SCOTUS watch

[Rcjackrabbit]

Originally Posted by Offwidth

Every time there is an update in this thread I am hoping for good news. When will the witch die?

The problem is that Satan doesn't want her back yet.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by Jimi Jah

No way is she stepping down while Trump is in office. She thinks she can last until 2024.

While I will not wish her harm, lasting until 2024 will take some luck. Even then, can she last until beyond a 2024-2032 Pence presidency and a 2032 to 2040 Trump Jr. presidency? I doubt it. With luck, I will see this come to pass.

[Capt.Dunsel]

Originally Posted by Rcjackrabbit

The problem is that Satan doesn't want her back yet.

He is afraid she will take over

[Paladin]

Would Republicans Follow Their Garland Rule for the Court in 2020?

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s health scare raised the question of how the Senate would handle a high court vacancy in a presidential election year.

More at: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/29/u...t-garland.html

Bottom line IMO: Dems are ramming Impeachment so that come Jan 01, Trump will be both Impeached and in an election year to trash both him and lower Repub candidates if "an opening" comes to the Court and they try to fill it. It could be that this is the reason Pelosi flipped awhile ago and now supports impeachment -- to have two things to use against Trump & Mitch if an opening should come.

[CessnaDriver]

Obozo was termed out.
Trump is not and most of the country accepts he is very likely to be re-elected.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by CessnaDriver

Obozo was termed out.
Trump is not and most of the country accepts he is very likely to be re-elected.

To put it another way: Obama was "lame duck" for the entire election year whereas Trump will only be "lame duck" after the Nov election if he loses reelection.

[Offwidth]

Originally Posted by Paladin

More at: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/29/u...t-garland.html

Bottom line IMO: Dems are ramming Impeachment so that come Jan 01, Trump will be both Impeached and in an election year to trash both him and lower Repub candidates if "an opening" comes to the Court and they try to fill it. It could be that this is the reason Pelosi flipped awhile ago and now supports impeachment -- to have two things to use against Trump & Mitch if an opening should come.

And Senate will just roll over and grant their wish? Nope. They will acquit Trump while SCOTUS nominee goes through interviews and then confirm the nominee.
While I will be thoroughly enjoying gnashing of teeth and wringing of wrists around me. Then I will drink for Trump re-election.

[Paladin]

THE HILL pretty much confirming what I wrote above.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...e-court-battle

How I wish Thomas would step down immediately next summer, while the GOP controls both the White House and Senate. Otherwise, in 2 years, he may well be in the situation RBG is in, where he's tired and wants to retire, but dares not.

[Apocalypsenerd]

My prediction is that RBG leaves the court sometime next year. Dems immediately impeach to stall a new appointment. Trump wins in the Senate and confirms a new Justice, just in time to give him an election boost.

[gumby]

A likely scenario.

[pgg]

Originally Posted by Paladin

THE HILL pretty much confirming what I wrote above.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...e-court-battle

How I wish Thomas would step down immediately, while the GOP controls both the White House and Senate. Otherwise, in 2 years, he may well be in the situation RBG is in, where he's tired and wants to resign, but dare not.

You really want Thomas to step down now, on the eve of arguments in NYSPRA vs NYC? With a ruling in that case due in June 2020?

As for me, I'd rather read a majority opinion in that case written by Thomas.

If he wants to strategically step down the day after SCOTUS releases a ruling establishing strict scrutiny and all sorts of other niceness, OK.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by pgg

You really want Thomas to step down now, on the eve of arguments in NYSPRA vs NYC? With a ruling in that case due in June 2020?

As for me, I'd rather read a majority opinion in that case written by Thomas.

If he wants to strategically step down the day after SCOTUS releases a ruling establishing strict scrutiny and all sorts of other niceness, OK.

Yeah, you're right. I had been hoping Thomas would retire last summer for at least a year prior and just hadn't "updated" my thinking on the subject. Now it's too late -- he should stay until summer. I've edited my post above.

[Offwidth]

Originally Posted by Paladin

THE HILL pretty much confirming what I wrote above.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...e-court-battle

How I wish Thomas would step down immediately next summer, while the GOP controls both the White House and Senate. Otherwise, in 2 years, he may well be in the situation RBG is in, where he's tired and wants to retire, but dares not.

Liberals are trying to wish that into reality. By throwing assertions that public confidence in Trump is low. Which is hogwash.

[Paladin]

Please discuss the NYSRPA case in the NYSRPA case’s thread.

[CaliforniaLiberal]

I need some accurate info here.

I'm hearing all sorts of contradictory stuff about when and under what conditions the President is allowed and not allowed to nominate replacement Justices for SCOTUS.

What is the Senate's obligation to consider the qualifications of these proposed Justices?

How have these matters been carried out over the last 200 years?

What is the actual law regarding SCOTUS nominations?

[homelessdude]

Your kidding right. 4571 posts and you don't know how SC justices are confirmed. The senate needs 51 votes to confirm a new justice. The president nominates a new one after one of the nine sitting judges retires or dies. The senate confirms him/her with a vote of 51. What exactly are you hearing?

[dfletcher]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaLiberal

I need some accurate info here.

I'm hearing all sorts of contradictory stuff about when and under what conditions the President is allowed and not allowed to nominate replacement Justices for SCOTUS.

What is the Senate's obligation to consider the qualifications of these proposed Justices?

How have these matters been carried out over the last 200 years?

What is the actual law regarding SCOTUS nominations?

There are no qualifications to be nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court. Several Justices have neither attended nor been graduated from law school. Some passed their bar by "reading law" as was a common practice.

The President nominates whenever there is a vacancy on the court. He may also nominate an Associate Justice to replace a Chief Justice when that position becomes vacant. Recall that George Bush (43) did just that when Chief Justice Rehnquist died after O'Conner retired.

The Senate does "advise and consent" which is expressed by voting to confirm or decline to confirm. There is no requirement for public hearings. Those are a fairly recent occurrence. The number of votes required to confirm has changed, that door was opened by former Senate Majority Leader Reid. It went from 60 votes to 50, about 6 years ago IIRC.

One aspect of the process little discussed is that after nomination by the President and confirmation comes appointment. A President could after Senate confirmation, decline to appoint his nominee. Hasn't happened so far as I know, but it's possible that information learned during the confirmation process could cause a President to change his mind and decline to appoint.

[WingDings]

Originally Posted by homelessdude

Your kidding right. 4571 posts and you don't know how SC justices are confirmed. The senate needs 51 votes to confirm a new justice. The president nominates a new one after one of the nine sitting judges retires or dies. The senate confirms him/her with a vote of 51. What exactly are you hearing?

I read it as him being confused as to “when” a new justice can be nominated and confirmed or—in other words—whether or not there is precedent for lame duck nominations and confirmations.

If I read that correctly, the answer would be that Senatorial courtesy applies and custom—not law—generally wins out. No confirmation in the last year of a Presidential (*edit: “lame duck”) term.

If I’m wrong, well...I’d point him to your post...or Article II, Section II of the instruction manual itself.

[wireless]

Originally Posted by WingDings

I read it as him being confused as to “when” a new justice can be nominated and confirmed or—in other words—whether or not there is precedent for lame duck nominations and confirmations.

If I read that correctly, the answer would be that Senatorial courtesy applies and custom—not law—generally wins out. No confirmation in the last year of a Presidential term.

If I’m wrong, well...I’d point him to your post...or Article II, Section II of the instruction manual itself.

The custom is that if the president is a lame duck and the senate majority is different than the president, they wait until after the election. Neither of those are the case currently. The left claiming "no judges in an election year because you said so", is not what the republicans said. At all. It's a deliberate generalization and obscuring the details because most of the public doesn't know better.

The only rules that matter about nominating a supreme court judge are in the constitution. They can be appointed and approved at any time. Before or after an election. A new senate is sworn in in January, so theoretically a new president could pull a nomination or the nominee might not make it through the "old senate" before the new one is sworn in, and the new senate could be less favorable to that nominee.

[Librarian]

Gentle Members, please remember this thread is not for discussing any cases - individual cases usually get their own threads, so 19 posts just moved to the NYSRPA thread.

[scbauer]

Worth pointing out, as others may have, that in NYSRPA, RBG was present and asking questions today (well, yesterday since it’s late... 12/2/19).

[Sputnik]

Originally Posted by scbauer

Worth pointing out, as others may have, that in NYSRPA, RBG was present and asking questions today (well, yesterday since it’s late... 12/2/19).

Yes, and she seems to have a better grasp of the question involved than Sotomayor who is many years junior. She may be frail but hasn't lost her faculties.

[Offwidth]

Sotomayor is such a disgrace. Imagine of Clinton appointed two more of it by now.

[abinsinia]

“Any scenario where an impeached president is trying to jam through a Supreme Court pick in an election year, in direct defiance of the precedent Mitch McConnell set with Merrick Garland in 2016, would rightly spark a war,” said Brian Fallon, the head of Demand Justice, a progressive group formed in response to the Republican blockade of Judge Garland.

....

“While there are few options we would have to stop that nominee before the election, my hope is it would mobilize Democrats at the polls to insist on restoring balance to the court,” Mr. Coons said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/29/u...t-garland.html

[Paladin]

(1) Trump, like all Americans, is "innocent until proven guilty."

(2) The Biden Rule applies only to "lame duck" presidents. That won't apply to Trump under after the Nov election and if and only if he is not re-elected. (That's why they're also pushing to get rid of the electoral college.)

[Spaffo]

Regarding RBG, I know what most of us want for Christmas.

[Offwidth]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/29/u...t-garland.html

What would they fight with?

[Californio]

Looking at the dog and pony show yesterday.

Trump may not be the best President but consider that Prof. Karlan would probably be a RBG replacement if he wasn't, Pray for America.

[Spaffo]

Trump's judicial appointments alone make him a success as a President, let alone his other accomplishments.

[003]

Originally Posted by Spaffo

Trump's judicial appointments alone make him a success as a President, let alone his other accomplishments.

Amen - - - Well said!!!

[CalAlumnus]

Originally Posted by WingDings

I read it as him being confused as to “when” a new justice can be nominated and confirmed or—in other words—whether or not there is precedent for lame duck nominations and confirmations.

If I read that correctly, the answer would be that Senatorial courtesy applies and custom—not law—generally wins out. No confirmation in the last year of a Presidential (*edit: “lame duck”) term.

If I’m wrong, well...I’d point him to your post...or Article II, Section II of the instruction manual itself.

As I understand the Constitution, it’s pretty simple: the President has the power of appointment, “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.”

Thus, the Senate is free to grant it’s consent, or not. It is free to hold hearings and grant consent, or not. It is free to not hold hearings and grant consent, or not.

You’re right that a lot of what we see today are customs, not constitutional requirements.

[mshill]

With the rush to draw up articles of impeachment by Pelosi, RGBs prognosis must not be good. They have to impeach the President so they can say that the next appointment to SCOTUS is illegitimate.

[wireless]

They can say whatever the **** they want. There's nothing in the constitution that prevents Trump from nominating a SCOTUS judge if he is in an impeachment process or trial in the senate. Not to mention if Trump didn't appoint a SCOTUS judge under those circumstances, he would lose a substantial amount of his base in key states. The "illegitimate" appointment argument doesn't hold any water and has zero political capital with anyone but democrats.