Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Alan Klein]

You keep stating your opinions as if they were fact. From what I understand, you're not happy with this guy because he didn't vote as conservatively as you'd like. But you know, he's a Supreme Court Justice, you're not, so maybe he had good reasons to vote the way he did. He certainly has access to more information than you do. We've seen many times on these pages how you deliberately choose to ignore information that others provide when it doesn't suit your agenda.

Since you take pride in being a "contrarian" and a "rebel" (btw, you should read The Rebel Sell by Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter to get a different perspective on so-called rebellion), maybe you should apply that to your own biases. Go against your own beliefs, see where it leads. I find it hard to believe that a Supreme Court Justice is being co-opted based on the sole evidence that you don't like his decisions. That's a lot that you're asking us to accept. There may be more to his thinking than that, don't you think.

In the past, your "analyzes" have left a lot to be desired, given how often they have been refuted by others who know about the subject than you. The fact that you double down instead of reconsidering your position on things is not a sign of constancy. Or rebellion.

Huh? 

[Alan Klein]

When did that happen?

I didn't say it happened yet.  I said Democrats are proposing a bill to make it happen.

[Robert Roaldi]

I didn't say it happened yet.  I said Democrats are proposing a bill to make it happen.

How far along is the legislative change? In draft preparation, already tabled, where is it in the process? I'm trying to gauge how likely this is to happen, because if it's remote it may not be worth worrying about.

[Robert Roaldi]

I was just wondering about something that came up last autumn. My understanding is that presidential pardons are something that are controlled by legislation. The President does not have a "divine" right to pardon, is my understanding. There was some talk about introducing legislation to curtail or constrain what pardons the President can give.

Seems to me that this would be a good time to put into place rules that would deny the President to issue controversial pardons, such as pre-emptive pardons, which seem particularly egregious to me. Be good to do this when so far away from next election, lay down some sane ground rules.

Has the whole thing gone away now instead?

[faberryman]

How far along is the legislative change? In draft preparation, already tabled, where is it in the process? I'm trying to gauge how likely this is to happen, because if it's remote it may not be worth worrying about.

Biden set up a commission to study the matter. I don't know whether they have met yet. I think they were supposed to issue a report in 120 days, but I could be wrong about the timing. I think there has been some legislation already submitted. It likely won't come up for a vote until after the commission issues its report. I'll wait until then before getting all hot and bothered. There are so many things to be outraged about I have to keep on a schedule.

[Alan Klein]

How far along is the legislative change? In draft preparation, already tabled, where is it in the process? I'm trying to gauge how likely this is to happen, because if it's remote it may not be worth worrying about.

Well, I said they'll do it a few weeks ago.  But that's just an opinion, not a fact. 

[Alan Klein]

I was just wondering about something that came up last autumn. My understanding is that presidential pardons are something that are controlled by legislation. The President does not have a "divine" right to pardon, is my understanding. There was some talk about introducing legislation to curtail or constrain what pardons the President can give.

Seems to me that this would be a good time to put into place rules that would deny the President to issue controversial pardons, such as pre-emptive pardons, which seem particularly egregious to me. Be good to do this when so far away from next election, lay down some sane ground rules.

Has the whole thing gone away now instead?

It would require a constitutional amendment. Simple legislation won't work. Congress cannot impose more requirements than the existing constitution allows.  It's like requiring a candidate to reveal their tax returns.  That's not required in the constitution either.

[Alan Klein]

In any case, why would a Democratic-controlled congress want to impose limits on Democratic president Biden?  Now that their guy is in charge, Democrats quickly forget their moral outrage.

[Manoli]

How far along is the legislative change?

" Senator Ed Markey and House of Representatives members Jerrold Nadler, Hank Johnson and Mondaire Jones have scheduled a news conference for Thursday to announce the introduction of the legislation in both chambers. The measure would expand the number of justices from the current nine to 13, according to a copy of the Senate bill reviewed by Reuters.

President Joe Biden announced last Friday the formation of a bipartisan commission to study potential Supreme Court changes including expansion or imposing term limits on the justices instead of the current lifetime appointments."

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/democrats-unveil-bill-expand-us-supreme-court-by-four-justices-2021-04-15/

[Manoli]

Now for the punch line :

" The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, said the idea of expanding the court was “a direct assault on our nation’s independent judiciary and yet another sign of the Far Left’s influence over the Biden administration. "

So an apolitical Supreme Court, devoid of bias and political influence is a direct assault on our nation’s independent judiciary ... ?

 

[Alan Klein]

Now for the punch line :

" The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, said the idea of expanding the court was “a direct assault on our nation’s independent judiciary and yet another sign of the Far Left’s influence over the Biden administration. "

So an apolitical Supreme Court, devoid of bias and political influence is a direct assault on our nation’s independent judiciary ... ?

 

You don't get it.  The Democrats will pick four very politically liberal candidates who will make the court much more political than it is.  McConnell is right.  Then the Republicans will add four conservative justices when they take over congress in the future making the court size increase to 17 justices.  When will this stop?  Who's going to respect a political court's decisions?  It will just be another arm of a political Congress and lose any authority it has.  It will create a constitutional crisis where everyone will start ignoring its decisions. We'll become a nation of men not of law. 

[Manoli]

You don't get it.

#9906

You missed the part where I said

... ideally appointed fm within the judiciary and outside the influence of the sitting President, ...

Such is the Supreme Court of the UK.

[Manoli]

No need for you to be overly concerned though. Predictably,

" U.S. House of Representative Nancy Pelosi on Thursday said she does not support proposed legislation to add seats to the U.S. Supreme Court and favors President Joe Biden's approach of having a bipartisan commission study potential court reforms."

[James Clark]

#9906

You missed the part where I said

We just need to add nonpartisan congressional district segmentation and things would immediately get 100% better politically.

[Alan Klein]

#9906

You missed the part where I said - ... ideally appointed fm within the judiciary and outside the influence of the sitting President, ...

Well, you didn't say that in the previous post.  It wasn't clear.

In any case, US law doesn't work that way.  Selection is from a political congress.  So McConnell is still right. It would make the court's decisions be political instead of judicial and constitutionally based. When a Democrat President tried that in the 1930s, even his own party objected to his trying to pack the court.  It's a very bad idea.

So fearful of this outcome, Chief Justice Roberts has many times stated that all of the existing nine justices make decisions constitutionally to head off this packing movement.  Recently, liberal justices on the court have come out and stated adding justices is a bad idea.  And that's from liberals on the court who would more likely get more opinions decided the way they think if the court is packed with more liberals.  Yet, they would rather lose on decisions than see that happen.

Of course, liberals in Congress are so intent on getting unconstitutional laws supported by the court, they're willing to sacrifice our constitution to get their way.  It's not going to turn out well if they do.

[faberryman]

You don't get it.  The Democrats will pick four very politically liberal candidates who will make the court much more political than it is.  McConnell is right.  Then the Republicans will add four conservative justices when they take over congress in the future making the court size increase to 17 justices.  When will this stop?

I'm not sure how big it would have to get before they stopped. It would have to be a number not divisible by 2. What do you think? 11? 13? 15? 17? 19?
 

Who's going to respect a political court's decisions?  It will just be another arm of a political Congress and lose any authority it has.  It will create a constitutional crisis where everyone will start ignoring its decisions. We'll become a nation of men not of law.

That seems a little hyperbolic. Sounds like a reductio ad absurdum argument to me. Besides, most of the decisions aren't political in nature and don't affect anyone other than the litigants anyway. Not every decision is the equivalent of Roe vs. Wade.

[digitaldog]

But that's just an opinion, not a fact. 

No need to keep reminding us after all these pages, that your opinions are rarely based on fact. 

[Alan Klein]

We just need to add nonpartisan congressional district segmentation and things would immediately get 100% better politically.

That was decided recently by the Supreme court.  They basically backed out of gerrymandering fights.  They left it to each state's own court system to decide on the state's own constitution.  Roberts didn't feel the Supremes had the time, knowledge, or wherewithal to decide on these issues that are in fact often political.  Where to draw the lines, geographically as well as politically, were beyond their purview. Especailly when there are 50 states to deal with.

Here's an example I thought of that could be looked at differently.

Let's say you have a state with two congressional seats.  There's a big city with 80% of the state's population and an agricultural area with the remaining 20%.  One could argue that they should divide the state in two so that half the area of the city and half the agricultural area goes to one seat.  And the other half of both areas to the other seat.  The problem with that is that both seats would probably be won by city-oriented people who know nothing about agriculture.  But the state wants to have at least one congressmen have good agricultural credentials to represent the state in congress. 

So they "gerrymander" the state so all of the agricultural area and a smaller part of the city is one seat.  And the other seat is all city.  That way the first seat will get a candidate to run who can show the farmers he knows their stuff.  Can you see the argument breaking out as to the unfairness claimed?  How can a Supreme Court determine constitutionally which method is right?  So what they said was that they weren't going to decide these things.  Let the state legislature and the state court determine what's best and legal. 

[Alan Klein]

I'm not sure how big it would have to get before they stopped. It would have to be a number not divisible by 2. What do you think? 11? 13? 15? 17? 19?
 
That seems a little hyperbolic. Sounds like a reductio ad absurdum argument to me. Besides, most of the decisions aren't political in nature and don't affect anyone other than the litigants anyway. Not every decision is the equivalent of Roe vs. Wade.

Well, Democrats want to pack the court because of substantial laws they want to enact that will affect the whole country.   That's the whole point.

[faberryman]

Well, Democrats want to pack the court because of substantial laws they want to enact that will affect the whole country.   That's the whole point.

Seems like that is just what the Republicans did by not letting selection of a replacement for Antonin Scalia proceed.

Of course, liberals in Congress are so intent on getting unconstitutional laws supported by the court, they're willing to sacrifice our constitution to get their way.  It's not going to turn out well if they do.

Can you give me an example of some unconstitutional laws you think the Democrats actually have in mind?