biden presidency and Democratic Congress can up the number to any number they want.  I'm not sure why they would stop at 13 and not just add a couple hundred for good measure.

"The answer is that under the Constitution, the number of Supreme Court Justices is not fixed, and Congress can change it by passing an act that is then signed by the President. Article III, Section 1, starts with a broad direction to Congress to establish the court system: “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”"

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/packing-the-supreme-court-explained

There has been talk of “packing the Court” before, but it goes nowhere. The number on the Court was fixed at 9 over 150 yrs. ago, and has been unchanged since.

[Alduflux]

7 minutes ago, Bobref said:

There has been talk of “packing the Court” before, but it goes nowhere. The number on the Court was fixed at 9 over 150 yrs. ago, and has been unchanged since.

The point I made is the constitution does not restrict changing the number.  The number 9 can be unfixed the same way it was fixed at 9.  The constitution is not a barrier to that happening.

 

...and for the record I do not endorse changing the number for political reasons...or choosing justices either.

Edited September 21, 2020 by Alduflux

[Alduflux]

I would endorse the Yang system for Justice term limits. 18 year term, new justice every two years.

 

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/scotustermlimits/

[Bobref]

16 minutes ago, Alduflux said:

I would endorse the Yang system for Justice term limits. 18 year term, new justice every two years.

 

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/scotustermlimits/

I’ll have to disagree there. An 18 yr. term limit would have meant we would never have gotten Griswold v. Connecticut or Brady v. Maryland from William O. Douglas. There are many, many other examples.

[TheStatGuy]

1 hour ago, DanteEstonia said:

Always remember, turnabout is fair play. Appoint now, and that 6-3 conservative majority can be a 7-6 liberal majority in two years. 

@Bobref as much as I lambast the Missouri Plan, a well-executed version for the Federal courts would be a positive improvement. 

Democrats should impeach bill barr. That'll take away the senate for a bit. 

[DanteEstonia]

3 hours ago, Bobref said:

The number on the Court was fixed at 9 over 150 yrs. ago, and has been unchanged since

There was a Senate seat in Vermont that was held by the GOP for 150 years. That seat is now held by Bernie Sanders. 

[TheStatGuy]

3 hours ago, Bobref said:

There has been talk of “packing the Court” before, but it goes nowhere. The number on the Court was fixed at 9 over 150 yrs. ago, and has been unchanged since.

White Women couldn't vote for 143 years. Blacks couldn't vote for over 180 years...things change.