If Trump as President is what he meant by a good time to retire, then he’s lost it. To be honest, I think the nomination of Gorsuch is evidence that even the GOP is worried about Trump’s autocracy and interested in keeping the court sane, if right-leaning. If we go strictly by age, then RBG, Kennedy, and Breyer are the next three to retire or die, but it’s not unheard-of for justices to retire before their deathbed. Even if we ignore Whittaker, Fortas, and Goldberg’s resignations, the 10 retirees born since 1900 averaged 79 at retirement (74 if you count those 3 outliers), and only 2 justices born since 1900 stuck around to die in office (at 81 and 80). So while the three oldest justices are past or just reaching the average retirement age, Thomas is only 11 years away (and he’s already past the average length of service and seems like the type to favor the early side, rather than the late one), Alito is 12 years away, and Roberts & Sotomayor are ~15 years away. A decade is a long time to wait for balance to be restored, but it wouldn’t surprise me if a) all three of the oldest justices hold on to see if Trump will be re-elected or impeached, b) Thomas decides to retire while the GOP has the White House (he’s been there longer than anyone but Kennedy), and c) by the time those 4 seats have turned over, there’s a new block of centrist justices simply because the rancor over nominations has become so strong it’s hard to get an extreme one in there. If Trump wins in 2020, the GOP will get all 4 seats, though, and the court will be 7-2 on Kennedy’s right. If he loses, I suspect he’ll only get 1 of the 4 and the next President will get the other 3, which would leave a liberal majority. I’m highly skeptical of Thomas sticking around until 2028, though I don’t know what he’s said on the matter.
Very little indeed, odds are.
So, this weekend WaPo had a pretty long story about Neil Gorsuch, and it was a fascinating read.
And I have to say, while I don’t agree with his politics, he seems like one of the better conservative picks the democrats could hope for. A traditionalist and a Scalia fan, seems like it could be really scary, but his background, and the people he surrounds himself with are decidedly less conservative. And, it looks like he has been known to not 100% take the conservative stance on all issues.
While, again, I think that the GOP robbed the supreme court of its rightful justice in Merrick Garland, who was just about as centrist and well vetted as you can get. Gorsuch doesn’t appear to be the right wing boogeyman that we all feared Trump would throw on the court. This pick feels very traditionally Republican.
I really think that the Democrats should save the fight for a much worse candidate than him. Don’t waste the ammo here, because Trump was always going to get at least one Supreme Court pick, if it is this one, and only one, I think we can consider that we dodged a bullet.
Well I am sure if someone resigns or dies in Trumps last year he’ll patiently wait for the next person to fill the seat…
Exactly. That is when we can fight.
Not likely. the GOP will come up with some other excuse… and it will should be Trump’s right to fill that seat just like it was Obama’s to fill this one.
If you want to do something then you should be trying to make sure that the GOP no longer has a majority of the Senate at that point.
I mean, it’s a nice thought, but the overwhelming majority of Senators up for reelection in 2018 are Democrats, and what few Republicans are up for a vote are mostly in utterly safe states like Nebraska, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah. I see the potential for Democratic losses in Florida, Missouri, maybe even Ohio. . .
At best, we maintain a lock on things as they are. It would take something literally unimaginable to oust the Republican majority at this point. I say that, since Republican voters have proven immune to scandals and events that would have decimated a party in any other era. . .
The title of this Topic is SCOTUS, so I’m talking about not being cool with the GOP making up rules as they go. If you want to make a topic about the Senate, by all means do so.
His point is still relevant since the whole reason Obama didn’t get a nominee is because the Republicans controlled the Senate. The same could be done back to them. It’s literally the only way to stop a Trump (or Pence if Trump is gone) nomination.
I don’t think Trump’s nomination should be stopped during his presidency. It’s his right as a president to fill any slot that opens during his watch so long as that person is qualified. His current pick isn’t an issue for me so much as the fact the they broke the rules to get it.
If another slot opens, I don’t want the Democrats to stop it. That’s not how it’s supposed to work, unless the candidate is grossly unqualified of course.
And 2010 was a terrible map for Republicans, but they ended up holding all of their seats and picked up 6 seats from Dems. Map isn’t destiny.
Nothing in the Constitution says that the Senate should consent to a SCOTUS nominee unless they are grossly unqualified.
That’s how it used to work, by tradition. But now that tradition has changed. The Senate has asserted itself in the nomination process, so we should expect nominations in the future to reflect more of a negotiation between the executive and legislative branches. Which isn’t a terrible development, by the way.
Hey, I have a great idea:
How about the Democrats tepidly talk about the FUCKING LIZARD FUCKS ahem GOP and how they’re meanie meanie mean heads, and back away from the working class and unions and non fucking horrible people who have granted them what tiny amount of power they’ve managed to shit away.
This will work better than it has over the last 25 years, I promise!
By which I mean to say, remember when the FUCKING LIZARD FUCKS ahem GOP were like “gosh I guess we spent all our political capital, which is a real thing that exists, so we can’t obstruct every common sense and customary action the government could possibly take for the next six years. Bummer!”
Stop pretending it’s 1954. That’s the other side’s game.
I like that thought. Remember 2006 through 2010 when Democrats had the house and senate? And the Republicans still didn’t let them pass anything? But they were still afraid of getting rid of the filibuster because what if they’re in the minority again and need the filibuster?
And now, it seems like the Democrats are afraid that if they try to filibuster everything, the Republicans will take away the filibuster and they won’t be able to filibuster. It just seems like Republicans are always playing offense, whether they are in the majority or minority. And the Ds are always playing defense, even when they’re in the majority.
But Republicans did not filibuster Sotomayor or Kagan, although they could have. They were actually fairly warm to both, especially Kagan. Probably because they realized that even though the nominees were liberal, the GOP wouldn’t likely get a more favorable nominee. Sound familiar?
As a matter of fact, a filibuster has never prevented either party’s nominee from joining the Supreme Court. Let that sink in for a moment. Filibustering Gorsuch would literally be unprecedented.
In 1968, a filibuster prevented an already seated Justice (Fortas) from being promoted to Chief Justice. And several nominees, including Garland and Bork, were blocked by a simple majority. Which, of course, Senate Democrats lack right now.
The GOP used the filibuster all the time to block legislation. But so far, the only significant laws that made it through the current Republican Congress have been filibuster-proof (as was the ACA).
So right now, I think you’re asking too much of Senate Democrats.
This is a good point. The Democrats are afraid of using the filibuster AND losing the filibuster. So they never use it and they also never break it. Which means if the GOP ever has 41 Senate seats they can block all legislation and if they have 51 seats they can pass all legislation. It’s fucking inane.
The democrats did essentially break it, when they removed the ability to filibuster cabinet nominees. didn’t they?
I’m not sure who’s on the offense and who’s on the defense, because, to me, it’s more like a game of chicken. Do the Dems put up an all-out block on Gorsuch knowing that they risk McConnell invoking the nuclear option now or perhaps using it on a worse nominee in the future? Does McConnell invoke the nuclear option now, knowing that it could come back to haunt the Republicans in the future, just as it has the Democrats with the cabinet nominees? In other words, who will blink first?