5212

Reporter: What do you think of what Susan Collins said about the Supreme Court nominee?

Republicans: I haven’t read that. I’m going to lunch. Susan who?

5213

Nah, he needs barr where he is to cover his ass - it took too long for him to find a maleable toady to be AG so I don’t think he’ll want to try to find a new one.

5214

No if Trump is re-elected, than the Senate can go ahead with his confirmation during the lame duck session. It is possible, that that Trump get re-elected and the Democrats pick up seats in the Senate.

5215

That’s what I’m saying. If Susan Collins wants the decision to be made by a president who is elected on November 3rd, doesn’t it follow that, in the case of a Biden win, she must refuse to vote until after the inauguration? Otherwise, I see a contradiction in her comment.

5216

Yes that’s exactly my take also. It is one of the reasons that I’m less critical of her than the rest of the Republicans. It also means there is no reason for Mitch not push the nomination before the election, especially because he is very likely to lose McSally’s vote after Nov 3rd. (Which is different than I argued yesterday.)

5217

The statement is a bit unclear in wording but I’m 99% that it means that Collins thinks whoever wins November 3rd should get the choice.

5218

If so, that’s something.

5219

In my scorched earth response. I’ve come up with following things.
No Filibuster
15 seats on Scotus
Creating a new appellate court district, (say Central Alaska) and moving all the Judges confirmed since 2017 into this new district
New states Puerto Rico, and DC, plus split CA into 3 states

But I’ve also wondered if it would be legal to pass new reconstruction laws. For any states that previously succeeded from union, still have signs of the confederacy, statutes, flags memorial etc. and history of racial discrimination of voting. In these states, elections would overseen by the Federal government until the courts/special masters rule the elections are fair. I’m wondering if this would be obviously unconstitutional, or would it be able to past muster with the new 15 seat SCOTUS.

5220

I can see the point. There’s a Gordian Knot element to the solution. Just do it, worry after. I think that’s how Mitch will play it.

5221

Ok, enough with this splitting CA into three states comment. As a Bay Area resident, I like our central valley, though the drive through it is a bit uneventful, and the amazing beaches down south in Laguna Beach and Corona Del Mar.

5222

Well, it’s not like they’ll be putting up walls. Right?

5223

15 seats on SCOTUS would only be right. One for each of the 12 Circuits (1-11 and DC), one for the Federal Circuit (patent appeals), one for the Court of Tax Appeals, and one for the US Military Court of Appeals. No justice needs to be the Circuit Justice for more than one court of appeals.

5224

While we’re remaking the judiciary, seems we should add (or at least consolidate) some of the circuit courts as well. The 9th is massive, both in population and land area. Whereas the 1st is so tiny.

5225

You can still enjoy the beaches, go to the Garlic Festival in Gilroy, the Pumpkin Festival in Half Moon bay, and the artichoke festival in I forget where. But with 4 new Democrats senators, you are more likely to be able to enjoy these drives without raging forest fires, thanks to the new climate change legislation opposed by the Republicans and Senator Manchin.

5226

I hadn’t thought about that excellent point. A big part of the reason I think 15 is the way to go, is it makes zero sense to just add two. You take all the political hit, but you are counting on all the liberal judges to vote in lock-step I think that’s too risky. 2nd reason is that 15 makes each member less important than 9, so even if nothing changes, the turmoil the country feels each time a justice steps down would be reduced.

The Republican party as it existed today needs to be destroyed if Biden wins and the Senate changes control, lets finish the bastards off while we have a chance and beg forgiveness in environment where the Covid-19 is behind us the economy is recovering and progress is made on social issues.

In the long run we do need a 2nd party and we also need to depoliticize the court. I really like Mayor Pete suggestion of 15 person SCOTUS, with the new seats being different, either selected by the justice themselves or subject to a 8-12 year term limit where they rotate back to the appellate courts
This requires a constitutional amendment. I think it will be a lot easier to get it passed if the Court already has 15 seats.

5227

I think selection by the justices themselves is worse, in a lot of ways. Appointment by the President and confirmation by the Senate is important because there should be a political body with a role in the courts, because it gives them politics legitimacy.

The problem we have now is that the parties have incentive to appoint younger justices and people live longer, which means less turnover and a bigger effect when random turnover happens. So I can get behind one nonrenewable term as an amendment, since it would reduce randomness (unless someone dies in office).

5228

This is probably function of me being an old fart, but I do think that age (up to some point say 70) does give wisdom. So I’d be uncomfortable with justice in their 30s being the norm, one 30 something in a group of 15 is fine though. I think the goal to reduce randomness or as I call turmoil is exactly the right one.

5229

You could split DC into 5-6 states, and that would only require an act of Congress, not approval of the state.

The only requirement for a state is 60k population.

The laws you mentioned were part of the VRA that got overturned by Supreme Court years ago, but you could just repass the laws, and have the new justices overturn the old ruling blatantly.

If you do destroy the Republicans, the Dems would split and you’d get your two parties that way.

5230

Maybe we’ll have a state creation arms race. Eventually the flag will have 500 stars.

5231

Did anyone post this yet? It would be impossible to find more explicit hypocrisy.