(01-27-2022 09:10 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-27-2022 09:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-27-2022 09:01 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-27-2022 08:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We could argue back and forth with who started the partisan arms race, or who ratcheted it up, etc., and be here all day. I mean, to the bolded, let's not ignore that Republicans are not also as openly in favor of installing a court that will rubber-stamp their agenda as you are.

True, but you started this line of comment by talking about how bad Republicans are... so its only fair that you're reminded that Democrats are far from blameless here. While perhaps not the first, one of the first salvo's of this was how the Democrats treated Robert Bork... whom was among the most qualified persons ever to come before them... and blocked SOLELY based on some view of politics. When we add the Clarence Thomas fiasco in there... with hair sniffing and office sexual harassing Joe at the helm (which just made things even more ridiculous looking back)... the entire process is flawed, due to politicians.

Seriously, prior to Bork, SCOTUS nominations were only rarely contentious that I recall. I'm sure one of our Constitutional scholars will correct me and note some exceptions.

The issue to me is the one you advance about 'packing the court'. That would simply be a new tool for ratcheting things up.... and you seem perfectly okay with that... which would of course only lead to even more of it in return. When you ask 'who started it', they would correctly point to this moment in time. Do you really expect THAT to pass a 50/50 Senate? I just can't imagine that there isn't ONE Democrat who sees the risk/precedent being set... and that we could end up with a court that has dozens of members.... and a politician wanting to add even more. Hell, let's just bypass the court and install a new, appointed but elected Senate with 100 voting members.

Quote:The question becomes when does the ratcheting up stop. Given that it's a liberal Justice, there is a Dem president, and there is no majority for either party in the Senate, this would be an opportune moment for Republicans not to ratchet things up and obstruct. It's also an opportunity for Democrats to not push a candidate who is further to the left of Breyer.

True, but who thinks that will actually happen? More to the point of this forum, if you replace Breyer with Breyer (or Breyer light, which is what iirc, Bush did) then there really isn't much for us to talk about.

The interesting topic here to me is not the judge, but the options that it potentially creates for re-shuffling the administration/the next presidential election. I think dems are realizing that Biden can't run again and that Harris can't win... and dem voters will want someone more left and not beholden to the DNC... which the party won't want.

I only advocate for packing the Court if Reps pull another Garland or Coney Barrett. If they do not obstruct at all costs, then no need to pack the Court.

How can you solve obstructionism that way? The effort to pack the court will be fiercely resisted.

Yeah, it wouldn't solve obstructionism...

That should be blatantly obvious based on my statements. I'll try and see if in another way: if Republicans are willing to completely block a second nomination from a Democratic president, the Democrats should blow it all up.