The Supreme Court

[Norah]

real question: if she is alive but in a vegetative state or coma in the hospital, is that the same thing as being alive-alive; or can the GOP start the nomination process?

unrelated question: if a person dies, but the hospital keeps their heart beating with a machine until January 4th; can the GOP start the nomination process before Jan 4?

GH strike me dead if I'm wrong, but Trump could name a new nominee tomorrow morning and McConnell could start the process in the Senate after lunch if they wanted to confirm someone else. The Constitution doesn't say there are 9 justices. Trump could declare that he thinks RBG isn't healthy enough to be relied on and put someone else up, and then theoretically it would be a 10-person Supreme Court until RBG (or someone else) dies or retires. Or until Biden and the radical left Democrats who sweep into power in November nominate and install an 11th justice.

jesus christ don't let trump see that post

[B]

real question: if she is alive but in a vegetative state or coma in the hospital, is that the same thing as being alive-alive; or can the GOP start the nomination process?

unrelated question: if a person dies, but the hospital keeps their heart beating with a machine until January 4th; can the GOP start the nomination process before Jan 4?

GH strike me dead if I'm wrong, but Trump could name a new nominee tomorrow morning and McConnell could start the process in the Senate after lunch if they wanted to confirm someone else. The Constitution doesn't say there are 9 justices. Trump could declare that he thinks RBG isn't healthy enough to be relied on and put someone else up, and then theoretically it would be a 10-person Supreme Court until RBG (or someone else) dies or retires. Or until Biden and the radical left Democrats who sweep into power in November nominate and install an 11th justice.

jesus christ don't let trump see that post

[4/5]

real question: if she is alive but in a vegetative state or coma in the hospital, is that the same thing as being alive-alive; or can the GOP start the nomination process?

unrelated question: if a person dies, but the hospital keeps their heart beating with a machine until January 4th; can the GOP start the nomination process before Jan 4?

GH strike me dead if I'm wrong, but Trump could name a new nominee tomorrow morning and McConnell could start the process in the Senate after lunch if they wanted to confirm someone else. The Constitution doesn't say there are 9 justices. Trump could declare that he thinks RBG isn't healthy enough to be relied on and put someone else up, and then theoretically it would be a 10-person Supreme Court until RBG (or someone else) dies or retires. Or until Biden and the radical left Democrats who sweep into power in November nominate and install an 11th justice.

I'm not GH, but thankfully part of this isn't quite right. The number of Justices can be changed, but that only happens via new legislation, so a president cannot increase the number of Justices. Remember FDR's court-packing scheme? He basically made that argument (the current Justices are too old, let's ease their workload) to increase the number of Justices from 9 to 15. Congress, however, declined to do so.

[Simple Torture]

real question: if she is alive but in a vegetative state or coma in the hospital, is that the same thing as being alive-alive; or can the GOP start the nomination process?

unrelated question: if a person dies, but the hospital keeps their heart beating with a machine until January 4th; can the GOP start the nomination process before Jan 4?

GH strike me dead if I'm wrong, but Trump could name a new nominee tomorrow morning and McConnell could start the process in the Senate after lunch if they wanted to confirm someone else. The Constitution doesn't say there are 9 justices. Trump could declare that he thinks RBG isn't healthy enough to be relied on and put someone else up, and then theoretically it would be a 10-person Supreme Court until RBG (or someone else) dies or retires. Or until Biden and the radical left Democrats who sweep into power in November nominate and install an 11th justice.

I'm not GH, but thankfully part of this isn't quite right. The number of Justices can be changed, but that only happens via new legislation, so a president cannot increase the number of Justices. Remember FDR's court-packing scheme? He basically made that argument (the current Justices are too old, let's ease their workload) to increase the number of Justices from 9 to 15. Congress, however, declined to do so.

Ah, ok, this helps! He should've thought of this when they had both the House and the Senate in 2017/2018. I'm glad you got to this before GH smote me.

[4/5]

real question: if she is alive but in a vegetative state or coma in the hospital, is that the same thing as being alive-alive; or can the GOP start the nomination process?

unrelated question: if a person dies, but the hospital keeps their heart beating with a machine until January 4th; can the GOP start the nomination process before Jan 4?

GH strike me dead if I'm wrong, but Trump could name a new nominee tomorrow morning and McConnell could start the process in the Senate after lunch if they wanted to confirm someone else. The Constitution doesn't say there are 9 justices. Trump could declare that he thinks RBG isn't healthy enough to be relied on and put someone else up, and then theoretically it would be a 10-person Supreme Court until RBG (or someone else) dies or retires. Or until Biden and the radical left Democrats who sweep into power in November nominate and install an 11th justice.

I'm not GH, but thankfully part of this isn't quite right. The number of Justices can be changed, but that only happens via new legislation, so a president cannot increase the number of Justices. Remember FDR's court-packing scheme? He basically made that argument (the current Justices are too old, let's ease their workload) to increase the number of Justices from 9 to 15. Congress, however, declined to do so.

Ah, ok, this helps! He should've thought of this when they had both the House and the Senate in 2017/2018. I'm glad you got to this before GH smote me.

So this is what it feels like to save a life.

Also, it would have been tough even during the first half of his term because legislation is still subject to filibusters that can only be defeated by 60 Senators. So they'd have to basically just end the filibuster altogether which Trump begged the Senate to do but Mitch McConnell had no interest in doing.

So to change the number of Justices you'd need a) bipartisan support, b) to hold a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a majority in the House and the presidency, or c) control of the House, presidency, and Senate and the willingness to abolish the filibuster.

And I don't know how instructive it is, but at the time of FDR's court-packing attempt he just won a landslide reelection, had supermajorities in the House and Senate, was personally popular, and the public (and in turn Congress) still hated the idea. It's such a naked power grab. I usually teach that as an example of Americans being suspicious of anybody having too much power, even those you support. These days that might not be as true as long as the power is being grabbed for the team you like.

[epilogue]

4/5 are you personally in favor of getting rid of the filibuster?

[4/5]

4/5 are you personally in favor of getting rid of the filibuster?

This will probably be an unpopular answer, but no I'm not. Fundamentally, I support majority rule but believe that the power of majorities must be checked or they will oppress minority rights. (Minority in this instance can be racial, gender, political, religious, socioeconomic, or any other distinction you can think of that encompasses a group of people that doesn't have power to win at the ballot box.) So I think the filibuster offers a check against majority excesses. Additionally, I like that it requires a major bill to typically have at least a modicum of bipartisan support to pass. And if one party does have a supermajority, well, at least it raised the threshold needed to make major policy change.

I think without the filibuster we'd have destabilizing swings in policy. We had unified government for two years under Clinton, somewhere around four years under Bush, two years under Obama, and two years under Trump. Imagining the policies being made and then undone by successive administrations is not something that appeals to me. I guess I think it should be difficult to make major policy changes. Policymakers should seek consensus. They should have to negotiate and compromise. I realize that the last couple of sentences basically sounds like a fantasy, I admit it. But that's the ideal in my opinion. I don't trust either party with unchecked power, even for two years.

Now, the filibuster as it currently exists is broken. I would welcome a change that would require the return of the talking filibuster (or something that would significantly raise the personal cost of filibustering). It's become far too easy to filibuster (or hold) bills in the last two decades, making it difficult for even basic legislation to get passed. Combine that with the hyper partisanship in Washington these days and it's a wonder that anything ever passes. The filibuster is one of the few powerful weapons the minority party has and I think they should continue to have it, but it shouldn't be so powerful that they can prevent anything from being done, which is basically where it is today.

[B]

the power of majorities must be checked or they will oppress minority rights.

[4/5]

the power of majorities must be checked or they will oppress minority rights.

How am I ever supposed to sleep peacefully again??

[epilogue]

4/5 are you personally in favor of getting rid of the filibuster?

This will probably be an unpopular answer, but no I'm not. Fundamentally, I support majority rule but believe that the power of majorities must be checked or they will oppress minority rights. (Minority in this instance can be racial, gender, political, religious, socioeconomic, or any other distinction you can think of that encompasses a group of people that doesn't have power to win at the ballot box.) So I think the filibuster offers a check against majority excesses. Additionally, I like that it requires a major bill to typically have at least a modicum of bipartisan support to pass. And if one party does have a supermajority, well, at least it raised the threshold needed to make major policy change.

I think without the filibuster we'd have destabilizing swings in policy. We had unified government for two years under Clinton, somewhere around four years under Bush, two years under Obama, and two years under Trump. Imagining the policies being made and then undone by successive administrations is not something that appeals to me. I guess I think it should be difficult to make major policy changes. Policymakers should seek consensus. They should have to negotiate and compromise. I realize that the last couple of sentences basically sounds like a fantasy, I admit it. But that's the ideal in my opinion. I don't trust either party with unchecked power, even for two years.

Now, the filibuster as it currently exists is broken. I would welcome a change that would require the return of the talking filibuster (or something that would significantly raise the personal cost of filibustering). It's become far too easy to filibuster (or hold) bills in the last two decades, making it difficult for even basic legislation to get passed. Combine that with the hyper partisanship in Washington these days and it's a wonder that anything ever passes. The filibuster is one of the few powerful weapons the minority party has and I think they should continue to have it, but it shouldn't be so powerful that they can prevent anything from being done, which is basically where it is today.

I go back and forth on this issue, myself. But I think, ultimately, I land somewhere in your final paragraph above. Great response. Thank you.

[4/5]

I go back and forth on this issue, myself. But I think, ultimately, I land somewhere in your final paragraph above. Great response. Thank you.

Good news, I'm pretty sure GH would get rid of the filibuster. So whenever he checks back in we should get a pretty good argument for the other side.

[Green Habit]

[Green Habit]

Good news, I'm pretty sure GH would get rid of the filibuster. So whenever he checks back in we should get a pretty good argument for the other side.

As a matter of personal ideology, I suppose I shouldn't mind the filibuster since it helps to prevent a party from implementing too much of its agenda. But the Constitution already has a hefty number of separations of power (three branches of government, plus a bicameral legislature) and it's daunting enough to get the quadfecta on all of them. Adding in another veto point through extraconstitutional matters is just overkill.

I also think that once a party has at least 50 senators that are united on a considerable agenda, the filibuster will be gone. It could have happened in 2017 but the GOP couldn't get their caucus united. It could very well happen in 2021 if the Dems storm to victory in the Senate and they aren't dependent on Joe Manchin being the median vote.

[Mickey]

This is going to make the "you have to vote for Biden" folks even more insufferable. Should have retired in Obama's final year.

[Green Habit]

He should've thought of this when they had both the House and the Senate in 2017/2018.

I've been thinking the same thing recently, not only 2017-2018 but also in early 2001 and in 2003-2006. Right wing activists long complained about how squishy O'Connor and Kennedy were, and then with Roberts ever since his ACA vote. And the GOP is typically laser focused on trying to control the judicial branch.

[Chris_H_2]

[digster]

This is such a cliched plot twist.

Also, I feel like doug may have to add this thread on to his list for alcohol memes.

[Norah]

This is going to make the "you have to vote for Biden" folks even more insufferable. Should have retired in Obama's final year.

If she retired in Obama's final year Trump would have replaced her.

[Mickey]

This is going to make the "you have to vote for Biden" folks even more insufferable. Should have retired in Obama's final year.

If she retired in Obama's final year Trump would have replaced her.

Sorry, meant end of 113th Senate. Obama's final year of having the Senate. She would have been 80 at the time.

[4/5]

Good news, I'm pretty sure GH would get rid of the filibuster. So whenever he checks back in we should get a pretty good argument for the other side.

As a matter of personal ideology, I suppose I shouldn't mind the filibuster since it helps to prevent a party from implementing too much of its agenda. But the Constitution already has a hefty number of separations of power (three branches of government, plus a bicameral legislature) and it's daunting enough to get the quadfecta on all of them. Adding in another veto point through extraconstitutional matters is just overkill.

I also think that once a party has at least 50 senators that are united on a considerable agenda, the filibuster will be gone. It could have happened in 2017 but the GOP couldn't get their caucus united. It could very well happen in 2021 if the Dems storm to victory in the Senate and they aren't dependent on Joe Manchin being the median vote.

By that logic shouldn't it have happened in 2010 when Scott Brown denied the Democrats their 60th senator in the middle of attempting to pass the ACA?

I think an argument can be made that the filibuster sticks around not just to protect the minority party but because it can provide a convenient excuse for the majority party when they aren't united enough to get stuff done: just blame the filibuster.